You obviously also do not agree with the economic necessity of invading Britain. I did not want to do this, as it will be tedious, but here is a fraction of the evidence.....caesars itinerary's, 4 other roman itinerary's, roman tax reports, extensive use of oppida (trading centres most likely) throughout hillfort dominated zone, lack of roman occupation of unfertile and unproductive parts of UK (wales, scotland...the climate was drier then), roman accounts of desperate need to conquer britons, economic decline (look at precious metal content and devaluation in coins) stopped by invasion years, few hundred years of prosperity as britain is economically developed...then gradual decline as markets start to fail, economi c devlopment of london and york (HUGE wooden wharves built in york), extensive settlement of retired legionairres all over britain, britain commemorated on medals as being the 'breadbasket' of rome (only place not shattered by civil strife later), fortification of saxon shore to defend economic power of london, YEARS od trading with barbarians before the invasions, field systems developed and revolutionised throughout britain, GIGANTIC AND CRIPPLING cost of invasion (see martin Millett's calculations)...it must have been thought worth it, desperate searching by roman navy for more productive land beyond Britain (they find iceland, but it is obviously worthless)....by then it was too late, the romans were fighting amongst themselves, emporers were draining the coffers, the barbarians at the borders seized the opportunity, roman generals joined them and raided their own people....it was a nasty and inglorious way for the empire to go. Dominic.
Powered by hypermail