Roman Britain

[Maeran]

Roman culture was taken on much more in the south east than it was in the north and west. In modern day Cornwall, northern England (and Scotland- mostly beyond Roman borders) and Wales the culture remained more closely aligned to native traditions.
In the south wealthy Britons, including vassal kings, built country villas and 'acted Roman' (see Tacitus' comment about culture and slavery) and in the increasingly sophisticated towns Roman style trade flourished.

It would be wrong to say that tribal identity disappeared. The Roman civitates were more strongly aligned to tribal groups in the south (usually more peaceful) than in the north. In the north a persistent military zone actively disrupted tribal areas (e.g. Hadrian's wall actually runs through Brigantine territory, not along its edge).

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Roman culture was taken on much more in the south east than it was in the north and west. In modern day Cornwall, northern England (and Scotland- mostly beyond Roman borders) and Wales the culture remained more closely aligned to native traditions.
In the south wealthy Britons, including vassal kings, built country villas and 'acted Roman' (see Tacitus' comment about culture and slavery) and in the increasingly sophisticated towns Roman style trade flourished.

It would be wrong to say that tribal identity disappeared. The Roman civitates were more strongly aligned to tribal groups in the south (usually more peaceful) than in the north. In the north a persistent military zone actively disrupted tribal areas (e.g. Hadrian's wall actually runs through Brigantine territory, not along its edge).

I see. I guess Romanization was more thorough in the areas where the Britons and Romans first came in contact, what with Caesar's invasions in 54 and 55 BC, and the following trade between Rome and its local client kings/allies in southeastern Britain before the actual conquest.

Given that the Southeast was the more Romanized part Britain, I suppose it would be safe to assume that the Roman coloniae were generally concentrated to that part of Britannia as well? I general I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to cities in Britain founded by the Romans, the only ones I know of are Eboracum/York and Londinium/London.

[Miaow]

Don't forget St Albans/Verulamium, which is AFAIK one of the more famous Roman cities in Great Britain. Bath (as Aquae Sulis) was a renowned spa during the Roman period already. Winchester was a major city in Roman Britain (which explains its status in the Anglo-Saxon period).

Although Wales may have been less Romanised, it was still profoundly marked by Roman influence, although this may be in part because it became a Briton refuge during the Anglo-Saxon conquest, so would have received immigration from the more heavily Romanised areas.

In some respects, the geography of England and Great Britain is quite unchanging; the South-East is aligned with the main axis of European population and trade, and has, since the Bronze Age at least, been more prosperous and densely populated than the rest of the island. Modern disparities between South-East England and the North-West would have been already in place in Roman times (and before them) while Wales and Cornwall were already relative backwaters. While the lesser Roman settlement in the North can be largely explained by a lack of military security, in the Western edges of Britain it was due to the areas being poor and having no prospects for trade, i.e. having nothing to interest settlers.

It's also why comparatively "primitive" Celtic and pre-Celtic finds can be dated to more recent times outside the South-East: new waves of invaders settled in the South-East, where they had fertile land and a good location for trading, while the rest of the island was largely settled by defeated and displaced people who had no other choice. Since communications were so slow in the Bronze and Iron ages, Britain's isolation ensured no truly indigenous culture thrived at the time, and most innovations were brought by invaders from the Continent. Later, better communications did enable the English to acquire a dominant position in international trade, and become a hotbed of innovation for some centuries; but that's well after the time period you're asking about. In Ancient times, being an island on the edge of Europe was too big a disadvantage to overcome. You also have to consider changing climates and human adaptations to climatical challenges, which shifted Europe's centre of gravity Northwards over the centuries—i.e. away from Greece and Rome, and closer to London (and Paris, and Berlin).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a difficult question, we know that Britannia as a province collapsed once the Romans left, it Balkanised very quickly and broke down into hostile petty Kingdoms, which is why it could not effectively resist the Germanic invasions.

Beyond that, we also know that there were many Roman cities, I live in one - Isca Dumoniorum (Exeter).

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

Its actually quite difficult to know. It has been taken as a simple axiom that Brittania was a Romanised province, and that the Roman presence improved life in Brittania. There are questions, however. Why was there such a large military presence throughout the Roman period, for example? Archaeology has tended toward finding Rome, and so Roman villas, temples, toens etc have been given, perhaps, more emphasis than they merit. The great majority of the inhabitants of the province still lived in pre-Roman type round houses and small farmsteads. Sure, 'Roman' goods entered these households sometimes, but can we really claim that having Roman type pottery made you Roman?

A couple of interesting books on this are 'An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54BC-AD409' by David Mattingly and 'UnRoman Britain:Exposing the Great Myth of Brittania' by Miles Russell and Stuart Laycock.

They tend to raise more questions, rather than give answers, but then I think the 'standard' history of Roman Britain, and its collapse, is built upon some false assumptions and sweeping classifications, in my humble opinion.

[Kralizec]

Roman culture in Britain largely dissapeared after the Saxon migration. You mentioned loanwords; most Latin words in the English language were introduced (reintroduced, in a way) by the Normans, who spoke a French dialect.

In other parts of Europe the ruling Germanic tribes made an effort to preserve some parts of Roman civilization. The Franks for instance had been in contact with Roman culture for centuries and had adopted christianity. The Saxons were still pagan at this point and probably didn't appreciate Roman civilization as much as the Franks or the Goths.

I suppose it's possible that Britain never was as thoroughly romanized (or in general: developed) as Gaul or Hispania, and that Roman culture was less durable because of it. Actually Great Britain has always been sparsely populated compared to other parts of Europe until modern times.

[Ibrahim]

layman's view here:

on the cultural level, if it was romanized, then probably not to the same extent (or nature) as elsewhere--at least judging from the languages and customs that survived the Roman occupation: unlike in Gaul or Spain, the Celtic languages there survived in numbers, spawning languages like Cornish, Manx, Welsh, and Breton (which is a descendent of British, not continental, dialects). Not that they lasted long as the dominant languages for the most part, once the Germanic people came in. If there was a local dialect of Latin, then it was probably extirpated early, seeing that the places it was likely spoken in were also the first places settled by the Germanic peoples (i.e. southern and eastern Britain).