Primus Pilus Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Key points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Though the theory is interesting... I've always felt that Caesar's invasions had more lasting effects despite apparant lack of success... but the existence of Roman citizens on Britannia only reinforces the concept of an overwhelming Claudian invasion force. Nothing in the article refutes that, but of course, the details of the dig and the findings aren't really mentioned. It simply mentions a theory. I'm searching for more information... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Another story at the Independent Apparantly the findings will be published later this year... look forward to reading that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 Remember there would have been a long established trade btwn Britannia and the mainland so finding artifacts that date earlier than the Claudian invasion isn't so surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted June 28, 2005 Report Share Posted June 28, 2005 "It is like discovering that the Second World War started in 1938" I thought it did start in 38,when the Germans invaded Poland I know the Brits declared war in 39. I,ve been looking forward to this programme for a while now and i agree with what tony says,i love it when a biggy like this happens. 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." Big Roman dig Click on the Game on the right of the page,i beat jupiter 2-1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 "It is like discovering that the Second World War started in 1938" I thought it did start in 38,when the Germans invaded Poland I know the Brits declared war in 39. Let me be the first one to correct you . Nazi Germany occupied the Sudatenland in 1938, after negotiations including Great Britain. They marched into Prague on 3/15/39, effectively dissolving Czechoslovakia until after WWII. Poland was invaded on 9/1/39. That is the accepted starting point for the european part of World War II. (Japan starting the asian part with its invasion of China in 1937.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted June 29, 2005 Report Share Posted June 29, 2005 Let me be the first one to correct you thanks for the correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demson Posted June 30, 2005 Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 Archaeologists believe that a series of military artefacts unearthed in Chichester, Sussex, and dated decades before the AD43 date will turn conventional Roman history on its head. Roman artifacts alone don't account to much (there was plenty of trade), but Roman military equipment does. Looking forward to hearing more. Perhaps the Romans invaded southern Britanny in the same style the US took lands from the native Americans? The experts also believe that when the Romans arrived in Chichester they were welcomed as liberators by ancient Britons who were delighted when the "invaders" overthrew a series of brutal tribal kings guilty of terrorising southern England. <insert evil laughter here> Though I'm really interested in the evidence supporting this claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted June 30, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 30, 2005 There is certainly evidence that the Romans were requested to come to the aid of allied British tribes. While they may have been welcomed by some at first, I'm sure there was some 'consternation' when it was quite apparant that the Romans would not be leaving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted July 1, 2005 Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Roman artifacts alone don't account to much (there was plenty of trade), but Roman military equipment does Couldnt Ceasers invasion account for this?he must of lost some equipment/weapons when he tried it on. Allso,didnt the Gauls hire British Celts as mercenary's?they could of brought the weapons back from Gaul.I suppose it depends on the size of the finds. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted July 1, 2005 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2005 Yes, there are endless possibilities. I suppose we'll have to see the published findings to determine if this is a shot in the dark crack pot theory based on little evidence, or if there really is some 'smoking gun' that gives it all merit. (I tend to think its a crack pot trying to make a name for himself) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.