But the Romans conquered individual tribes one by one, not the English as a united force , at that time the power base was spread far and wide with numerous kings or chieftains only out for personal wealth and glory. So the Romans divided and conquered. This was known as devolution of power. Now if we had successfully come together say as a United Kingdom of England Wales and Scotland and faced them together we would have kicked their arses and any later invasion. And yet bizarrely some still seek devolution in the modern age. Surely we are stronger and therefore better together ?
That's the point. Neither England nor Scotland, nor indeed the English nor the Scots as peoples, existed at the time of the Romans. Scotland was a chaotic assortment of Norse and Pict and the Angles had yet to arrive in England. These islands were a jumble of tribes and competing minor dynasties. There was nothing, either side of Hadriens wall cohesive enough to qualify as a nation. the Romans did indeed divide and rule. Today though, I would say devolution is a strength. There is no reason why smaller sovereign nations cannot have an equal or greater influence in the world when they co-operate on matters of common interest than an single nation insecurely bound together by party political expediency in which a large proportion of the electorate feel disenfranchised. And yes, that applies to the English as much as the Scots.
Hang on. The Romans made two unsuccessful attempts at taking over the British Isles before they 'fought' their way in some 100 years later. That would suggest a coming together of people in the cause of defeating a foe, rather than little huddles of people trying to protect themselves. If indeed there was any fighting - and there's not much proof of that. Taking on an organised Roman invasion would have taken a great deal of organisation this end, so I'm confident our official view of Britain in those times is completely wrong. We had a far more advanced social structure than is believed, and it was trade opportunities rather than bloodshed that signalled the arrival of the Romans
Fig don't disagree with anything you say just wondered how I could get this thread on to talking about the Scottish debate.
i knew where you where going with it. like i said if we where ever truly together. if the lab leader up here thinks it was treated like a branch office, the conservatives targeting there own support, dont sounds like the north will always be low on the list.
Without going to far off topic, there are massive important moments in our history and I believe we will look back on the vote as being one. Back on topic I'm always amazed how we ' lost' the technology the Romans brought, or was it too much of a reminder of the conquest/invasion
speak for your self, we still bath up here, central heating is the norm, and as for serfdom well,:smile:
Books 4 and 5 of Caesar's Gallic Wars describe what happened during the two unsuccessful attempts. They are nicely summarised in this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico
