Oh and why the auto responder huh. Didnt even know yahoo had one. Oh fuck
this I give up
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:15 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
>> > Verica,
>> > 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
>> > into hostile hands. The Isle of Wight had to be taken by Vespasian, so
>> > the time the invasion was launched, the approach to the Solent was
>> > certainly
>> > held by anti-Roman forces.
>> To some degree you are correct. I chose to ignore the Isle of Wight
>> Vespasian was able to subdue the people fairly quickly. However the
>> mainland Sussex coast was Pro Roman anyway. As for Verica being disposed
>> think this is a minor point in the bigger picture. Claudius needed to
>> respect from the Senate and the Army or he was going to lose his status
>> Emperor. Thus Verica's running back to Rome was the catalyst he needed
>> launch this attack.
> I think there's more to it than Claudius needing status. That was part of
> it, as was rewarding the army, who'd put him in power, with a lucrative
> But Claudius's appointment was not some kind of Year Zero, where you
> everything that went before. Caligula had attempted to invade only a
> of years previously, but his invasion had collapsed. Rome just wasn't the
> sort of society that would let that sort of thing stand. You made the
> about ships leaving the Rhine encouraging the Germans - how would they,
> to mention the Gauls, react to the might of Rome effectively being faced
> down by the Brits?
> Then you have to consider why Caligula thought it necessary. You might
> dismiss it as "he was just mad", but future historians, based on similarly
> scant and salacious sources, might dismiss George Bush's decision to
> Iraq with "he was just stupid" - and it's always more complicated than
> and it usually comes down to money. Augustus tried to invade Britain a
> couple of times early on, but by the end of his reign there's Strabo
> us about all the money Rome makes out of the island, explicitly saying
> conquest would be less lucrative. In Tiberius's reign some Roman ships
> washed to Britain in a storm, and were sent back safe and sound. Britain
> stable and friendly, and trade was booming. That's not a boat you want to
> Things were different in Caligula's time. The stability was gone.
> were attacking each other, kings were being deposed - not the sort of
> environment that's conducive to trade. Someone, whether Caligula or
> under him, decided something had to be done. Only Caligula cocked it up,
> situation kept getting worse, there were more fugitives, and the decision
> fell to Claudius. I wouldn't be surprised if it started being prepared for
> the minute he was secure in power.
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 28/07/2006