Talk:Roman departure from Britain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't like the title of this. It seems to presume that there was a clear distinction between the Romans and the Britons, and the Romans went leaving the Britons behind. As such it panders to a rather crude 1066-and-all-that vision of the Roman Empire as being similar to European colonisation in eg Africa. What really happened was rather more like a colonisation of settlement, as with the English colonisation of North America or Australia - and over a much longer period as well. It is true that Michael Jones has argued strongly that Romanisation was in some sense a failure in Britain - but this is an academic debate and needs to be reflected in Wikipedia.

If we have Roman Britain and sub-Roman Britain, do we really need this as well?

Mark O'Sullivan 18:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just found this article and in answer to your question Mark, no, I think we don't. There does seem to be a decent;y-sized group of users interested in Roman Britain and the periods immediately before and afterwards. Maybe a Wikiproject, or at least a place to discuss our strategy in covering the subject would be useful? adamsan 23:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)