Re: OT Roman names

Peter Bleackley wrote:
> staving Ray Brown:
[snip]
>> happened when citizenship was granted to non-Romans. For example, when
>> the emperor Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (aka
>> Claudius) gave Cogidubnus, king of the British 'tribe' known as
>> _Regnenses_, citizenship, the latter became 'Tiberius Claudius
>> Cogidubnus', a member of the Claudian _gens_.
>
>
> I thought Cogidubnus was King of the Atrebates?
No - he may have been a member of the Atrebatic royal house, but he was
never their king. AFAIK the last king of the Atrebates in Britain was
Varica. It was the struggles between the Atrebates & the Catuvellauni
for domination of Britain that gave Claudius the excuse to invade.

After the invasion, the Atrebates were 'cut down to size', so to speak,
and the 'civitas'* establish with its capital at Calleva (Silchester);
it was one of several civitates in Roman administered Britain. They did
not have kings, but were administered by town councils loyal to Roman.

However, Cogidubnus had sided with the Romans and as a reward for his
loyalty he was given the status of 'client king' of a newly formed
civitas called the 'Regni' or 'Regnenses' ('king's men'), carved by the
Romans out of territory formerly under Atrebatic control. A capital city
was built for the new civitas and called 'Noviomagus' on the site of the
  modern Chichester. The remains of Cogidubnus' palace can be seen at
Fishbourne just to the west of Chichester.



The civitas was in theory an independent kingdom owing allegiance to
Rome; after Cogidubnus' death it ceased to be a kingdom and became part
of Roman administered Britain.

* civitas - often translated 'tribe'. 'Tribe' is also the traditional
way of translating Latin _tribus_. But in view of later uses of the word
in English, the term is IMO misleading. Both the civitates & tribus were
_political_ divisions. Neither BTW had anything to do with naming.
==================================

Joe wrote:
 > Michael Adams wrote:
 >
 >>
 >> Like will Charles be Charles III or will he be Philip I or for
 >> fun William V the end of the dynasty?
 >>
 >
 > I think the general consesnus is that he'll be George VII.

Yes, that is indeed what he has said. He could, of course, have picked
one of his other names and become King Arthur - but he has chosen not to
do so   :)

He stated that he chose George out of respect for his grandfather George
VI. I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with Roman names, except
that I suppose we might see GEORGIVS once again on our coins   ;)

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Reply