British Civilization
ENGLISH CIVILISATION
Programme
I/ Britons and Romans (C.100 BC – AD 409) II/ Saxons, Danes and Normans (409 – 1154) III/ Medieval Empire (1154 – 1450)
I/ Britons and Romans (C. 100 BC – AD 409)
( Very unstable situation
No unity, no charismatic leader for the whole country, no unification during the 1st century BC, before the come of the Romans. Instability politically speaking, wars and conflicts. The leaders were warriors, hence the fact that the tribes were settled on military principles. Military was unifying element. They lived in emergency situation. They weren’t strong enough to stop an invasion from the exterior.
Two important tribes were in conflict for many years: Iceni and Catuvellauni. Both of them were already latinazed, even before the come of the Romans. How is that possible? The Romans had a very large influence: others tribes were fascinated by it, by their lifestyle, their economics, their military principles, etc… It was an inescapable influence. The Romans exported their own vision of the world and even their mentality. However and paradoxically, the English tribes spoke the Celtic language.
( Britain, a suitable candidate for incorporation in the Roman Empire
The Roman did NOT colonize the countries they were interested in (yet). It was a tactical approach: economic reasons, mutual profits, … Britain had many advantages, and the Romans were intrigued: - coinage system: Britain had money and its economic was based on money system (not everywhere in Britain however) ; some tribes were able to stripe their own coins = complex and sophisticated for the Romans, who saw that as a way to possibly improve their empire - building of hill-forts : like a military self-efficient camp. You couldn’t capture one easily. It reflected a certain degree of genius and understanding in a architectural way. The Romans had hill-forts too, and were attracted by the Britain’s one. Despite the instability between the
Programme
I/ Britons and Romans (C.100 BC – AD 409) II/ Saxons, Danes and Normans (409 – 1154) III/ Medieval Empire (1154 – 1450)
I/ Britons and Romans (C. 100 BC – AD 409)
( Very unstable situation
No unity, no charismatic leader for the whole country, no unification during the 1st century BC, before the come of the Romans. Instability politically speaking, wars and conflicts. The leaders were warriors, hence the fact that the tribes were settled on military principles. Military was unifying element. They lived in emergency situation. They weren’t strong enough to stop an invasion from the exterior.
Two important tribes were in conflict for many years: Iceni and Catuvellauni. Both of them were already latinazed, even before the come of the Romans. How is that possible? The Romans had a very large influence: others tribes were fascinated by it, by their lifestyle, their economics, their military principles, etc… It was an inescapable influence. The Romans exported their own vision of the world and even their mentality. However and paradoxically, the English tribes spoke the Celtic language.
( Britain, a suitable candidate for incorporation in the Roman Empire
The Roman did NOT colonize the countries they were interested in (yet). It was a tactical approach: economic reasons, mutual profits, … Britain had many advantages, and the Romans were intrigued: - coinage system: Britain had money and its economic was based on money system (not everywhere in Britain however) ; some tribes were able to stripe their own coins = complex and sophisticated for the Romans, who saw that as a way to possibly improve their empire - building of hill-forts : like a military self-efficient camp. You couldn’t capture one easily. It reflected a certain degree of genius and understanding in a architectural way. The Romans had hill-forts too, and were attracted by the Britain’s one. Despite the instability between the