The Forgotten Foundations: England's Roman Roots

         When most people think of England, or more specifically the history of England, images of Victorian Britain are conjured, and that's as far back as is commonly thought of. But the foundation that that incredible era are often forgotten, with the occasional, strange exception like Stonehenge. Some say that this is due, in part, to the lack of written records of the time, especially in regards to Britain before the Roman invasion. But what were the British Isles like before Julius Caesar set them in his sights? And what was the Roman impact there after their presence was established? Was there any lasting influence left on the land or people, and if so, can we see it today?

         Archaeology provides the best look into Britain's pre-Roman past, although being a border colony, Roman-occupied Britain did not enjoy the same attention to detail in records as some of the Mediterranean areas. What we do know is that Britain was home to many rather hospitable forests, ideal for nomadic hunter peoples like the ones discovered at Star Carrin, Yorkshire. (Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2012) But there are few dates that catch the eye of the average archaeologist or historian, save for important changes like the introduction of farming by immigrants, most likely from northwestern Europe. This vital change from roaming nomads to agrarians is also estimated to have coincided with a rise of ritualistic spiritualism, as discovered in both the Durington Walls dig, and the Windmill Hill dig, in Wiltshire, UK. (Weatherby, 2012) Some suspect that it was the Celtic          Druids who brought much of this change, and began the work on Stonehenge, bringing their culture with them. While some may think that saying "Celt culture" is an oxymoron, the Druidic peoples were surprisingly refined, in their own way. United by their common belief, usually known simply as Druidism, the Celts brought art, religion, tools, weapons, and many other improvements to Britannia, and proved to be a worthy adversary to the Romans, when the Legion would finally arrive. Little did the Romans know that the fierce Celt warriors were being led by the eerie, nature-worshipping Druidic priests, who would begin many confrontations with unsettling rituals, some of which even involved human sacrifice. (Weatherby, 2012) Also, a recent push in the modern United Kingdom's academic circles to revive pre-Roman history has uncovered a number of astounding facts. In a BBC article from 2003, Dr. Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, claimed that the Romans stymied Celtic culture, suppressing artistic expression, and even giving a "false importance" to London: without the Romans, "the country would have evolved into a better system of regional hubs." (BBC News, 2003) This push forced many in the historic and archaeological communities to reevaluate the importance of the Celts in early British history, and by doing so led to the discovery of a written Druid language. This language was only used by the ruling religious class, however, and when the Romans destroyed the last Druidic stronghold of East Anglia in 57 AD, they destroyed the last group capable of deciphering the written language. However, Gaelic and Breton are both linguistic descendents of this language, so a lasting, albeit small, legacy lives on. (Weatherby, 2012) (Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2012)

         The Romans, however, never actually conquered Britain. They arrived in 55 BC, with Julius Caesar intent on teaching Britons not to interfere with the glorious Roman Empire, since the Britons had been helping the Gauls – modern day France – revolt against it. With 12,000 soldiers under his command, Caesar landed near, but not at, Dover. He planned to land his ships in the city itself, but scouts had reported native British soldiers lining the cliffs to repel the invaders. But moving the landing site a few miles did not do much to help strategically, since the Britons moved as well, and took the initiative into their own hands. The defending army stormed into the water to attack the Romans as they exited their crafts, throwing the Romans into disarray and making quite the impression on Caesar himself, who wrote "These dangers frightened our soldiers who were not used to battles of this kind, with the results that they do not show the same speed and enthusiasm as they usually did in battles on dry land." (Trueman, 2011) Sheer numbers forced the Britons to withdraw, but not without inflicting heavy casualties. Realizing he would need a much larger force to be effective, Caesar returned the next year with 30,000 troops at his disposal, but despite facing fierce resistance yet again, began to have some minor successes. He also left his outposts in Gaul vulnerable, and the Gauls rose up again, forcing Caesar to withdraw his army to deal with the renewed rebellion. That was the last the British Isles would see of the Roman Legion for nearly 100 years. (Trueman, 2011)

