[Top] [All Lists]

Re: No Roman Invasion?

Subject: Re: No Roman Invasion?
From: "hyperoglyphe"
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:11:12 +0800
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology, soc.history.ancient
<[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
> Apparently on date Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:32:54 +0800, "hyperoglyphe"
> <[email protected]> said:
>>"IEJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> "Doug Weller" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
>>> news:[email protected]
>>>> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 09:52:18 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> >Apparently on date Mon, 04 Jul 2005 14:40:43 +0100, Doug Weller
>>>> >>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> >>>Apparently on date Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:08:48 -0500, "deowll"
>>>> >>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> >>>>> to contain a harbour - which seems a more logical place to land 
>>>> >>>>> the
>>> troops
>>>> >>>>Those are the main options. I was leaving open the possibility that
>>> some
>>>> >>>>merchants had made a private deal with some local chief and the
>>> government
>>>> >>>>of Rome might not have been directly involved. I think that 
>>>> >>>>happened
>>>> >>>>a
>>> time
>>>> >>>>or two in some places.
>>>> >>>Sure. The idea of trade wasn't new and you have to have somewhere to
>>> unload the
>>>> >>>ships. HST wouldn't this be an Ancient British harbour, even if the
>>> people who
>>>> >>>built / controlled / inhabited it happened to be Roman traders?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>>I do think you have a telling point. If the Roman
>>>> >>>>government had controlled the "Roman" port they could have simply
>>> sailed
>>>> >>>>their force to it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>If it still existed at the time they planned to invade, sure.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>I still favour the notion put forward by Time Team, i.e. that the
>>> Romans were
>>>> >>>already in the BI to some extent, and there wasn't actually 
>>>> >>>opposition
>>> to them
>>>> >>>landing, at least, to begin with.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>I don't think TT was unanimous on this, and I didn't see any evidence
>>>> >>to
>>>> >>suggest that there was a greater Roman presence in Britain pre 43ce
>>>> >>than
>>>> >>we already know about, ie traders and probably diplomats.
>>>> >
>>>> >I must admit I read it in the Independent rather than watching the
>>> programme.
>>>> >This is a newspaper article and obviously newspaper facts can't be
>>>> >relied
>>> on,
>>>> >but they seemed to think the Romans had liberated the area around
>>> Chichester
>>>> >fifty years before the official invasion.
>>>> That was based on their understanding of discoveries by Time Team, and 
>>>> I
>>>> watched the Time Team program that was supposed to reveal all. That 
>>>> claim
>>>> wasn't made on the program.
>>> Good God Doug,
>>> haven't you read all the links and pages in the Big Roman Dig? Not
>>> everything needs to be said in front of the cameras filming for TV:
>>After reading all the links and pages in the Big Roman Dig I came to the
>>conclusion the ancient British harbour used by the Romans and referred to 
>>this thread was at Hartlepool.
> Don't be silly. It's Jonkoping as it has to be on a southern shore. And 
> near
> the artifacts / black monks / templar crosses.

Look at it holistically. Establishing  a north east port was a ploy to fool 
the wily pictii.  There was an undated Romano-British settlement nearby 
excavated in the '60s- that could have been settled any time you like- say 
28BC.  Artefacts collected on that dig are hidden.  I can only hint about 

There is no evidence of local slaughter but plenty of evidence it was a 
launching pad for attacks on other areas.  Proof the locals were colluding 
with the Romans. Even the most cynical Naysayers would admit that Hartlepool 
prospered from working with the Romans. Obviously it was a pre-invasion 
settlement site where Ceasar (Seizure? SeizeHer?) learn't all the local 
tricks and infiltraded the local culture before lunching his colonial 

Don't forget, not only does Hartlepool have Grey Friers, De Brus' and their 
Templar connection it has a medieval church built on the site of a Norman 
one which was probably built on the site of a Roman temple. Why not?

Any Positivist Holist can see the Big Roman Dig is a smokescreen.  Any 
Yeasayer can see I want to bring this thread to its rapid conclusion by 
diving head first into k00kolgy.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>