{Left and Right Conflict (1)}[29th October 1990]

[Redbook8:74][19901029:1805]{Left and Right Conflict (1)}[29th October 1990]

.1805

Filling in the chronological chart* for Roman Britain highlights one serious problem with G~ ↔ M~: that one man’s conquest is another man’s disaster.

On the whole, conquests should be M~, whoever is conquering; G~ should be rebellions and revolutions, ie directed ‘upwards’ at authority. If G~ are** vertical, M~ are** horizontal:*** G~ upwards, M~ outwards.

Many cases are unclear: Vortigern inviting Saxons to settle and guard his shores, is a kind of blow upwards against authority, a weakening of authority, as much as (or more than) a conquest. Hmmm....

Where two scales are involved, there need be no such clear conflict: the conquest of Britain is a local event for the British, but part of a longer and wider pattern for the Romans. In any case, expansion by conquest, merging into migration, continues from M~ round to G~ and R~ even as stability is being undermined.

M~ is as much an attitude of mind, as a type of event.****

*ref [[Redbook8:44-67][19901027ff]{Comparative Chronology}[27th October 1990],] 60

**[sic]

***[Not downwards? Possibly the direction suggested here for M~-type movements is more geographical than political.]

****[& G~? &c?]

[The nature of G~ & M~ & their relationship with each other continued, like many other ideas, to be explored and developed during the course of this Journal, so this entry should not be regarded as a final conclusion.]

[continued]

[PostedBlogger30072022]