         After Roman traders and merchants began to trade with the British tribes, they realized what a prosperous land it truly was, and in 43 AD, Emperor Claudius picked up where Caesar left off by ordering a renewed invasion of Britain. The Legion was able to conquer most of southeastern England, after a number of the tribes switched their allegiance. (Johnson, 2013) But they would never fully conquer the islands, with local heroes like Boadicea resisting the Romans wherever they could, and entire groups such as the Picts and Scots being so fierce, the Romans opted to merely wall them out. (Weatherby, 2012) But the Romans did leave somewhat of a legacy, mostly in the careful building of roads, a codified law system, and other Romanized effects, but when Magnus Maximus revolted against Emperor Gratian in 383 AD, the end of Roman rule in Britannia was near. It wasn't until the Fourth Century that the Legion finally began to fully withdraw from Britain, and they left behind some Romanized Britons, along with some British Romans, with Emperor Honorius officially telling the cities of Britannia to fend for them selves in 410 AD. (Williams, 2011)

         In short, the Romans made a smashing impact on British history, yes. But not as much as they would have liked to, and certainly not as much as in some of the other nations they defeated. The British, Celts, Picts, Scots and other natives of the British Isles proved to be more than worthy adversaries for the Roman Legion, never allowing themselves to be fully overcome, and never giving up resisting the takeover. Much of pre-Roman culture is lost to us, but a renewed search may lead to the discovery of even more clues to how and why such ferocious resistance was encountered, and may dispel the myths that the natives of Britain were mere savages. But only time will tell, and both the Roman and the Celt legacies will live on, each in their own way.

References

BBC News (2003, February 21). BBC NEWS | UK | England | Call for pre-Roman British history in schools. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2786737.stm

Johnson, B. (2013). Roman England, the Roman in Britain 43 - 410 AD. Retrieved from http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/The-Romans-in-England/

Trueman, C. (2011, February 16). The Romans in Britain. Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/romans_in_britain.htm

Universität Duisburg-Essen (2012, April 10). Pre-Roman and Roman Britain. Retrieved from http://www.uni-due.de/SHE/SHE_Roman_Britain.htm

Weatherby, E. (2012, September 10). Romanization of Britain | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/romanization-of-britain/

Williams, P. N. (2011, May 18). Narrative History of England - Part 2: The Roman Period. Retrieved from http://www.britannia.com/history/narromhist.html

In Pursuit of the Past: The Classic Historians' Methods

History is a fascinating subject. It is full of stories, has its heroes and villains – though it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the two – its comedies and tragedies, its adventures and romances. History cannot be undone, and even if I don't know about it, or if there's no memory or record of it, history still happened. It defines our identities, both individually and as a nation. However, not all history is completely accurate; history is written by the victor, and it always is slanted and biased one way or another. But histories of nations were merely stories, tales passed orally from one generation to the next, so how did they become the glorious records we have today? How did the early Christian church look at history, versus their Greco-Roman counterparts?

Many cultures and civilizations sought to keep a record of their presence, leaving some sort of monument for future peoples. Usually it was a physical monument, like the Egyptian pharaohs' pyramids. But the Greeks took a different approach: they began to experiment with a monument of literature. They wanted to perfect a way to preserve the memories and histories in a more direct fashion, as opposed to previous civilizations. Roughly around the 5^th century BC, an entirely new literary genre was born: histories. Herodotus, usually considered the Father of History, was one of the first to venture into this previously-unknown field, and despite being a pioneer in the world of historical recording, his methods were subject to harsh criticism, even while alive. His writings – while captivating and entertaining – were less than factual, something that Thucydides, a peer at the time of Herodotus, criticized him for rather severely. Thucydides preferred a more investigative method, trying to discover the truth of what actually occurred. He wanted his writings to be informative, to educate rather than to entertain. These two men set the tone for Greek historical writing, and while each subsequent writer had his own style of documentation, nearly every one mirrored either Herodotus or Thucydides in some way. ("Greek Historians", n.d.)

