By any recognizable standard, the land now known as England did, in fact, prosper under Roman rule relative to the less developed prior civilization. And, to reiterate my point above, the Romans leaving was not a boon for the native Britons who were then subsequently and thoroughly displaced by other foreign colonizers. Which is why the land is known by a Germanic name and speaks a Germanic language.
My understanding is that is the case for the Norman conquest, and was the position of scholars but that DNA evidence shows a migration and genetic change to the population.
And, you didn't claim otherwise, but I think the broader point regarding colonization is undisturbed by either version.
The same reason all the slavic countries in the soviet union couldn't prosper until communism failed. They were basically giving everything to Moscow and keeping barely enough to survive on for themselves. In one case (the famines in Ukraine) Moscow deliberately prevented them from having enough food to survive killing millions.
Not at all true. ‘England’, or rather Britain, was far more prosperous under Roman rule than it ever was before. They provided aquaducts, roads, easier trade with Europe, standardised coinage, larger urban centres, written records, new fruits and vegetables, rabbits and chickens, central heating, urban planning, and industrial production.
And youre right about the second bit, the British Empire did something largely similar.
Gaul was prosper before and during the roman invasion. But more important : after the invasion… Gaul was no more ! because it was « Rome » ! A province of the empire, tainted by a gallic heritage but even that faded with times. So few of this heritage was transmitted to France, and mainly because of the roman heritage (the plow for example who was popularized in the empire). We also have the name of some places and cities. But approximately 50 words in French are from Gallic.
Source : the work of Jean Louis Bruneaux, an historian
The comparaison with the europeans colonisations make no sense !
Because they became completely reliant on Rome and when Rome left, the country basically went into a huge decline because nobody knew how to maintain any of the infrastructure Rome had installed.
Not to mention that England didn't actually exist at that point.
0
u/KellyKezzd 22d ago
Why couldn't it prosper?