Revealed: our friends the Romans did not invade Britain after all

Wren's Nest ^ | 26 June 2005

[nickcarraway]

ping

[SittinYonder]

Fascinating.

So what am I now supposed to do with this?

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/493.html

[FairOpinion]

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list -- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.

I will ping the GGG list until July 2, 2005, during SunkenCiv's temporary absence from the board.

If you see articles appropriate for the GGG ping list, please ping me.

[kb2614]

The AD43 Roman invasion never happened - and was simply a piece of sophisticated political spin

Karl Rove's propaganda stands the test of time, eh??

;-)

[ClaudiusI]

So the Claudius Broadcasting Station forged documents, huh?

[familyop]

...article above brought to us by "Witches' Voice?"
http://www.witchvox.com/

Hmmm.

[BelegStrongbow]

Sorry to say but none of this is actually news. Julius Caesar invaded Britain in the early 40's BC and retreated, not having the forces necessary to hold the island. That there could have been arms left there is probable, as also is trade across the Channel, a not-unknown prospect as British tin made it to Phoenicia several hundred years earlier, IIRC.

Besides, the records were published by Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom lived a number of years AFTER Claudius. Perhaps there was already an urban myth in place. Oddly, the families of veterans would also still be alive and capable of correcting the record, had there been occasion to.

Tempest in a revisionist teapot, IMHO.

Thanks for reading,
Beleg

[ncountylee]

Italian War Hero's just published a thinner edition.

[Dallas59]

Claudius had problems with Hillar....I mean Mesalina. Claudius was second only to Augustus in leadership and building the Roman Empire...and they called Claudius an Idiot.

[R. Scott]

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.

Were Sussex and Hampshire part of a small influx of immigrants, followed later by the large invasion? Could the arms found be material captured from the earlier invasions? Arms and armor were handed down through the generations back when. They lasted a long time.

[bjc]

One contemporary application of this fact is to remind us that for all recorded history there have been waves of invasions and brutal treatment if not extermination of the conquered by the conquerors. The fate of the Native Americans is the same fate as that of Britons/Celts, Romano-Britons, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and Vikings. It doesn't make it right but these are massive historical forces and recurring patterns of human behavior that are not reversed by arguing for reparations or some other kind of turning back the clock. It is our behavior towards each other today that counts.

[SpringheelJack]

The "evidence" these guys have discovered doesn't support their conclusions at all. As another poster mentioned, Julius Caesar staged a failed invasion in about the same period these artifacts date from, and in any case, Roman influence (via trade) could easily account for them even if Caesar's expedition was not part of the historical record.

If the logic and erudition these guys display is mainstream then modern British archaeology is a farce.

[xmm0]

Pardon my ignorance to this subject, but when I first read this I couldn't help but remember learning about that wall erected by the Romans to defend from the northern Brits. If the Romans were welcomed openly, then what is the purpose of this construction?

I tend to believe that other posters may have hit it right on the money. The "evidence" could be evidence of prior advances before actual conquering or even trade.

[Pharmboy]

Thanks for the clarification. Although I know little about this, I suspected that it was no big deal and consistent with known facts.

[LibertarianInExile]

Aw, just Pict yourself up and dust yourself off, and don't be such a Claud.

Besides, Sid Rich SUCKS! No, I didn't go to Rice. But I've been to Valhalla.

[prion]

"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."

Become set in stone? History is stuff that happened a long time ago. Either it happened, or it didn't. It's great to find a new piece of the truth, but challenging for the sake of it isn't great at all. Only, nobody gets a book or TV gig by saying, "yep. Turns out, it really happened just the way we told you when you were six."

[freedumb2003]

Well, it was reported by Danus Ratherus so the whole scenario is suspect.

I mean after that whole Roman National Legion memo thing...

[SittinYonder]

LOL - the Sid Rich reference was lost on me - the Rice link was just the first link to the Kipling poem that came up in Google.

[Tallguy]

Could the arms found be material captured from the earlier invasions? Arms and armor were handed down through the generations back when. They lasted a long time.

A very good question! I think it would depend upon the numbers (of weapons found) and the circumstances of the site.

Weaponry implies a lot about tactics. A sword -- in this case the Roman gladius -- is particulary good for stabbing in close-quarters, 'shield wall' engagements -- not the kind of thing you'd expect from tribal warriors. So if there were a few Roman swords scattered around a dig, then I'd tend to say "Yeah, probably trophies taken from Caesar's invasion."

If, OTOH, there are a lot of swords & armor found in a dig that reveals typical Roman castramentation (field fortifications), then I'd say that this is definitely "Roman".