(04-26-2016, 01:21 PM)Robert Vermaat Wrote:(04-25-2016, 10:34 AM)Gwawrddur Wrote: Are you suggesting that the previously recorded tribes had suddenly ceased to exist?
No. After the occupation the tribes became citizens.
You seem to be asserting that the existence of the civitates implies a level of assimilation which both the archeological and textual evidence does not support.
Quote: The civitates show the extent of the former tribes, but you can, after a certain amount of time, no longer speak of 'tribes'.
Their tribal hierarchy is gone (no more kings), thei religious hierarchy is gone (no more druids), their military hierarchy is gone (no more tribal warriors). What's left is the landowners, and this changed rapidly under Roman influence.
Incorrect - there is no evidence to suggest that tribal hierarchy vanished. Had tribal hierarchy vanished Eusibius would not have referred to British revolt.
The non existence of a priestly class indicates the dimunition of status in a conflict or a supremacy of a party in a contested status not the absence of the practice of a religion. British influence at this time (209+) stood in the ascendancy over Rome. Britons and Romans were not fully Christianised but there was a continuity of pagan practices during this time and post Christianity.
The existence of a wall indicates that tribal warriors had not disappeared. The conscription of soldiers into the army is no more an indication of Romanisation than the foederati ceased to be Saxon.
