Humanities desk
< March 16	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 17[edit]

Did the Romans invade Britain for tin?[edit]

I am trying to find out if the Roman Empire wanted to conquer Britain because of the tin metal deposits or for some other reason, or a combination of such reasons. Help? 71.218.15.84 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's invasions of Britain were undertaken not for economics, but for military reasons. Julius Caesar was trying to shore up recent victories in Gaul and invaded Britain to prevent a back door invasion. Caesar didn't actually conquer they island, though, it would be over a century later that the Roman conquest of Britain was completed. The article Roman Britain notes several metals as major exports, but tin is not among them.--Jayron 32 04:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tin sources and trade in ancient times#Ancient trade has some more information (Britain was always a major source of tin and production continued after the Roman conquest). Whether the Romans conquered Britain specifically for the tin, the answer seems to be a resounding "maybe". Adam Bishop (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mining in Roman Britain: "Britain was rich in resources such as copper, gold, iron, lead, salt, silver, and tin, materials in high demand in the Roman Empire. The abundance of mineral resources in the British Isles was probably one of the reasons for the Roman conquest of Britain". Can't see a source for that though.

"Tin in the Roman Empire". www.unrv.com. United Nations of Roma Victrix (UNRV). "By the invasions of Caesar in the mid first century BC, the British source of tin was certainly known to the Romans. His invasions, though with several other motives, may have been partially inspired by the thought of controlling the valuable mines of Britannia. While securing trading partners among local tribes, conquest and Roman control of the British mining industry would take another century, coming with the invasion of Claudius".

Metals, Culture and Capitalism: An Essay on the Origins of the Modern World by Jack Goody (p. 113): "Metal was one of the main attractions of making the crossing. It has been said that the Roman invasion 'was no doubt mainly designed to tap the island's mineral wealth', though it may also have been to stop refugees from Gaul from having harbourage there as well as of course as enhancing the prestige of the Emperor".

The footnote for that statement reads: "See Davies 1935: 150. Agricola speaks of the gold and silver (and other metals). This opinion is also shared by Aitchison who writes that before Caesar's invasion Britain was known as a source of metals, though the copper probably came from Ireland. So 'one powerful motive for the Roman visit was to obtain a share in Britain's export trade and, generally, to acquire metals' (Aitchison 1960: 133)".

Alansplodge (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can read what Julius Caesar has to say about the invasion here. Alansplodge (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though what he wrote about his motives (in the third person, as was his habit) might not be the whole truth, but only what he wanted his future readers to think when he published those memoirs to justify his actions.

Beyond what he says and implies (to discourage support from Britain for his opponents in Gaul; to reconnoitre the country; and to build local support for a future Roman alliance or takeover), it has been suggested (I forget by whom) that he also wanted to practice seabourne landings in a relatively safe environment, because it was the one military operation in which he was least experienced, and he knew he would likely need to use it in future, as he was already secretly planning to take over Rome, and anticipated a civil war on several fronts.

In the event he learned a lot, not least the effects of tides, which are barely noticeable in the Mediterranean but which destroyed or damaged many of his ships in the first of his two British expeditions, and significant numbers in his second. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but Caesar's work is an astonishing survival and the only detailed description of the Iron Age Britons and their culture. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick leaf through Sheppard Frere's Britannia: A History of Roman Britain (1967) to see what he has to say. To summarise, he thinks Caesar attempted the conquest of Britain because

His conquest of Gaul couldn't be secure while Britain was still a haven for Gallic malcontents and a base for military assistance to the Gauls.
Britain's mineral and other wealth – iron, lead, copper, gold, tin (Frere puts no particular stress on the tin), coal (though this wasn't exploited much), corn, leather and woollen products – could be economically profitable. Also Britain's huge manpower would be useful for army recruitment.
The prestige to be gained from conquering this mysterious island on the very edge of the world was considerable. [This point is made by many other writers. I've more than once heard the conquest of Britain compared to the moon landings.]

