Was there a Kingdom of Britain before Caesar?

**MisterFred** · 07-03-2010, 04:56

I usually just lurk, but I just wanted to thank the heavy lifters for their discussion. It is enlightening.

**oudysseos** · 07-03-2010, 15:12

Actually, the first 'High King of All Britain' was Athelstan (ca. 925). Coincidentally, the most recent In Our Time podcast is about him.

**SlickNicaG69** · 07-05-2010, 14:33

Britain was then as Gaul was then: A bunch of Kings without Kingdoms.

**Gaius Sempronius Gracchus** · 07-05-2010, 17:53

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

Britain was then as Gaul was then: A bunch of Kings without Kingdoms.

Britain was then what Gaul was then, what Rome was then, what all polities were and have always been; factions within factions within factions.... One of Rome's great strengths was their political nouse. They knew how to work one faction against another, how to destabilise and fragment what could be strong enemies by the divisions within them.

**oudysseos** · 07-05-2010, 18:36

I agree - but I also think that one of Rome's greatest and most unique strengths was its liberal attitude towards citizenship. It seems so obvious to us now, but if you can put yourself into the mindset of someone from the 3rd BCE, it is a revolutionary idea that someone can become a citizen of a state other than that of their birthplace: this almost never happened in the Golden Age of Greece, for example (even the son of Pericles by Aspasia was not an Athenian until the law was amended). For another, there's Carthage: before the Punic Wars, Carthage's ager publicus was much larger and richer than Rome's, not to mention the huge fleet of warships and merchant vessels. But no matter how hard the Libyo-Phoenicians, Numidians, or Iberians fought for Carthage, the franchise never expanded, and thus there were never as many people with a deep vested interest in the state as there were for Rome.

**Gaius Sempronius Gracchus** · 07-06-2010, 03:42

Absolutely, the 'state' - as defined by Rome - was an entirely new political structure, and the continual and evolutionary expansion of the benefits of Roman citizenship made all the difference in holding the whole together.

**SlickNicaG69** · 07-11-2010, 17:06

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Britain was then what Gaul was then, what Rome was then, what all polities were and have always been; factions within factions within factions.... One of Rome's great strengths was their political nouse. They knew how to work one faction against another, how to destabilise and fragment what could be strong enemies by the divisions within them.

The fact still remains that Rome's greatest strength was being able to demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction, while at the same time taking over their lands through such methods as colonization - a rather new innovation for that time period. They not only defeated their enemies, they conquered them.

No British tribe was ever able to conquer anything; it was Rome that first conquered there.

**Gaius Sempronius Gracchus** · 07-11-2010, 18:04

Originally Posted by SlickNicaG69

The fact still remains that Rome's greatest strength was being able to demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction, while at the same time taking over their lands through such methods as colonization - a rather new innovation for that time period. They not only defeated their enemies, they conquered them.

No British tribe was ever able to conquer anything; it was Rome that first conquered there.

Hmmmm... Don't you think that there is a reason that Rome would quite like a disjointed, factional Gaul, rather than having to face a united Gaul? Aren't there reasons that Rome invested so much effort in allied states in Asia Minor? Rome didn't just possess some all defeating, invincible army of demi-gods..., they worked hard at ensuring that their enemies were ...... diluted. They could only "demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction" because those enemies were weakened by political infighting, by divisions.

As to what was going on in Britain..... thank you for your surety, I am not so convinced. There were clearly major changes going on within Britain prior to Caesar's invasion (as attested by the archaeological evidence), and this involved new power structures, possibly introduced at the intervention of the Belgae tribes who were encroaching into Britain at this time. The Trinovantes were 'conquered' by the Catuvallauni, which is what lead to Mandubracius approaching Caesar for aid in re-establishing his rule....taken from them, physically, by the Cassivellaunus...

**SlickNicaG69** · 07-11-2010, 21:35

Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

Hmmmm... Don't you think that there is a reason that Rome would quite like a disjointed, factional Gaul, rather than having to face a united Gaul? Aren't there reasons that Rome invested so much effort in allied states in Asia Minor? Rome didn't just possess some all defeating, invincible army of demi-gods..., they worked hard at ensuring that their enemies were ...... diluted. They could only "demolish their enemy to the pulp of extinction" because those enemies were weakened by political infighting, by divisions.

As to what was going on in Britain..... thank you for your surety, I am not so convinced. There were clearly major changes going on within Britain prior to Caesar's invasion (as attested by the archaeological evidence), and this involved new power structures, possibly introduced at the intervention of the Belgae tribes who were encroaching into Britain at this time. The Trinovantes were 'conquered' by the Catuvallauni, which is what lead to Mandubracius approaching Caesar for aid in re-establishing his rule....taken from them, physically, by the Cassivellaunus...

I wouldn't equate the Gauls at Alesia under Vercingetorix anything close to a "diluted" representation of the Gauls, nor the Seleucids at Magnesia a "diluted" Seleucid Empire - they were much more "diluted" after their confrontation with Rome than before it. Why do you think they didn't attempt to colonize all of Seleucia?

They knew they could only conquer Asia Minor (at the time one would argue only Cicilia), so that is why they established Asia, and several independent "client" states. However, your theory that Rome's dominance was a product of pure political wit is disproven, as it is clear its decision to maintain Armenia existent served only to hinder it.

...Nor would I equate the famous "tribute" paid to the Catuvallauni as anything that says... "We Are Conquered."