Talk:Romano-British culture

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anuragngoel. Peer reviewers: Jennashill.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Could we rename this Romano-British culture? As it stands, we have two adjectives without a noun. -- Zoe

I thought about this when I first saw this entry. I don't know if I would agree to this wholesale change because (1) we need an entry that defines just what Romano-British means (e.g., a catchall for people who can be considered British during the period Roman influence was significant -- both inhabitants of the island of Britain, as well as of Brittany; and (2) we need an entry that narrates the history of the province(s) of Britain.

If I achieve my plan of writing the necessary entries, maybe we can reduce this entry to a single paragraph with a thoughtful set of links. -- llywrch

The term Romano-British is a genuinely accepted term so I'm not so how it could be renamed. I am uncomfortable with the line that many Romano-British left Britain. A large scale migration (to Brittany) has never been proven and is highly discounted, and I don't know where the idea came that some migrated 'possibly' to Ireland and northern Spain. This seems entirely fabricated because it fits into someone's idea of the extent of Celtic cultural influence. -- Enzedbrit

Is there a Romano-British people group, or is it simply considered a culture? --70.114.235.205 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The culture still exists, yes. It's alive and well in Wales & Brittany - Cornwall is attempting to revive its Romano-British culture via the Kernewek language. If a 'people' can be defined by their language, the Welsh & Bretons by virtue of their languages can be considered such Romano-British people, certainly. Homoproteus (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They are simply Welsh, Cornish, Breton and British. Nothing Roman about it. The languages and cultures are clearly older than any Roman influence. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

where?

wondering where to find the stuff on real life 'arthurian' britain, e.g. maps of kingdoms in that period. i dont think its sub roman or whatever, where is it? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdone (talk • contribs) at 15:56, 12 June 2007

I believe you can find that stuff from the sources that I have listed below because they highlight the stuff you are looking for. For example, the first link has a map where they show different sections of who rule the side of Britain. The second link includes the background of "Arthurian" and has a lot of detailed explanation Anuragngoel (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC) 1. Mark, J. J. (2017, May 12). King Arthur. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/King_Arthur/ 2. https://www.biography.com/news/king-arthur-fact-or-fiction-legend-of-the-sword

Moved from "Romano-British" to "Romano-British culture"

The move was suggested above. I went ahead and made it, and fixed double redirects, for some consistency with Gallo-Roman culture and Romano-German culture. (I'm still not sure what this article has that Brittania and Roman Britain don't. But there are a lot of links here.) -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-English attitudes

How many times have the English been denied their place in Roman Britain, by the Welsh who think that it belongs to them alone? If you have something to say, go ahead and say it. Don't mince words. I know you called my edits in "good faith", but the systemic bias is usually totally against the English. I will change the title of the section, because it may be politically charged.

If you have amendments with supporting citations please suggest them here and I am sure everyone will be open. Edit warring and assertions such as above are not appropriate. --Snowded TALK 18:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your userpage and it explains your position here, by taking a fellow Welshman's side and denying what you would not deny if it was wholly Welsh propaganda, for there would not be any calls for "supporting citations". You are apt to take this very personal, considering your political positions. You are quite possibly, an extreme anglophobe. Oh right, that's acceptable. How could I forget that devolution is the new manifest destiny? Hold the English in contempt. Fine by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me... I may live in Wales now, but I was born in England and lived there most of my life. No-one is ganging up on you. Your thoughts are interesting, but that is of zero relevance to what makes an acceptable encyclopedia article here. If you provide good valid references for your edits, and do not edit war or abuse other editors, and if there is a consensus that your edits are worthwhile, no doubt some of what you have written can be incorporated in the article. But first I suggest you read this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I put up a new template and await helpful editing. I do not intend to retract the material, or relegate it to talkpage. It's not OR, however it is an original POV (hmm, NPOV is original?) on the same research found throughout widely accepted and conventional sources, whether here on Wikipedia or elsewhere. There is too much Labour spawn here on Wikipedia about devolutionism and antipathy between the various Britons, whilst the Spanish regions are likewise a cesspool of division and strife between competing peoples. My aim here was to present a holistic and inclusivist opinion on the material, which is otherwise used on Wikipedia to make a case for the disunion of Britons. It really is a matter of POV. I consider it more or less NPOV, to find room for all concerned parties, rather than shun one and put another on a pedestal. The only thing I was trying to do, for real, was explore the missing link between Roman Britain and England and Wales. At present, the Welsh try to hog all of this legacy for themselves, but this is an obvious error, due to the fact that the English long observed the same legends and origin myth that the Welsh value. It is then worthwhile, to see how these two peoples fit in the same situation, not choosing one party over the other. I am very much aware of the anglophobic negationism on any and all articles in which the "Celts" are discussed, much as the "Celts" are "upset to be confused with the English". I do not intend to take a side. My philosophy is to include the "Celts" in matters which the English find themselves and include the English in reciprocal situations where the "Celts" are the focus. The whole aggression towards a divorce of the "Anglo-Celtic" peoples is rather suspect, IMHO. I originally had a much larger version of this material on the article Romano-Germanic culture, but retracted it due to dismay that the English are being made to be an anomaly that don't fit in either worldview of extremists. I realised that the only place in terms of Roman culture the English have a relation to, is Romano-British, for that is their heritage. Englishness is not Romano-Germanic, for that is a Continental issue for people of the Rhineland. Whether or not the English are related to the same phenomena of the rest of the Western Romans, has no bearing on the specific Roman nature of the English. The English could only have any connection to the rest of what changed Western Rome, through their roots in Britain. Even the Saxon Shore in what's present day Normandy was located on the Oceanus Britannicus. Thus, it is obvious that the English nation owes its origins to the same legacy as the Welsh, as Dark Ages formations out of the ruins of Roman Britain. Please, I hope there is no more skewed nativism here that seeks to make the English foreign, whether by the "Celts" or by those self-deluded Germanophiles of Nazi tradition. We were all Britons during the Blitz. Please respect that.

I removed my text which seems more editorial and possibly irrelevant:

There is in essence, no way in which the English character can be described or function as some "black and white" matter of one ("Anglo-Saxon") to the exclusion of the other ("Romano-British") and still be recognisable as English, for Englishness is still a symbiosis or synthesis which the Holy Roman Empire even did not become. England was formed within Britain and not elsewhere, even if various disparate components of a Continental nature are held to be contributive to its foundations, but this makes the English no more or less British than their blood brothers in the rest of the British Isles, considering their origin stories. The very fact that the English nation was born in the most Roman part of Britain, attests to continuity between the English and Romans, rather than Romans and Welsh, although collectively, England and Wales are what remains today of Roman Britain. Most of the differences stem from linguistics and mythologies, as well as the protagonist or antagonist in differing perspectives on the same stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The belief that we (English) are celts is nonsense PC unionist propaganda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.40.184 (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Objections

If anybody has an objection to my text, please specify what you think needs correction. Please do not simply dispose of my good faith edits.

IP, you've (to say the least) mangled Wikipedia's 3RR rule. STOP with the disruptive behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer the statement. If you have an objection to the specific material, go into detail with what is errant in my statement. Don't get all high horse on me.

I'm not concerned about the articles content. I'm concerned with your Wiki conduct. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very much only concerned with improving Wikipedia, not being personally attacked. Attack the subject, not the person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit wars

In the interests of peace (hopefully). The problem with the recent edits was that we had a lot of text which was controversial in nature (it doesn't conform with anything I read) and there were not citations. It thus read as original research. Couple that with accusations of anglophobia and immediate reversion without any explanation on the talk page and you have a recipe for disaster. All that is needed is for the proposed text to be placed here for discussion (or on a sandpit on the users page). Citation support will also be needed. Now I think that will be difficult as most history books I have read indicate that the romano-celts were driven into the lake district, Wales and Cornwall (as well as Brittany) by successive invasions up to and including the Normans. The "English" are the inheritors of those plus some inter marrying (although that issue is controversial). --Snowded TALK 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a wiki writer so I'm not going to be editing the article itself, but I'm afraid that you may be in the wrong here. Your history is very out of date! The narrative you describe held sway until relatively recently (I think it was still being taught when I was at school), so it's not altogether surprising. See the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#Fifth_century for more explanation and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.170.198 (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a "to do" list on the talk page of Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain which the anon has just referenced; it notes that the section on the 'number of migrants' is biased and needs balance. While the sources cited are reliable, the section taken as a whole needs to be changed. I should know—I wrote both the section and the accusation of bias. And please also note my comment regarding the use of genetics in this kind of article.