However, the Hellenistic age of the world ended when Greece and her empire fell to the rapidly rising Romans. Much of the Grecian way of life and pursuit of philosophical interests was absorbed and assimilated by the Romans, and such was the case with history. Romans worshiped the same gods – albeit under different names – kept many of the same cultural traits and Roman historians modeled their works after the two main Greek methods, with one notable exception: Titus Flavius Josephus, otherwise known as Joseph ben Matityahu. Josephus was a Jew by birth, into both the priestly line – via his father – and the royal line – via his mother. Not much is known about his early life, but he was highly educated in both Jewish texts and Greek works, although he was, and is, often criticized for his faulty Greek grammar. A Judeo-Roman historiographer and hagiographer, Josephus was given command of the Galilean forces during the Great Revolt in 66-73 AD, but defected and offered to record the history of the Great Revolt. Then-general, and later emperor, Vespasian took him up on the offer, after Josephus claimed Jewish prophecies that lead to the revolt also made mention of Vespasian becoming emperor, and thus Josephus began to record a first hand, eyewitness account of the fall of Jerusalem. These accounts were most certainly biased, since he was writing for arguable the most powerful man in the Roman Empire at the time; however, he mentions on several occasions that he also wrote an Aramaic version of the uprising, that might possibly had been less biased, or at least slanted to the Jewish side of the conflict. But copies of the Aramaic history have been lost in the vast expanse of time, and are yet to be discovered. Vespasian must have liked what he read, because he brought Josephus back to Rome with him, where Josephus wrote The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, the latter of which described the complete history of the Jewish people. Despite its exhaustive nature, including a great deal of information about Alexander the Great's conquests and the destruction of the Second Temple, Josephus was accused of relying too heavily on legend and hearsay -- much like the Grecian historians he was instructed on, so he is often discredited on some subjects. ("Josephus Flavius", 2003)

Lastly, early Christian historians were few and far between, at least as we today think of historians. Since most of the New Testament authors were not classically trained, not many were learned in the ways of historiography. However, the Gospel writer Luke was one of the few with extensive training, and could be considered the first true Christian historian. ("A Christian Approach to History", n.d.) Luke wrote his works for the records of "most honorable Theophilus", writing for posterity and to clarify any mistakes or false notions that the aforementioned hearsay might have implanted in Theophilus' mind. This was unique in and of itself, since Luke was writing not to entertain, but to educate using facts in a easily comprehensible, something previous historians hadn't done, whether Greek or Roman. ("Behind Luke's Gospel", n.d.) It was in essence a biography, beginning Jesus' earthly tale with the political climate under Caesar Augustus, and merely following His life. There is some slant and bias to it, as there is with any historian's works, but it's incredibly fact-based for being religious writing, and set the tone for church scholars for years to come.

Overall, since the art of historiography was so new at the time, there wasn’t a set standard for any to follow. Some historians gave us credible histories, while some made great tales to read, but not so much to use for study. But all of them – Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian – borrowed from each other, whether directly or indirectly. Modern historians should take all writings of the period with a proverbial grain of salt, but shouldn't discredit them entirely. In all legends, there is a small trace of truth, it's just up to us to find it.

References

A Christian Approach to History - Christian Homeschooling Resources. (n.d.). Christian Living Resources, Jesus Christ, Bible Study, Faith in God. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://www.crosswalk.com/family/homeschool/resources/a-christian-approach-to-history.html

Behind Luke's Gospel: The Roman Empire During the Time of Jesus. (n.d.). Patheos | Hosting the Conversation on Faith. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/articles/unpublished-papers/behind-lukes-gospel-the-roman-empire-during-the-time-of-jesus/

Greek Historians. (n.d.). College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Florida. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/kapparis/GreekHistorians.html

Josephus Flavius. (2003). Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html