Comparing Britain in AD410 to today\'s woes

[ParthianBow]

Very interesting article on the BBC website.

(with thanks to @Neal_aplin on Twitter!)

[Statius]

A thought provoking article, thanks for posting that. Shame the accompanying picture is a bit out of context with Britannia in 410 AD :?

[Robert Vermaat]

Very badly written, full of mistakes and tentious political rewritings.
My comments on their website, which they did not post:

I thought the BBC stood for a researched opinion and not factoid journalism.

Especially the part where Gildas is misused is extremely bad form

... ... “Gildas talks about right-wing politicians advocating glibly attractive solutions that appealed to the populace”
Absolutely not. What you’re doing here is ‘translating’ an ancient text into modern words. Gildas never heard of politicians – he speaks of judges and rulers. Or is Her Majesty also a politician? I think not. The ‘right-wing’ or ‘glibly attractive solutions’ are nowhere to be found and a complete fabrication of this journalist.

Even worse is:
“Another element Gildas saw as being crucial was the major influx of newcomers from the continent - Angles, Saxons and Jutes who had already been employed in the country as security guards, mercenaries, field workers and street cleaners. “
This is a total fabrication. Gildas wrote about invading warriors, not about social migration. Field workers and street cleaners? Come on. Did you even bother to read the text? I call this political fabrication – unworthy for the BBC!

"Roman Britannia towards the year 400, the period of the fall of the Roman Empire".
“So, the Roman Empire didn't fall everywhere or all at one time. Indeed you could argue that the last part of the Roman Empire to fall anywhere was Gwynedd in the English conquest of 1282. “
The Roman Empire did not fall in 400, not even in 476. It fell in 1453 with the sack of Constantinople. Only the Western Roman Empire fell during a point in the 5th century. Mere details? I think not.

"By the early 5th Century in Britain, currency stopped being used altogether.”
This is not the case. The MINTING of coins stopped in Britain and in Gaul, meaning that coins had a hard time reaching the island. But coins were used well into the 5th century.

“Edward Gibbon, in his great book Decline and Fall, famously blamed the collapse not only on the barbarians, but on Christianity.”
Incorrect. Gibbon mentioned Christianity along with a number of other reasons, among them barbarian threat.

[Statius]

Exactly as I said Robert, 'thought provoking'.......it certainly prompted a well thought out and damming critique from yourself

[M. Caecilius]

Thought provoking, certainly! :mrgreen:

Love the idea that they had to employ Angles, Saxons and Jutes as street cleaners. I assume this prevented the local-born public slaves from getting a job, leading to servile unemployment.

And I guess the Tungrians, Dalmatians, and above all the Batavians of the "High" Empire were locals and always loyal to Rome, so the employment of auxiliaries was quite a new step (settlement of entire peoples, such as the Franks and others in Roman territory was more novel, but that's not really mentioned, as the article describes immigrant workers).

As for the complaints of Gildas: he certainly had a lot to complain about, but he was writing with some hindsight. Roman life had already collapsed by the time he was alive, and he could only describe what he saw was happening in his own time and interpret what had happened earlier - not much different from, say, a modern Turc writing about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (example chosen to roughly keep the time-frame and a collapsing empire in there, even if it's somewhat forced!). As for the modern ideas forced on Guildas, Roberts has said it quite well.

Corrupt rulers and leaders, social upheaval, dangerous outside influences, and loss of values? Check Cato the Elder, Tacitus, or Cassius Dio. They all saw this, and described it, in their own times and those immediately preceding them, and their society did not, in their lifetimes, collapse. Without belittling the current crisis, without denying that things are going bad at the moment, it's far from clear that our entire society is collapsing.

I'm waiting for the article claiming that society can recover because even after the problems of the Gracchan age, with a similar widening gap between rich and poor, slave revolts, political violence, and so forth, society did recover to prosper for 500 years (in the West). Not that I'd really like to argue the point, as it'd only get shot down deservedly if one scratches to look underneath the surface.

There is sense in knowing the past to avoid similar problems in one's own time, but there's much more to it than can be said in a small article (or, for that matter, forum post). But overall, it should also be noted that it's quite common for people to see their own society having more problems than previous days. To quote a German comedian, Karl Valentin, who brought this to its (il)logical conclusion: "früher war die Zukunft auch besser", "in the old days, the future was better too!".

[M. Caecilius]

Thought provoking, certainly! :mrgreen:

Love the idea that they had to employ Angles, Saxons and Jutes as street cleaners. I assume this prevented the local-born public slaves from getting a job, leading to servile unemployment.

