Posted on 05/18/2016 1:36:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
New research published by archaeologists from MOLA reveals a previously unknown Roman fort, built in AD63 as a direct response to the sacking of London by the native tribal Queen of the Iceni, Boudica. The revolt razed the early Roman town to the ground in AD60/61 but until now little was understood about the Roman's response to this devastating uprising.
Excavations at Plantation Place for British Land on Fenchurch Street in the City of London exposed a section of a rectangular fort that covered 3.7acres. The timber and earthwork fort had 3metre high banks reinforced with interlacing timbers and faced with turves and a timber wall. Running atop the bank was a 'fighting platform' fronted by a colossal palisade, with towers positioned at the corners of the gateways. This formidable structure was enclosed by double ditches, 1.9 and 3m deep, forming an impressive obstacle for would be attackers.
The Roman army were experts in construction; proficiently sourcing local materials from nearby woods and even using debris from buildings burnt in the revolt. It is estimated that a fort of this size would have housed a cohort of approximately 500 men but could have been built by hand in a matter of weeks, perhaps with the help of captive Britons. Archaeologists uncovered a pick axe and a hammer, tools that would have been available to the army for building projects.
Only in active use for fewer than 10 years and with evidence pointing towards the use of tents rather than permanent structures for barracks, the fort was evidently erected as an emergency measure to secure the important trading post of London and to aid with the reconstruction and reestablishment of London at this turbulent time.
(Excerpt) Read more at pasthorizonspr.com ...
:’)
I read about BOHICA a lot of FR...oh wait...Boadicea. That’s different...never mind.
Yep, they were pretty amazing. March 15 miles, then build a fortified camp at the end of the day, complete with six foot ditches, dirt ramparts, a palisade, and tents laid out in a square with the same layout. Every day.
They don’t make ‘em like that anymore.
Excellent!
See also:
Roman soldiers march on M6, Britain’s most haunted road
Martin Wainwright Monday 30 October 2006 19.21 EST
“We assumed Britain’s spookiest road would turn out to be a dark lane near an ancient battlefield,” said Tony Simmons, sightings coordinator for the survey. “But, when you think about it, these findings make sense. The M6 is one of Britain’s longest roads and it travels through many counties - and therefore an immense amount of history.” The eerie encounters have been recorded by a hospital consultant, lorry drivers and the hauntings expert Paul Devereux, who used a Geiger counter to test radiation levels at sites of repeated reports. Spooks, or conditions which lead 45% of all drivers to think they have seen them, occur throughout the route’s 230 miles from Carlisle to Rugby.
... Most of the phenomena seem benign, but several roads have a reputation for figures which appear to run into the path of traffic.
The motorway hauntings are expected to grow, according to experts like Mr Devereux, who recorded his own encounter with a phantom pick-up truck on the M6 in Fortean Times, the journal of strange phenomena. The new M6 toll section in the Midlands has already attracted a Roman cohort. Sue Cowley, from Coleshill, Warwickshire, told the survey of seeing about 20 soldiers “more like upright shadows than men walking through the tarmac as you would through water.”
Hadrian had to builds wall
Too bad we couldn’t resurrect some of these people to lead us against the terrorist state. THEY knew how to deal with those kinds of scum.
Touche.
Different kind of people. Just go back to the 1940s. The Brits of that age would have fought the NAZIs every step of the way and left mountains of bodies around them as they did.
Now they WELCOME, FEED, EDUCATE and ELECT invaders who are little different. The fruits of the socialist state which accustoms people to do NOTHING for themselves. The same thing happened in Rome under the Empire.
Plus carrying 100 lbs of equipment
Yo 50th great-gramma so old, she walked out of a museum and da alarm went off.
No, seriously, it really did.
In the 1st century Agricola wasn't allowed to finish up the conquests of Scotland and Ireland (there's a promontory n of Dublin that appears to have been a Roman presence in Ireland). Hadrian's predecessor Trajan was one of the greatest conquerors ever to hold the office of Emperor, whereas Hadrian's forte was in buggering pretty young boys, such as Antinoos. When Antinoos died, Hadrian started a cult to worship the catamite and bilt a town in Egypt, naming it after the dead 'man'. Hadrian's accession foreshadowed the later decadence of the upper echelons of Roman politics. Hadrian decided to define borders for the Empire and rely on alliances built on trade and patronage, a common practice Rome used to create buffer states on their borders. During a later (the second) expansion into what we now call Scotland, the Antonine Wall was put up. Manpower was again needed elsewhere, so the Antonine Wall was abandoned for a time, during the third century (and third expansion) into Scotland was reoccupied, and abandoned apparently for good after the locals simmered down.
Nice!
Scotland was not reoccurred. The Romans never got beyond the lowland boundary area
Nice try though. Keep throwing out that cut and paste with no attribution
Yes, or we could just use the same techniques.
No, you’re just nuts.
Basically Rome never conquered most of Scotland because there was nothing there that was worth the cost of conquering and holding it. Southern Britain was rich by comparison. By the end of their rule the British tribes south of the wall were Romanized, and the withdrawal of the legions left them open to conquest by the Germanic tribes who were being displaced by the Franks and Huns. The same happened to the Celtic tribes of Gaul. Generations of Pax Romana left them without the warrior culture that had allowed them to take most of Europe in earlier times.
Walls are defensive structures. Hadrian built one to keep the Scots out
Yep. Once the Romans decided not to conquer the north, they built the wall to keep Scottish raiders out, and cut the Celtic tribes in their territory off from the unconquered tribes in the north.
The problem with the Celts is they were almost never unified, and hated the neighbor tribes more than the outsiders. That allowed outsiders, the Romans, and later the Anglo-Saxons to divide and conquer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.