The Pros And Cons Of The Romanization Of Britain

The Romanization of Britain took place soon after the invasion of the Romans - headed by the emperor Claudius - in 43AD which created the society I have chosen to look at called Romano British. I personally believe that Romanization made little difference to Britain and this is what I will aim to explain in this essay.
Before doing so we must analyse the reliability of our main primary sources; Tacitus, Julius Caesar and Cassius Dio. All three sources were well educated but each have individual disadvantages. Tacitus was writing about his father-in-law which means there is probably a bias towards him in an attempt to impress him. Caesar was writing about himself which suggests that he would have made his achievements seem greater. Cassius Dio wrote about the events of the Roman invasion 200 years after they occurred. This means he is only as reliable as his sources.
They are often described to be uncivilised by most written primary sources. Strabo - a Greek historian and geographer - claimed they were "simple and barbarian" which is an idea is supported by Caesar who describes their appearance: "...dye themselves with wood...bluish colour...hair long...every part of their body shaven except their head and upper lip".
The Celts and their society was actually much more civilised. They had a hierarchy and laws - even if they were not written down - which are mentioned by Caesar; "It was against the law to eat horses, chickens and geese". Both of these very modern ideas suggest that Britain, around the time of Claudius' invasion, was reasonably civilised. Cassius Dio suggests that they even had the concept of a democracy which was a political structure for the more civilised societies - "Their form of rule is democratic for the most