Can I assume you've sent this in response to the wrong message?
----- 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
> 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
> >> > 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,
> > at
> >> > 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
> > because
> >> Vespasian was able to subdue the people fairly quickly. However the
> >> mainland Sussex coast was Pro Roman anyway. As for Verica being
> > 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 think there's more to it than Claudius needing status. That was part
> > it, as was rewarding the army, who'd put him in power, with a lucrative
> > war.
> > But Claudius's appointment was not some kind of Year Zero, where you
> > forget
> > everything that went before. Caligula had attempted to invade only a
> > couple
> > of years previously, but his invasion had collapsed. Rome just wasn't
> > sort of society that would let that sort of thing stand. You made the
> > point
> > about ships leaving the Rhine encouraging the Germans - how would they,
> > not
> > 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
> > invade
> > Iraq with "he was just stupid" - and it's always more complicated than
> > that,
> > 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
> > telling
> > us about all the money Rome makes out of the island, explicitly saying
> > that
> > conquest would be less lucrative. In Tiberius's reign some Roman ships
> > were
> > washed to Britain in a storm, and were sent back safe and sound. Britain
> > was
> > stable and friendly, and trade was booming. That's not a boat you want
> > rock.
> > Things were different in Caligula's time. The stability was gone.
> > Civitates
> > were attacking each other, kings were being deposed - not the sort of
> > environment that's conducive to trade. Someone, whether Caligula or
> > someone
> > under him, decided something had to be done. Only Caligula cocked it up,
> > the
> > situation kept getting worse, there were more fugitives, and the
> > fell to Claudius. I wouldn't be surprised if it started being prepared
> > the minute he was secure in power.
> > Patrick
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: