----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Roman invasion of 43 (again)
> From: "Rob" <[log in to unmask]>
We must remember at this time the area around the
>> Sussex coast and the solent to some extent was in friendly hands.
> I don't think that could be the case. The invasion happened because
> who was Roman-friendly, was deposed - and whether he was deposed by the
> Catuvellauni or by another faction of his own people, that put his kingdom
> into hostile hands. The Isle of Wight had to be taken by Vespasian, so at
> the time the invasion was launched, the approach to the Solent was
> held by anti-Roman forces.
To some degree you are correct. I chose to ignore the Isle of Wight because
Vespasian was able to subdue the people fairly quickly. However the
mainland Sussex coast was Pro Roman anyway. As for Verica being disposed I
think this is a minor point in the bigger picture. Claudius needed to gain
respect from the Senate and the Army or he was going to lose his status as
Emperor. Thus Verica's running back to Rome was the catalyst he needed to
launch this attack.
> I saw a Time Team about this recently - there's apparently a sandbar at
> Westminster that's well known to Thames boatmen that would still allow the
> river to be forded on foot.
Yes it is a well known fording point throughout history. However the
channel for the boats as stopped it being fordable at low tide now