JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH Archives

BRITARCH Archives


BRITARCH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH Home

BRITARCH  July 2006

BRITARCH July 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Roman invasion of 43 (again) - and a look at Fishbourne

From:

Andy Horton <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

British archaeology discussion list <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:00:11 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (219 lines)

Are there experts on Roman economics? 

Is it better to have absolute political control and tax the natives on the 
grain and buy it off them (I am not quite sure how the occupied economy 
works?) and/or exploit directly uncultivated land with new technology?

Or just trade with the natives for their produce?

The was plenty of coin evidence. It would seem to me that the Romans would 
have to be over here (with weapons) to oversee the grain production before 
AD 43. The war machine might depend on this. 

That assumes that the grain was being produced over here South coast, e.g. 
Fishbourne) before AD 43. Chichester is the optimum port on the south 
coast, west of Dover.  

This is guesswork, outside of my knowledge. I think there is evidence of 
arable under the plough in Sussex. However, popular texts still have iron 
as the major industry in Sussex. And cereals do not really have any greater 
importance over other farming. 

If British grain was being used to feed the armies and horses, that means 
an extensive cross-channel trade with Gaul.  

Andy Horton.  (Rambling speculation, really.)



On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:40:51 +0100, Patrick Brown <[log in to unmask]> 
wrote:

>Interesting, but (not knowing exactly what kind of weapons and armour they
>found, or how much), it does seem to be adding two and two to get five.
>
>I think it's virtually certain there were Romans, and Roman soldiers, in
>Britain between Caesar and Claudius, but that doesn't necessarily mean 
there
>was a legion stationed there, or direct Roman government. There was
>diplomatic contact in Augustus's day - British kings sent ambassadors to
>Rome. The four main sea passages were known to Strabo, and there must have
>been political cooperation to establish the trade taxes he talks about, so
>there must also have been Roman ambassadors going to Britain as well. Those
>ambassadors would have needed military protection, as would the trading
>routes that brought in so much money.
>
>John Creighton (in Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain) makes a pretty
>good case that the British kings, like many Roman clients, sent 'obsides'
>(diplomatic hostages) to Rome, where they were educated in Roman ways. A
>British king who had been an 'obses' in Rome might, on his return, want to
>emulate Roman military tactics and bought Roman-style equipment for his own
>soldiers. The Romans could even have lent him the money to do it. Lending a
>weaker ally money to develop their economy so you can exploit it, and at 
the
>same time make its rulers beholden to you, is a classic imperialist
>technique, and it was done later to the Iceni.
>
>All speculation, but no more so than the hyperbole of the article.
>
>Patrick
>
>From: "Win Scutt" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>> Rob asks: "What evidence is there to suggest one legion of the Roman
>> invasion force had ben in Britain for any period prior to the invasion?
>> Where do you contend they resided during that time?  Surely also if this
>had
>> been the case Tacitus or Dio would have made some mention of it?"
>>
>> The idea that there was a Roman military presence in Britain prior to 43
>AD
>> was summarised in an article in the Independent on 26th June 2005:
>>
>> Revealed: our friends the Romans did not invade Britain after all
>> Astonishing new archaeological finds reveal they were already our
>countrymen
>> 50 years before Claudius spun his way into the history books. Steve
>> Bloomfield reports
>> 26 June 2005
>>
>> The history of Britain will have to be rewritten. The AD43 Roman invasion
>> never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated political spin 
by
>a
>> weak Emperor Claudius.
>>
>> A series of astonishing archaeological findings of Roman military
>equipment,
>> to be revealed this week, will prove that the Romans had already arrived
>> decades earlier - and that they had been welcomed with open arms by
>ancient
>> Britons.
>>
>> The discovery of swords, helmets and armour in Chichester, Sussex, dates
>> back to a period between the late first century BC and the early first
>> century AD- almost 50 years before the supposed invasion. Archaeologists
>who
>> have studied the finds believe it will turn conventional Roman history
>> taught in schools on its head. "It is like discovering that the Second
>World
>> War started in 1938," said Dr David Rudkin, a Roman expert leading the
>work.
>>
>> The discoveries in Sussex will be revealed on Saturday during a Time Team
>> special on Channel 4 analysing the Roman invasion. Tony Robinson,
>presenter
>> of Time Team, said: "One of the frustrating things with history is that
>> things become set in stone. We all believe it to be true. It is great to
>> challenge some of the most commonly accepted pieces of our history."
>>
>> Dr Francis Pryor, president of the Council for British Archaeology, said
>it
>> would prove controversial. "It turns the conventional view taught in all
>the
>> textbooks on its head," he said. "It is going to cause lively debate 
among
>> Roman specialists."
>>
>> The AD43 Roman invasion is one of the best-known events in British
>history.
>> More than 40,000 Roman soldiers are believed to have landed in
>Richborough,
>> Kent, before carving their way through the English countryside.
>>
>> The evidence unearthed in Sussex overturns this theory. Archaeologists 
now
>> believe that the Romans arrived up to 50 years earlier in Chichester. 
They
>> were welcomed as liberators, overthrowing a series of tyrannical tribal
>> kings who had been terrorising clans across southern England.
>>
>> Sussex and Hampshire became part of the Roman Empire 50 years before the
>> invasion that historians have always believed was the birth of Roman
>> Britain.
>>
>> The findings and their implications will be published by Dr Rudkin later
>> this year. The discoveries have centred on Fishbourne Roman Palace in
>> Sussex. Artefacts found there in a V-shaped ditch include part of a 
copper
>> alloy sword scabbard fitting that archaeologists have dated to the period
>> between the late first century BC and early first century AD.
>>
>> Dr Miles Russell, a senior archaeologist at Bournemouth University who 
has
>> studied the evidence, said: "All this talk of the Romans arriving in AD43
>is
>> just wrong. We get so fixated on the idea of a single invasion. It is far
>> more piecemeal. In Sussex and Hampshire they were in togas and speaking
>> Latin five decades before everyone else."
>>
>> According to Dr Russell, it was in Emperor Claudius's interest to "spin"
>the
>> invasion of AD43 as a great triumph against strong opposition. Claudius
>had
>> become emperor two years earlier but his position following the death of
>> Caligula was tenuous. A bold military adventure to expand the empire 
would
>> tighten Claudius's grip in Rome and prove his credentials as a strong
>> leader.
>>
>> "Every period of history has its own spin doctors, and Claudius spun the
>> invasion to look strong," Dr Russell said. "But Britain was Roman before
>> Claudius got here."
>>
>> Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain during the Iron Age in 55BC,
>> but storms on the journey from Boulogne, in France, to Dover caused
>Caesar's
>> two legions to turn back. A force of five legions tried again in May 54BC
>> and landed in Dover before marching towards London, defeating 
Cassivellaun
>us
>> the King of Catuvellauni in Hertfordshire. News of an impending rebellion
>in
>> Gaul caused Caesar to retreat, but not before he had made his mark.
>>
>> Britain at this stage in history was not one unified country, rather some
>25
>> tribes often at war with each other. Not all tribes joined the coalition
>to
>> fight Caesar. For example, the Trinovantes appealed to Caesar to protect
>> them from Cassivellaunus who had run a series of raids into their
>territory.
>>
>> Dr Francis Pryor said that the findings in Sussex prove that 
relationships
>> between tribes in southern England and the Romans continued after 
Caesar's
>> attempted invasion. "The suggestion that they arrived in Chichester makes
>> plenty of sense. We were a pretty fierce force but the Romans had a
>> relatively easy run. This would have been a liberation of a friendly
>tribe -
>> not an invasion."
>>
>> Oxford historian Dr Martin Henig, a Roman art specialist, said that the
>> whole of southern England could have been a Roman protectorate for nearly
>50
>> years prior to the AD43 invasion. "There is a possibility that there were
>> actually Roman soldiers based in Britain during the whole period from the
>> end of the first century BC," he said.
>>
>> Time Team will unveil their findings in a live two-hour special on
>Saturday
>> evening on Channel 4. It will form part of the biggest ever 
archaeological
>> examination of Roman Britain running over eight days and involving
>hundreds
>> of archaeologists at sites across Britain. The series will investigate
>every
>> aspect of the Romans' rule of Britain, from the supposed invasion to 
their
>> departure 400 years later.
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.4/399 - Release Date: 
25/07/2006
>>
>>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998


WWW.JISCMAIL.AC.UK

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager