Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- From: "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:07:51 GMT
Paul J Gans wrote:
Larry Swain <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
William Black wrote:
"Paul J Gans" <gans@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fl9nc7$4ib$2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Right. All those bureaucrats were really good with the
sword. You could put 10 accountants up against a bunch
of invader lads and expect the accountants to easily
vanquish them.
Given equal numbers and generalship I'd be prepared to back a
Romano-British militia that drilled every weekend against a Saxon
horde any day.
I wouldn't. History bears me out.
Between the Romans leaving and Cromwell's New Model Army there are
no regular soldiers in Britain.
Depends on what you mean by "regular soldiers". If you mean a
standing army, yes there were.
Anyway, I thought the modern view was that there was no sudden
Saxon horde thundering over the well tended fields of the 'now
empty of any defense Britain.
I was under the impression that there's so few 'burnt layers' about
that it has got to be a nice peaceful migration with the Brits
slowly abandoning their Roman villas and towns as they become
economically untenable.
Well, archaeology has been challenging the old view. The old view
made too much out of references to battles and overread Bede to
develop a picture of violent take over by Anglo-Saxon hordes. The
new view, if I can call it that, wants to make it all nice and
peaceable and rather ignores the references to battles and such.
Somewhere in the middle is more likely the truth: some areas with
peaceful cohabitation and then
take over, other areas and periods with serious friction. It is
doubtful though that anyone, Romano-Celt or Germanic war-lord, tried
to take over the whole of the island, or even the whole of the Roman
province.
Bingo!
This brings us full circle. To take over and run a large land
area, even one as "small" as Briton, takes administrative
skills not normally possessed by small tribal groupings. It
isn't just a matter of pointing to somebody and saying "you
take over this area and that guy next to you will take over
that area."
One can see this in the acts of William I, who *did* take over
the administration of England. It involved hundreds of trained
personel, the appointment of senior lords, bishops, justices, etc.,
and all this on top of an existing English governmental system that
was already very well organized.
Doing such a thing from scratch was simply beyond the tribes, which
is why Briton became split up into managable parts.
And, to complete the circle, goes quite a way toward explaining
why post-Roman Briton was not the same as Roman Briton.
"Britain". That brain still playing up?
--
John Briggs
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- References:
- Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- From: Larry Swain
- Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- From: Paul J Gans
- Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- Prev by Date: Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- Next by Date: Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- Previous by thread: Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- Next by thread: Re: Were the Dark Ages a time of chaos?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|