Roman Invasions Britain example essay topic

To what extent had the process of 'state - formation' Progressed among the tribal communities Of Britain in the later first century BC and early first century AD? Rome had become an incredibly powerful city and it grew through invasion and diplomacy to control the rest of Italy, it then spread to control former Punic territories and then to dominate Aegean. This was the start of the Roman Empire which was to progress to dominate the majority of Western Europe. The Romans were unified much like a family and this gave them the edge against many of their opponents, as they had written concepts of order and justice and an organised army that could be used to enforce these around the Empire. Again like a family, Rome also had internal difficulties and these had a large effect on their policy and future invasions as success could enable them to win an internal power struggle.

The Romans wanted to civilised the Barbarians of Europe, by introducing their laws and morality to them and through urbanisation. The Romans brought developed ideas of administration and centralisation to Britain and tried to organise and unify the new province of the Empire, but it is interesting to look at how far Britain had become a 'state' before the first Roman invasion. A State is a western idea which can be defined as a geographical area that as a 'range of organised and permanent institutions and behavioural practices', such as language, religion, economy or administration. Looking at late Iron Age Britain it is hard to see many signs of 'state- formation' as the country were so diverse.

Britain was basically divided into lowlands and highlands. The Lowlands were mainly the South and the East of Britain. They were predominantly flat with low hills making the area good for arable agriculture and communication relatively easy, the highlands were much more mountainous and extended from Dartmoor and Exmoor to the mountains of Wales and to the Lake and Peak District. These areas were much more pastoral and the communities living there didn't have the same acceptance to change as people from the lowlands. With these differences in geography and climate it is obvious that culturally these areas would be different. In the Highlands there was less communication, so tribes were more isolated making trade difficult, whereas in the lowlands trade and communication were easier.

The Lowlands were also closer to the continent and so were influenced more by them. The natural resources of an area also greatly affected the way of life of the people that lived there, i.e. in the lowlands there was the resources for arable farming so a community would support itself through that, whereas in the high lands farming was more pastoral. This is reflected in the settlements around the country. In the South and South western areas settlements were generally hill - forts surrounded by small family- sized settlements. This may have been because of the political instability of the regions meaning communities had to be fortified against over tribes raiding and trying to extend their territories. Hill - forts were generally built around natural defences like rivers or marshes or possibly man-made defences like earthworks and dykes.

In some areas there were similar distances between the hill- forts and one interpretation of this is that they were all controlled by one tribal leader - chiefdom and this may show the beginnings of urbanisation. In the East and central England and areas of eastern Scotland there were settlements that were more akin to undefended villages an some suggest that this is just a filtering zone between the highly populated South and the sparsely populated North and West where there was substantially less communication and organisation between the tribes as there was beginning to be in the South. The sites ranged in size around the country. At Draught on, Northants. there was one hut of 34 ft diameter and two huts of 20 ft in diameter enclosed in one fifth of an acre, in Glastonbury there were 60 huts (even if not all were inhabited at the same time) in 2 acres and at Boscombe Down West, Wilts. the settlement is thought to be 76 acres with 20 acres of grain pits. This shows the diversity of settlements around the country and the political geography was just as varied. Britain was made up of tribes, but there was frequent fighting between them and intertribal raiding, There were no signs of councils of nobles or colleges of magistrates like the ones emerging in some parts of Gaul and tribes were described as ruling 'Through fear and terror more than through love and loyalty'.

Saying this, by the time of Caesar's invasion some southern regions were starting to organise themselves into communities with established leaders. For example Caesar described a 'King' called Cassivellaunus who was commanding lesser rulers around the area of Kent, although there was no centralised monarchy. Writers of the time suggested that the hierarchy of society in Britain was based on Irish law. The tua th was a unit of the population ruled by something like a king or chief called a ri. Underneath them were nobles, warriors (called equites by Caesar), Druids and skilled craftsmen. After them came the freemen, peasants and occasionally people had slaves who would have had the lowest position in society.

Towards the time of Caesar's invasion this system was starting to disappear in the South although it continued to dominant in the North and in Wales. In the South there was defiantly a shift closer to the Roman invasion to a more stable existence with hill - forts being replaced by settlements more suitable for 'farming, communication and trade'. This wasn't the same for the rest of the country as many of the Northern tribes continued to live in the traditional way. An exception to this was the Brig antes who were a tribe made up of other tribes like the Setantii, Gaurantiaii and the Carvetii. It is unclear why this merge happened, although it may have been for defensive or trade reasons. There is also some evidence that some rulers may have had influence and land on both sides of the Channel, such as Divitiacus.

This may explain the reasons for change in settlements in South England as they were closer to the continent and its influence. One problem with this period of history is that it is incredibly difficult to date what is going on, although there are some sources that help to date and generally understand what was going on around this time, such as Pottery finds, Coins, Pit stores and the writings of Roman writers. For example, Pottery finds can show the development of the industry, as the change from hand - made to some wheel made Pottery suggests the beginnings of a professional pottery industry. If this was true then it might suggest that in the areas it was found life was becoming more 'specialised and organised'. Coin distribution can also be used to help to show the political geography of an area and their links with the continent and other tribes.

