That was indeed meant for another mail and I have no idea how its attached
to your email and sent because the two are in seperate folders
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] Roman invasion of 43 (again)
> 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:
> 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