When did the Romans settle in Britannia?

[Arthes]

Greetings I just came across this article from June and it was a revealation to me....checked the posts back....but haven't found a thread...of course, I may have missed it. Did anyone see Time Team, at the time...this would also explain why Berikos went to Rome to ask for help from Claudius....

Story in full
BRITAIN was home to Roman citizens some 50 years before the AD43 "invasion" date that generations of schoolchildren have been taught, new research has revealed.

The previously accepted version of the Roman invasion has its origins in the work of ancient spin-doctors trying to boost the reputation of the Emperor Claudius.

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.

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.

The conventional story of the landing, at Richborough, Kent, in AD43, of 40,000 Roman soldiers who then marched through the English countryside conquering all before them, is being questioned by Dr David Rudkin, a Roman expert, who led the research.

"It is like discovering that the Second World War started in 1938," said Dr Rudkin.

The team's discoveries in Sussex will be revealed on Saturday on a live two-hour special edition of Time Team, the Channel 4 history programme, examining the Roman invasion.

Tony Robinson, the show's presenter 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."

The work of Roman spin doctors in history is obvious, according to Dr Miles Russell, a senior archaeologist at Bournemouth University, who said it was in the interests of Emperor Claudius to "spin" the AD43 invasion as a great military achievement against strong opposition.

Claudius had become emperor two years earlier following the death of Caligula, but his position was insecure. A bold military victory would consolidate his hold on Rome and establish his reputation as a great military leader.

"Every period of history has its own spin doctors, and Claudius spun the invasion to look strong. But Britain was Roman before Claudius got there," said Dr Russell.

The Romans had made earlier forays into Britain, some more successful than others.

Julius Caesar first tried to conquer Britain in 55BC but was defeated by stormy weather while crossing from Dover. A year later five legions marching to London defeated King Cassivellaunus of Catuvellauni in Hertfordshire but news of an impending rebellion in Gaul caused Caesar to retreat.

Britain at this time consisted of around 25 tribes - often at war with each other.
This version from http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=706092005
regards
Arthes

[Robert Vermaat]

It's difficult what to believe, if all you have is a 2000-year-old source that did not write history as we know it, but mainly wanted to praise some patron.
On the other hand, today we suffer from madia who make outragious claims, sometimes just to get attention.
For by the standards of the 'current' opinion, Ireland would then also have to be accepted as being invaded and settled by the Romans. To which, I fear, somewhat more oppostion would exist. The fact that British tribal kings asked for a nd received Roman support, whether political, material or even in the form of troops, does not make it a fact that we have to rewrite the history books when it comes to the Claudian invasion of AD 43.

So did the Romans really settle Britain earlier than the history books say they did? The answer, most probably, is that they did not.
There were earlier invasions that we know of, Caesar going twice and possible others as well. Caligula's outragious 'shell-counting' exercise was most likely an act to punish his muteneering troops, who forestalled yet another attempt predating the real thing of AD 43.

The question to answer of course is, did the Romans rule parts of Britain before the invasion of AD 43? The answer to that is no.
The 'previously accepted version' is still the current version - AD 43 was the first full-scale Roman invasion of Britain with the target a permanent conquest and occupation.
No matter what Tony Robinson claims.

[mcbishop]

Germane to this is the article in the new volume of Britannia (hot from the presses):

J. Manley & D. Rudkin: 'A pre-AD 43 ditch at Fishbourne Roman palace, Chichester' Britannia XXXVI, 2005, 55-99

It shows there was Roman stuff in Britain before AD 43 (no real surprise there) but isn't quite the smoking gun we were led to expect by the puff and hype of earlier in the year.

Mike Bishop

[Ebusitanus]

I find it hard to believe that these "spin doctors" would be able to convince their lectors of a conquest that had already happened. I mean, no matter how uninformed readers were back in the days I doubt some Emperor could get away with suddenly "claiming" to have conquered Gaul or Greece decades after it really happening. Lectors might be dumb, but not THAT much.
I would rather believe that these items in Britain only mean that there were transactions between the continent and the islands before the Romans went there to take over the place. Besides that I would not be surprised if trade stations were in existance before Claudius arrived with the troops. Trade stations that might have had military items to sell.

Who knows but I would say the simplest explanation is better than setting up this story about Spin doctors fooling everyone in the Empire.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
the problem with history, especially in Britain, is that there was no written language in use, or very little evidence of any.
So basically, whatever the Romans put into writing became the 'evidence' of the invasion.
Would the Britons have actually been aware of these claims of 'invasion' if it was simply for 'the records' and Cladius received profit or glory from it.
It is possible that the Romans carried out a Saxon style infiltration, maybe with vetrans who decided to settle here. Then sent the 'heavies' in later.
regards
Arthes

[Praefectusclassis]

AFAIK (but I should ask them again soon), the archaeologists from Nijmegen U have found from digs in the west of the country that Caligula was actually making serious preparations for an invasion of Britain. Other priorities made him change his mind. Claudius of course capitalized upon plans already made.

[Robert Vermaat]

the problem with history, especially in Britain, is that there was no written language in use, or very little evidence of any.
So basically, whatever the Romans put into writing became the 'evidence' of the invasion.

That's not just the problem of Britain, but of almost every culture/region that the Romans invaded.

It is possible that the Romans carried out a Saxon style infiltration, maybe with vetrans who decided to settle here. Then sent the 'heavies' in later.

Did the Romans ever conquer a region in that way, by first sending in settlers? I have great doubts that this was the way it was done. More likely, the Romans got one or more 'clients' on their side, whose kingdoms could be used as bridgeheads. Romans may very well have been present in those kingdoms, but more like traders I think.

This is essentially the whole 'Roman Ireland' discussion all over again. Did the Romans inavde Ireland or rule (parts of) it, even if no source recounts either? Although I think that the current consensus is that Roman artefacts in Ireland do not represent any form of Roman settlement or overlordship of the Island, and that the so-called 'fort' was probably no more than a trading post.