If you're going to pick a fight with someone over ancient Roman facts, arguing with a historian is probably not the best course of action.

Infowars editor at large and right-wing YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson recently tweeted an insinuation that Roman Britain wasn’t ethnically diverse.

A bit of a bizarre claim to make out of the blue, but the reason for his outage stemmed from a five-and-a-half minute BBC educational YouTube video on what life was like in Roman Britain.

The video, aimed at supporting teachers, is suitable for 7 to 11 year-olds and details what life was like for a typical family during the Roman period.

The cartoon that accompanies the video features everything from gladiator battles, the purpose of Hadrian's wall and the religious make up of Roman society.

It also features a series of ethnically diverse characters, which is what appeared to anger the Infowars host, who implied that the BBC didn't care about 'historical accuracy'.

It was following these claims of historical inaccuracy that historian Mike Stuchbery stepped in.

In a series of hugely informative tweets, he described how Roman Britain was ethnically diverse “almost by design”.

He explains that Roman troops were drawn from other parts of the empire, and occupied Britain.

laklak wrote:Well yeah, but what have the Romans ever done for us?

Tracer Tong wrote:As far as I can tell, Mike Stuchbery isn't an historian either.

Matt_B wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:As far as I can tell, Mike Stuchbery isn't an historian either.

It doesn't really matter. Anyone with a vague grasp on reality could school PJW on history.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Matt_B wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:As far as I can tell, Mike Stuchbery isn't an historian either.

It doesn't really matter. Anyone with a vague grasp on reality could school PJW on history.

But that's not really true, since a vague grasp on reality isn't sufficient to know about the demographics of Roman Britain. As it goes, I suspect Roman Britain wasn't particularly diverse (at least not ethnically), not least because Britain wasn't uninhabited before the Roman arrival. But it's been a while since I've studied the matter.

Our work shows that considerable numbers of the individuals buried in major Roman towns such as York and Winchester did not grow up there, and that not just men but also women and children moved across the Roman Empire. We also found that the relationship between burial rites, grave goods and geographic origin is much more complicated than previously thought, probably reflecting factors such as intermarriage and the presence of second generation migrants.

http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/re ... spora.aspx

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Matt_B wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:As far as I can tell, Mike Stuchbery isn't an historian either.

It doesn't really matter. Anyone with a vague grasp on reality could school PJW on history.

But that's not really true, since a vague grasp on reality isn't sufficient to know about the demographics of Roman Britain. As it goes, I suspect Roman Britain wasn't particularly diverse (at least not ethnically), not least because Britain wasn't uninhabited before the Roman arrival. But it's been a while since I've studied the matter.

A vague grasp isn't sufficient to say it wasn't diverse. Data is required. This isn't much, but seems to be based on research into remains etc and seems to b the work of people with more than "a vague grasp on reality" when it comes to archaeology.

Our work shows that considerable numbers of the individuals buried in major Roman towns such as York and Winchester did not grow up there, and that not just men but also women and children moved across the Roman Empire. We also found that the relationship between burial rites, grave goods and geographic origin is much more complicated than previously thought, probably reflecting factors such as intermarriage and the presence of second generation migrants.

http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/re ... spora.aspx

Tracer Tong wrote:

Matt_B wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:As far as I can tell, Mike Stuchbery isn't an historian either.

It doesn't really matter. Anyone with a vague grasp on reality could school PJW on history.

But that's not really true, since a vague grasp on reality isn't sufficient to know about the demographics of Roman Britain. As it goes, I suspect Roman Britain wasn't particularly diverse (at least not ethnically), not least because Britain wasn't uninhabited before the Roman arrival. But it's been a while since I've studied the matter.

Tracer Tong wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Matt_B wrote:

It doesn't really matter. Anyone with a vague grasp on reality could school PJW on history.

But that's not really true, since a vague grasp on reality isn't sufficient to know about the demographics of Roman Britain. As it goes, I suspect Roman Britain wasn't particularly diverse (at least not ethnically), not least because Britain wasn't uninhabited before the Roman arrival. But it's been a while since I've studied the matter.

A vague grasp isn't sufficient to say it wasn't diverse. Data is required. This isn't much, but seems to be based on research into remains etc and seems to b the work of people with more than "a vague grasp on reality" when it comes to archaeology.

Our work shows that considerable numbers of the individuals buried in major Roman towns such as York and Winchester did not grow up there, and that not just men but also women and children moved across the Roman Empire. We also found that the relationship between burial rites, grave goods and geographic origin is much more complicated than previously thought, probably reflecting factors such as intermarriage and the presence of second generation migrants.

http://www.reading.ac.uk/archaeology/re ... spora.aspx

I don't know what you think that quotation is serving to show. Its content is certainly unremarkable, at least to me.

tuco wrote:Is Britain ethnically diverse today?

Tracer Tong wrote:

tuco wrote:Is Britain ethnically diverse today?

I'm not sure, really, and there are stark differences depending on where you're talking about the in the country. But my expectation would be that the Britain of today is much more ethnically diverse than it was a couple of millennia ago.

GrahamH wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

tuco wrote:Is Britain ethnically diverse today?

I'm not sure, really, and there are stark differences depending on where you're talking about the in the country. But my expectation would be that the Britain of today is much more ethnically diverse than it was a couple of millennia ago.

Surely everywhere is, on average, more diverse today due to vast expansion of transport and communications, but hardly seems relevant. There was diversity in Roman Britain so I see no problem with representing that in an educational video. It would be a misrepresentation to portray any narrow ethnicity.