The presence of Gallo - Belgic E coins in Kent, Thames Valley and the territory of the Trinovante suggests that there was trade with Gaul for troops and grain. Also some tribal leaders started to strike there own coins meaning their territories and trade areas can be vaguely mapped. The discovery of grain pits is also important in assessing what life was like around the country, as they show that communities or leaders were starting to plan and think about the future and trade. One of the biggest sources of information that is used is the work of Roman writers, such as Strabo and Caesar. Through these writers it's possible to see how many Romans viewed Britain and the way Britons lived their lives. For Example Diodarus Siculus described Celts as 'tall of body, with skin moist and white: their hair is blond not only by nature, but also because they practise to increase artificially the peculiar nature of their colouring'.

They also wrote about society and morality in Britain, although it was generally only about traditions that went against Roman morality and much of it was propaganda against their enemies. Cicero wrote ' They thought it right to sacrifice human beings to the immortal gods' although not all Roman writers did this as Strabo described them as 'high- spirited and quick to fight, but otherwise straightforward and not at all of evil character. ' One of the problems with using these sources is that they aren't totally reliable. For example Caesar was probably sending back his notes to Rome, so his narrative would have been showing how worth while the invasion was and what a marvellous leader he was being.

The South of Britain was starting to trade with Gaul and the rest of the Roman Empire and this does show that in some areas there was a level of organisation and civilisation. There was a trade route from Mediterranean via Toulouse to Brittany then Britain which shows these were established trade links for resources like tin from Cornwall. Most of the British economy was based on agriculture internally and externally and it has been described as a cattle - corn economy, although sheep and other animals were kept. The actual size of farm settlements is difficult to accurately gauge as many farms didn't have strict enclosed boundaries, especially in the North. With the beginnings of trade it meant that some areas around ports were starting to become more populated, e.g. Christchurch Harbour. Trade was also important because it was one of the ways that Romans became closer to Britain and learned more about it - therefore one of the main reasons given by the Romans for their invasion was their perceived knowledge of natural resources.

In 55 BC Caesar invaded Britain. He did this for several reasons. One was to weaken hostile tribes and strengthen relations with friends ones. This would make it easier to conquer Gaul as exiled Gaul's were running to Britain and using British mercenaries. If Britain was conquered it meant it couldn't be turned into a centre of resistance for the Gaul's. Another reason for the invasion was the perceived mineral wealth in Britain, some Historians suggest that Caesar was disappointed with the reality of this although he did get money form tribal leaders and opened up more of the country for trade with the rest of the Empire.

One of the main reasons for Caesar's attack was the prestige which he would gain from conquering Britain as Britain was seen by many as the end of the world and was across the Channel which acted as a mental barrier to many invaders. The invasion also acted to make the army more loyal to Caesar. The invasion of 54 BC was larger than the first. The Romans moved across the Channel from Gaul landing in Sandwich bay. Caesar had this time left more people in Gaul to send over fresh ships and materials. They advanced towards the Thames and then towards Cassivellaunus in Hertfordshire.

Once he had defeated Cassivellaunus there was no real opposition in South Britain so they attempted to strengthen the ties with British allies and went back to Gaul. After Caesar left not that much changed. The country was opened up for trade more and many Roman merchants settled in Britain. One way in which Rome continued to affect Britain was through the ruling class, as many of them stayed in contact with Rome and started to absorb their culture.

Rome kept up diplomatic relations with them through gifts and politically supporting them, Client Kings ruled for the Romans. These were generally leaders of tribes that had surrender to the Romans, an example would be Togidumnus. He gained land and support form the Romans and was loyal to them. Rivet suggests that the Roman invasions 'opened up a new situation tending to peace and order which greatly stimulated rural development, though to different degrees in different places'. This is true to some extent because after Caesar's invasions only really Southern Britain was affected by Romanisation. Before the Roman invasions Britain was starting to move towards urbanisation and organised trade and industry.

The tribes that made up the country were starting to merge together and communities were starting to be formed. This was all developing and the country was still not unified being described as 'divided, hostile, and incapable of union', this may have been why their defence against the Romans was so ineffective. After Claudius' invasion things really started to change in Britain and Urbanisation really started. The Cities of Colchester and London (Londinium) became important administration centres for the country and they were much romanized. Haver field stated 'First, Romanisation in general extinguished the distinctions between Roman and provincial... Secondly; it did not everywhere and at once destroy all traces of tribal or national sentiment or fashions'.

Britain had progressed quite far as a 'state', but the Roman invasion and conquest meant that Britain didn't have the chance to develop into a full blown state; instead it developed in a Roman way.