And I guess the Tungrians, Dalmatians, and above all the Batavians of the "High" Empire were locals and always loyal to Rome, so the employment of auxiliaries was quite a new step (settlement of entire peoples, such as the Franks and others in Roman territory was more novel, but that's not really mentioned, as the article describes immigrant workers).

As for the complaints of Gildas: he certainly had a lot to complain about, but he was writing with some hindsight. Roman life had already collapsed by the time he was alive, and he could only describe what he saw was happening in his own time and interpret what had happened earlier - not much different from, say, a modern Turc writing about the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (example chosen to roughly keep the time-frame and a collapsing empire in there, even if it's somewhat forced!). As for the modern ideas forced on Guildas, Roberts has said it quite well.

Corrupt rulers and leaders, social upheaval, dangerous outside influences, and loss of values? Check Cato the Elder, Tacitus, or Cassius Dio. They all saw this, and described it, in their own times and those immediately preceding them, and their society did not, in their lifetimes, collapse. Without belittling the current crisis, without denying that things are going bad at the moment, it's far from clear that our entire society is collapsing.

I'm waiting for the article claiming that society can recover because even after the problems of the Gracchan age, with a similar widening gap between rich and poor, slave revolts, political violence, and so forth, society did recover and continued to thrive for 500 years (in the West). Not that I'd really like to argue the point, as it'd only get shot down deservedly if one scratches to look underneath the surface.

There is sense in knowing the past to avoid similar problems in one's own time, but there's much more to it than can be said in a small article (or, for that matter, forum post). But overall, it should also be noted that it's quite common for people to see their own society having more problems than previous days. To quote a German comedian, Karl Valentin, who brought this to its (a)logical conclusion: "früher war die Zukunft auch besser", "in the old days, the future was better too!".

[Ghostmojo]

I've just read that as well - here's the link (complete with comments at the bottom):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18159752

I also watched Michael Wood's new history programme about the Story of Britain which for anybody who didn't see it (and can access the BBC iPlayer) is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00r12j3

I found it a bit thin to be honest. I used to like Michael Wood years ago, when he was doing all those "In The Footsteps Of.." programmes (1980s/1990s) but he seems to have mellowed to the point of blandness nowadays. There wasn't much that was contentious and not a lot of debate nor depth - just a very 'beginner's guide to prevailing wisdoms' sort of level, etc.

Still, probably worth a looksie. It might improve this coming Friday with part 2.

[Statius]

To be honest I think Woods The Great British Story: A peoples history merely reflects the mandate he was given by the producers rather than any mellowing on his part. Unfortunately the general concensus of such documentaries seems to be to 'dumb' down.
Agreed it isn't a patch on his 'In the footsteps of Alexander' and 'In search of the Dark Ages' but indicative of the times in which we live. A similar approach has been adopted with the ubiquitous Time Team on Channel 4 and led to Professor Mick Aston bailing out.

[Vindex]

To be honest I think Woods The Great British Story: A peoples history merely reflects the mandate he was given by the producers rather than any mellowing on his part. Unfortunately the general concensus of such documentaries seems to be to 'dumb' down.
Agreed it isn't a patch on his 'In the footsteps of Alexander' and 'In search of the Dark Ages' but indicative of the times in which we live. A similar approach has been adopted with the ubiquitous Time Team on Channel 4 and led to Professor Mick Aston bailing out.

I agree with you with regard to Michael Wood (can't comment on Mick Aston, but read the press as well at the time). At the Chalke Valley History Festival last year, Muichael Wood talked about the site of the battle of Gaugamela. He'd been invited into Northern Iraq by the US General at the time and he finally got to cover that part of Alexander's extraordinary journey. So enthusiastic, so detailed in his research and sources; a mesmerising speaker who conducts immaculate research. How I wish the BBC would have extended their TV series coverage to give him a "special" to do this. (And a shame that the US bombers removed any last trace of the momument to Gaugemela on the mountain range and sited a strategic comms asset there instead :roll: )

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree with you with regard to Michael Wood (can't comment on Mick Aston, but read the press as well at the time). At the Chalke Valley History Festival last year, Muichael Wood talked about the site of the battle of Gaugamela. He'd been invited into Northern Iraq by the US General at the time and he finally got to cover that part of Alexander's extraordinary journey. So enthusiastic, so detailed in his research and sources; a mesmerising speaker who conducts immaculate research. How I wish the BBC would have extended their TV series coverage to give him a "special" to do this.

Did he not 'sneak away' while doing the Alexander series, do shoot a highly risk and illegal report about the plight of the Marsh Arabs under Saddam? That took some balls.

(And a shame that the US bombers removed any last trace of the momument to Gaugemela on the mountain range and sited a strategic comms asset there instead :roll: )

O tempora, o mores. :|