The time Britain slid into chaos- history recycled.

[Justin Swanton]

Continuing this thread (sort of thinking aloud), one can hypothesize that even though the social structures for an organised kingdom no longer existed, the desire for a return to law and order still persisted, at least to some extent. This would provide the support for a generation of 'shadow kings' - rulers who would gain transient support in their regions, enough to make an impression and get into the historical record. They would have a retinue of loyal followers but no real established power base - opportunistic warlords, some with good intentions. Into this model one could fit the Ambrosii (son and grandson of the last Roman governor) who would play on the last shreds of respect for legitimacy, and Vortigern and Arthur, who would rely on military prowess. But real kings only enter the picture about 200 years later, and their kingdoms are tribal (no tax system as such) and initially quite small.

[Carla]

Originally Posted by Margaret

Thanks, Justin. My library has a copy, which I'm going to check out. It always amazes me the way history keeps advancing, and our ideas and understanding of the past keep changing as new information or new ways of understanding the information we already have come to light. It always seems to get more fascinating rather than less!

Have you read Britain After Rome, by Robin Fleming? She starts with a description of the Roman empire and economy in Britain, then goes on to give a broad narrative history of the 4th to 11th centuries. The focus is on social and economic change at least as much as on high politics, and she covers a lot of archaeology, including the Staffordshire Hoard. It's very readable. My one major complaint is that there are no footnotes or references so it's hard to follow up her evidence (unless I'm already familiar with the sources), but that apparently was a condition set by the commissioning editor.

[Justin Swanton]

Originally Posted by Carla

Have you read Britain After Rome, by Robin Fleming? She starts with a description of the Roman empire and economy in Britain, then goes on to give a broad narrative history of the 4th to 11th centuries. The focus is on social and economic change at least as much as on high politics, and she covers a lot of archaeology, including the Staffordshire Hoard. It's very readable. My one major complaint is that there are no footnotes or references so it's hard to follow up her evidence (unless I'm already familiar with the sources), but that apparently was a condition set by the commissioning editor.

Does she talk about a total collapse of the Roman infrastructure (trade, manufacture, landowning, etc.)? The archaeological record is clear on that.

[Carla]

Originally Posted by Justin Swanton

Does she talk about a total collapse of the Roman infrastructure (trade, manufacture, landowning, etc.)? The archaeological record is clear on that.

Yes. Chapter I is titled 'The Rise and Fall of Late Antique Britain' and covers the second to early fifth centuries, ending with '...By 420 Britain's villas had been abandoned. Its towns were mostly empty, its organised industries dead, its connections with the larger Roman world severed....'.

The book concentrates on Britain, so it doesn't have much to say about comparative outcomes in Britain and elsewhere in the former western Empire, as you mentioned further up the thread.

[Justin Swanton]

There was a similar collapse in southern Spain, and in the western regions of north Africa. Elsewhere Roman society held together pretty well. The most remarkable example is northern Gaul, where the rich, senatorial landowning class remained in possession of their estates and also assumed control of the surviving formations of the western Imperial army, that remained intact well into the sixth century, as Procopius recounts.

All in all a fascinating period.