Quote:Robert Vermaat
Exactly. Many authors use figures of speech such as 'the troublesome British', leaving their readers to determine which group they are referring to! Either marauding provincials, rebellious British legions, Irish pirates, Scottinsh raiders or unsubdued Britons, all have been dyed with the 'colour of woad' by Roman poets and writers when referring to 'happenings in far-off Britain'.
By no means can we conclude from such sentences that the British provincials were trbal hotheads, still un-Romanized and troublesome.
Eusebius does not refer to 'Romanised' Britons or tribal 'hotheads'.
He does not refer to the insurrection of a legionnary division.
The Romans were quite aware of tribal differences and had mapped them. There is no record or archeological evidence that a tribal identity amongst the Britons had ceased to exist. The Romans were well aware not of the different tribes of Britons but had managed and were managing distinct and seperate polities.
Eusebius was not referring to 'far off Britain' Constantius and Constantine were in Britain and Eusebius was a biographer of Constantine.
The wall, coupled with the archeological evidence of which sites and scale of building had taken place (including duration of occupation) provide a good indication of this. The finds of Constantine coins at Traprain law give some indication of the status and trade but not of Romanisation.
