How the Romans liberated Britain

[Gil]

A new series of archaeological discoveries in Britain serves to re-write the history of the Roman arrival in that island. It was previously thought that the Romans invaded and conquered Britain in 43AD. But, the new discoveries attest to their much earlier presence there and their role as liberators against local tribal kings.

Revealed: our friends the Romans did not invade Britain after all

The history of Britain will have to be rewritten. The AD43 Roman invasion never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated political spin by a weak Emperor Claudius.

A series of astonishing archaeological findings of Roman military equipment, to be revealed this week, will prove that the Romans had already arrived decades earlier - and that they had been welcomed with open arms by ancient Britons.

[Milesian]

Interesting stuff.
I was discussing last night how it was a Briton King, Vortigern, who first invited Saxons to Britain in order to use them as allies against raids being made by Picts from the north and Gaels from the west.
In a similar vein the Leinster king, Dermot McMurrough, invited the Normans to aid him against rivals in Ireland, which led to English claims on Ireland.

It seems the ancient Celts were quite eager to enlist foriegn aid in their wars with their fellow kinsmen. It seems it might have been their undoing on more than one occasion. Based on this, the idea that the Romans were welcomed by some tribes doesn't seem that far-fetched at all.

[Menydh]

Milesian, do you think that the Prydyn (Cruthin) and Picts were different peoples?

[Gil]

I know the question was made to Milesian but i'll post my opinion, discard it if you will.

The Prydyn (or Cruthin) were never referred directly by any ancient historians, but the name itself comes from Pretani which was a name for some or all of the peoples of the British Isles as early as the sixth century B.C and these people are already mentioned by Ptolemy.
Cruthin was also the name used by the Irish monks when writing about the people in northern Britain who were known to the Romans ac the Picti, or the 'painted folk'. It is quite incorrect to refer, as is often done, to the Irish Cruthin as Picts, for the relationship between the Irish Cruthin and the British peoples is not at all clear. (See O'Rahilly, 1946, app. 1; Byrne, 1965, 43).

I think that, in short, one can say that the definition was created by outsiders to define a great gamut of different peoples who within themselves had different cultures. I think it's a "cloak" term, similar to "Gauls" or "Celts" which encompass many different tribes and hence many different racial stocks and cultures.

[Carnyx]

It is a daring and interesting theory. They were presents in Britain 50 years before their supposed invasion, however it is very delicate to make the sorting between myth and reality after 2000 and some years. Nobody can clearly say that Romans were actually welcomed by the whole population. Certainly by the Kings who needed them and a part of the Celts, but archeological discoveries (swords, helmets and armour) can't tell about the feelings of these peoples at that time. Their feelings were certainly less clear and more ambivalent. Written testimonys (if there are some) would certainly help to understand.

With such discoveries I do not dare to imagine what History will remember of a certain evenement and a certain liberator.

It seems the ancient Celts were quite eager to enlist foriegn aid in their wars with their fellow kinsmen. It seems it might have been their undoing on more than one occasion. Based on this, the idea that the Romans were welcomed by some tribes doesn't seem that far-fetched at all.

The same thing happened in Gaul.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Manji

Cruthin was also the name used by the Irish monks when writing about the people in northern Britain who were known to the Romans ac the Picti, or the 'painted folk'. It is quite incorrect to refer, as is often done, to the Irish Cruthin as Picts, for the relationship between the Irish Cruthin and the British peoples is not at all clear. (See O'Rahilly, 1946, app. 1; Byrne, 1965, 43).

My guess is that the connection may have been made due to what the Irish texts say with regards to the Cruthin.
According to them, the Cruthin arrived from Iberia at some point after the Gaels had secured Ireland for themselves. They asked the Gaels that they might be alloted a portion of the land for themselves. The Gaels refused their request but gave them many of the Tuatha womenfolk and sent them to Alba (Scotland) with an armed contingent that they might carve out a kingdom there as long as they paid tribute to the Gaelic kings in Ireland.
This might be where the reasoning comes from that the Picts and Cruthin were one and the same. That said, Cruthin could still be found in Ireland.
I've also wondered if there might be some relation between the Picts - Cruthin - Fir Bolg.

The Fir Bolg were the people in possession of Ireland before the Tuatha De Danaan. the Tuatha subjegated them but didn't exterminate them. Their descriptions of a small, dark people sounds rather like how the Picts are sometimes described. In legend, the Fir Bolg would have been a Celtic people although not Goidels. The Picts also seemed to be Celtic or at least related to them, but certainly they were not Goidels as the first Irish missionaries to their kingdoms found out. They had to use interpreters to communicate.

I think that, in short, one can say that the definition was created by outsiders to define a great gamut of different peoples who within themselves had different cultures. I think it's a "cloak" term, similar to "Gauls" or "Celts" which encompass many different tribes and hence many different racial stocks and cultures.

It's a distinct possibility.
We really know so little about these people that we have only brief descriptions by outsiders, mythical texts and speculation to go on.

I also hope someday that the Pictish language is properly deciphered.
I cannot believe that our current translations are correct. I find it hard to believe any human language could be so utterly alien. I'm convinced they have made some fundamental error with it all.

[Gil]

Milesian: indeed, i've read some accounts that the Fir Bolg were associated with Greek/Iberian settlers in Ireland, though the Greek references are perhaps just the medieval scholars trying to put some "classicism" into a "barbaric" past
Anyway, i'm starting a thread about the invasions cycle of irish mythology, contribute if you can/will.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Manji

Milesian: indeed, i've read some accounts that the Fir Bolg were associated with Greek/Iberian settlers in Ireland, though the Greek references are perhaps just the medieval scholars trying to put some "classicism" into a "barbaric" past

We had already built solar observatories while "classical" peoples were building wooden horses

Most of the invading tribes of Ireland seem to have had a SE European origin accoridng to the tales - Nemedians, Fir Bolg, Tuatha De Danaan, Milesians.
Not impossible in light of known Celtic settlements all the way down to Asia Minor. Who can say with any certainty?

Anyway, i'm starting a thread about the invasions cycle of irish mythology, contribute if you can/will.

I look forward to it

[Sigel]

Thanks for the link Manji.

Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain during the Iron Age in 55BC... News of an impending rebellion in Gaul caused Caesar to retreat, but not before he had made his mark.

...and gained oaths of *allegiance*. Roman friendship brought benefits and tribes took advantage of this. The Germanic tribes Batavian and Ubii did the same. It really should not come as such a surprise.

Dr Francis Pryor said that the findings in Sussex prove that relationships between tribes in southern England and the Romans continued after Caesar's attempted invasion.

Oxford historian Dr Martin Henig, a Roman art specialist, said that the whole of southern England could have been a Roman protectorate for nearly 50 years prior to the AD43 invasion.

Makes sense.