Claudius conquered Britain, or much of it, because

Having had no previous military career he needed a conquest to gain the respect of the army.
World-rule had become part of the philosophical underpinning of the empire. Conquests needed no justification.
Much of the necessary staff-preparation must have been completed before Caligula's abortive attempt at a conquest of Britain in AD40. Pity to waste it.
The expulsion of the British client-king Verica by the sons of Cunobelinus, and a cheeky demand by them for his extradition from the Roman Empire, were damaging to prestige and needed a strong response.
Caligula's addition of two new legions to the Rhine defence force made a dangerous new centre of power [I presume he means they could have been used for a military coup] which could be dissipated by sending them to Britain.
The Romans now had a more accurate idea of Britain's mineral wealth.
The Druids were a force behind resistance to Roman rule in Gaul. Gallic Druidry couldn't be stamped out while they were being backed by British Druids.

Of course some of these points have already been made here. --Antiquary (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They came for the fine cuisine. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion there between Gaels and Celtic Britons I would suggest. Alansplodge (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, the the Romans may well have brought it with them. Confusion on confusion! --Antiquary (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Mining: The events, technology and people involved in the industry that forged the modern world by Michael Coulson (p. 32): "Roman records regarding their occupation of Britain do not have much to say on the subject of tin mining, probably due to the fact that the Romans had established mines in Spain and these provided them with the bulk of the tin they needed. Cornish mines, however, continued to operate and by the 3rd century AD production expanded as rising prosperity led to increasing use of pewter for household plate and drinking vessels".

"Roman Mining". www.romanobritain.org. Romans in Britain. "It was not just iron and lead the Romans wanted to mine, there was also gold, copper and tin. Lead was the actually main prize, as it could be used for water pipes, guttering and, once liquefied in a furnace, mixed with tin to make pewter. But the Romans had an even more important use for lead -- they would extract the silver from the lead ore to make much needed coins and tableware".

Alansplodge (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Bloody Sunday Film Title[edit]

What does the title of the film "Sunday Bloody Sunday" refer to?207.237.115.224 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See:

In Londonderry, Northern Ireland, 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators are shot dead by British Army paratroopers in an event that becomes known as "Bloody Sunday."

—"Bloody Sunday in Northern Ireland - Jan 30, 1972". HISTORY.com. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F92C:4A34:221B:2434 (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ... however, this film (Sunday Bloody Sunday (film), 1971) predates the incident (Bloody Sunday (1972)). 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The massacre happened on a Sunday (30 Jan 1972) and many people died, see the article here [1]. It is a common name for massacres, see this list [2]. Other massacres in Ireland by this name happened in 1920 and 1921. 143.159.126.174 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Bloody Sunday (film) was released in 1971 - before the events in Derry. Wherever the title came from, it had nothing to do with Bloody Sunday (1972). There is another film, from 2002 (Bloody Sunday (film)) which is about the events in Derry. Wymspen (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is an answer on Reddit: [3] —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:F92C:4A34:221B:2434 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least the Reddit answer makes sense. That's how I interpreted the title when the film came out. No massacres were in the news at the time. Our article Bloody explains the usage. Dbfirs 22:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sundays in post-war Britain were notoriously boring. Pubs had to be shut between 2 pm and 7 pm (or all day in many parts of Wales). Only newsagents' shops were allowed to open; supermarkets, cinemas, theatres and even fish and chip shops had to stay closed. A famous episode of Hancock's Half Hour called Sunday Afternoon at Home summed-up the melancholy of a wet British Sunday in 1958. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont forget that "Bloody" is a commonly used expletive attributive (intensifier) in todays British English: Now please stop these bloody history lessons all you bloody wannabe historions! --Kharon (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not Bernard Shaw likely. Alansplodge (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beihai State[edit]

During the latter part of the Han dynasty, Kong Rong was the chancellor of the Beihai State (北海國) in Qing Province, modern day Shandong. Was the Beihai State a feudal fief of the Han emperor ruled by a Han imperial prince (wang)? Why was it called a state (guo)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of the New Deal.[edit]

Obviously there were many, (see List of critics of the New Deal), but did any organizations grow to be larger than the American Liberty League, at 125,000 people, as ascertained on the talk page? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]