Oops how did that get to Britarch. Please forgive me for that it was meant
to go to a friends Yahoo account.
I am so so sorry :(
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Roman invasion of 43 (again)
> 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
>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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:
> 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