Was there a Kingdom of Britain before Caesar?

[SlickNicaG69]

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

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

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."

Of course the Gauls under Vercingetorix were diluted. They had been merrily smashing each other to pieces for the sixty or so years since the Arverni and Allobroges had been defeated. Vercingetorix had to overthrow the leaders of his own tribe to be acclaimed Vercingetorix; the first attcks ade by this "pan-Gallic" confederation was against other Gauls. The Aedui were still allies of the Romans until quite late in the insurrection, the Remi remained so throughout.

And, how did Caesar resolve to defeat the insurrection? He took tow (tribe) by town(tribe), working on breaking the cohesion of his enemy. The very fact that, even when all the tribes were combined, they relied upon guerilla tactics. Does that sound like a strong, powerful, cohesive enemy? It seems that some of the tribes were a little tardy in having their troops turn up - and these would eventually show up, in dribs and drabs, as 'relief' for Alesia. And Alesia was not some clear cut, steamrollering of the Gauls - as the entire campaign was not. Alesia was close to being a catastrophe for Caesar.

Why do you think the Romans bothered with the allied and client Kingdoms to the East? Just for a different way of organising the Empire? It was clearly to interfere with their greater enemies in the area - but equally they were playing the one off against the other; and they made a point of ensuring that they remained intact, independent entities.

Of course the Romans had a powerful military, but to understand their success as simply attributable to that seems wide of the mark. And, Im not sure where you've got the idea that I'm arguing that their dominance is "pure political wit". But the one without the other will gain you nought.

As for the dismissal of the power of the Catuvellauni..... errmmm, how much more "We are conquered" can you get than running to a Roman commander pleading for help in regaining your position, because you've been conquered. I'm not sure what, exactly, the son of the 'King' of the Trinovantes pleading for Caesar's help because Cassivellaunus has killed his father and taken his lands, might imply other than a 'conquering'.

[SlickNicaG69]

As for the dismissal of the power of the Catuvellauni..... errmmm, how much more "We are conquered" can you get than running to a Roman commander pleading for help in regaining your position, because you've been conquered. I'm not sure what, exactly, the son of the 'King' of the Trinovantes pleading for Caesar's help because Cassivellaunus has killed his father and taken his lands, might imply other than a 'conquering'.

I have understood a kingdom to be one where a central monarchy exercises its direct authority not just over a portion of its people's, but all of them. Hence, the trick is in the very names they used themselves... When you hear the title of King of the "Trinovantes," it is a misnomer: He should actually be called "Chief." Theoretically, once a chief is fortunate enough to another tribe, he would then call himself Chief of "Picts," for example. Eventually, if he is successful enough to the point where there are no rival chiefs, then his status is automatically elevated by the fact that there is no dispute to his authority and, hence, he becomes King.

This is why, along with their political structure, the Aedui should never be considered a kingdom, because they lacked the type of authority over their own people that is typical of a kingdom, as there was always a #2 around, despite their dominance.

As for the "diluted" statement, it may be that my accentuation might have crossed the line of hyperbole, but my intention was to illustrate that Rome's main instrument in conquering others was not its diplomacy but rather its military, as you seemed to suggest:

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.

Carthage, I know for a fact to be a more formidable and more politically-stable opponent (factional politicking aside), and they're people ceased to exist.

As for Rome's status, to further explain, it too could only really have been considered a kingdom up until it dominated all the native oscan/italian lands (some would argue it would exclude the Po in this time period), although it still would've not been considered one as its political structure was an oligarchy as opposed to a monarchy.