+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: AD 43 and all that-Roman law (/showthread.php?tid=2102)
Pages:
1
2
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - Troll - 28th December 2005
What did the 43 watershed actually mean for indigenous "Britons? Was Roman law implemented across the board? What was it really like for the indigenous peeps living and working with the Romans? Examples of elements of Roman law please and what likely affect/effect it/they had?
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - EarlySlav - 28th December 2005
Without doing any homework or digging out my old notes the first major affect after 43 A.D is tax collection which of course was one of the reasons for the first major revolt against the Romans.
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - deepdigger - 28th December 2005
But, New research is pointing to the Romans being invited in and not strictly invading! I wonder if the "tribe" that invited them in were subject to the same level or any taxation!
deep
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - troll - 29th December 2005
Yep-Francis Prior seems to be of that persuasion. I`m one of those who sees the 43 thing as both an invitation by one or two tribes but also a violent supression of all else in the process.A modern analogy would be the "bring democracy to the Iraqi people by murdering large numbers of them" type thing. Much like inviting a wealthy relative for Xmas dinner and then finding that they just won`t go home...
How long was the arm of Roman law? How did the imposition of Roman law and administration change the lives of the indigenous people? Did it?
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - idontdodinos - 29th December 2005
The long arm of roman law did reach Britain. A small selection of laws that came with the Romans are contract law, property laws, inheritance laws, business law etc. The laws applied to all Roman citizens and everyone else who was not a Roman citizen but living under the rule of the Roman empire. Citizens had more legal rights, such as being able to vote, than non-citizens.
The Britons were not all automatically Roman citizens following the invasion. To be a full-fledged Roman citizen one must have been born to a male Roman citizen.
Example: A native British woman has a baby with a Roman citizen (not a slave) then the child is a Roman citizen but the mother is not.
A native British woman has a children with a native British man, the child is not a Roman citizen.
The majority of the population of Roman Britain would be Roman citizens within one or two generations of the invasion.
There are aspects of roman law that are familiar to us today ie. magistrates, senators, wills, contracts etc.
Many modern legal systems around the world are based on Roman Law.
I am aure what I have written is correct but it has been awhile and Roman Law wasn't my best class.
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - the invisible man - 30th December 2005
Did they introduce PPG XVI?
I'm not a Roman person, but I thought it took longer than that for the British population to become citizens. Another route of course was to complete 25 years service in the army. In any event the edict of caracella conferred universal citzenship on all free subjects in AD212 (or 214).
Millet (1990:19:face-thinks: suggests that Roman law was not enforced upon provincial communities, but seems to think it varied according to the degree of "Romanization" of the area and the nature of the issue.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - troll - 30th December 2005
As it seems to be the case that the apparent success of the colonisation/invasion/romanisation depended upon the "conversion/coercion" of the indigenous ruling classes-does anyone know of any instances where internal "class" conflicts arose because of this? A modern parallel- our current ruling classes choose to side with uncle Sam for reasons best known to themselves.This has`nt led to all out rebellion of the masses because (in my view) we can be seen as too comfortable to rock the boat.I don`t feel we could claim the same for the indigenous masses.Did therefore, the indigenous masses simply toe the line as dictated by their rulers?
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - troll - 30th December 2005
An example-North Lincolnshire-Humber estuary.Some historians see this as a "frontier" of sorts.What sort of pressures and conflicts of loyalties would such a "frontier" have conferred upon the locals?
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - AchingTrenchHeadAtADesk - 30th December 2005
This is turning into Britarch...no offence tho. I'm enjoying it, sadly. Can't wait to get back to work.
AD 43 and all that-Roman law - troll - 31st December 2005
evening Aching! Can`t wait to get back to work? Hells teeth! BAJR is a community of heritage type-peeps and as such, archaeology is bound to crop up.Yes, we ask for dialogue and change for the better and I must admit that we hovver around that totem almost exclusively but, hey! I love archaeology and there`s a few things I could rant (discuss) over forever! Glad you`re enjoying!
So, someone offers your MP underfloor heating, an army of thugs and silly sandals.Your MP accepts and writes to you telling you that your tribal existence is now over, centralised government will henceforth decide what rights you are entitled to and by the way, if you don`t like it, they`ll send the boys round.You`re response would be......? (in careful language of course)