The anon is correct in that the notion that the Romano-Britons migrated elsewhere in Britain when the Anglo-Saxons arrived is 'outdated' and certainly contrary to mainstream history and archaeology. The argument over genetics centers around the relative percentage of B/A-S genes that are in the gene pool. The arguments don't belong in this article, I think; but then neither do arguments that effectively imply/assert historical "ethnic oneness" (such as so-called 'theories of reduction'). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article states that the Romans took British wives, but then says that the population remained mainly Celtic. If the Romans took local wives and had children by them, the population would therefore have become mixed Romano-Celtic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There's extremely scant evidence that immigrants took local wives. Infact there's more evidence of Britons that joined Legions and Garrisons and ventured to other lands and settled there than there are of settlers marrying Britons. It's more likely the vast majority of migrants had families they brought with them. There's also the fact that the urban centres where the majority of Romans were found were sacked and destroyed many times over the course of the occupation and later fell into complete ruin when the Western Empire collapsed and the economy with it. Leaving the majority, if not practically all survivors the rural Britons. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Roman troops

Only troops are departed,so I renamed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legaledges132 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Also ruling class leave--Differencess (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling error on map?

The map "British settlements in the 6th century" requires correction "Britania" > "Britannia". Is there a request procedure? This map appears on a dozen or so pages. Pseudoneiros (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Diversity/Occupation

There's many parts of the page talking about the diversity of the cities and urban centres and calling many people migrants. I think this paints a strangely pro-Roman attitude to what was in every way a military occupation, that was defended against as such by the natives. The Romans were not peaceful settlers, they attempted to kill and destroy native culture. They failed and throughout the occupation they were removed, returned and so on. Many times there were revolts and Boudicca as an example is said to have killed tens of thousands (60,000?) in the urban centres where the vast majority of the occupiers were, along with whatever minority of collaborators lived with them. Then the urban centres collapsed when the WRE did along with it's economy, leaving I would argue very little if any of the occupiers and their collaborators with them.

Military Occupation that happens to have non-combatants either brought along or trying to exploit opportunities in the land are not what I'd called a settlement or migration. Especially when it seems none of the settlers survived or remained. 86.7.140.64 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Central and Southern Scotland deserve a mention surely...

Just suggesting that given the native romanised celtic britons cultural area extended up to the Antonine Wall, possibly a bit further north to include the volcan with a buffer of friendly, for the most part, local lowland celtic tribes between the wall and the bigger mountainous areas of the highlands where the really agressive tribes came, down the glens, from.

Indeed the huge, and bespoke for the area, "glen-blocking" "Gask Ridge" fortifications, all connected and with a legionary fortress (the largest and most significant type of roman 'castra') at the eastern end where the lowland area begins around perthshire, speaks to a huge commitment to pushing the Roman border northwards and a not insignificant presence in Scotland in the first place.

Now tl;dr point is;

I'm, honestly, a bit astonished that there isn't even a single mention of the Roman held (and significantly influenced to enough of an extent to be notable) areas in Scotland and the sources especially evident in the maps seem to specifically focus on England specifically without any acknowledgement of this at all in the article. It may even speak to an unconcious bias in the academy / literature on this issue. Who knows. Ultimately though I believe whatever the case may be, there is some mertit to my core point.

That the cultural area of the romanised celtic britons extended up to, *at least* (when certain things are considered) the antonine wall with the early romano celtic iterations of both glasgow and edinburgh (among other settlements of varying sizes) as anchor settlements at either side of that wall and the single main artery roman road that came up through lothian towards and along the wall.

P.S.

not to mention other things like the roman temple ( that became known as Arthur's O'on ) that survived to the 18th century only to be destroyed so the land owner could reuse the stone work for a dam or whatever. which had antiquarians of the time understandably apopleptic...

and that map about coin finds? i mean come on...

theres so much that a lot of folks understandably perhaps, are unaware of, that is fascinating about this part of the subject.

ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)