MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
All Roman Roads Lead to Rome (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Terry Jones recently did a BBC series on Barbarians, which started with "The Primitive Celts".

In making the point that unlike roads in Italy all leading to Rome -- I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be literally or metaphorically true -- the Celts or Gauls had no overall capital or supreme seat of power, a network of straight roads was shown unfolding all over Europe.

It should have been big news but passed by with hardly a mention that the so-called Roman roads all over the place were not Roman.

It should have been big news but passed by with no mention at all that most of the roads in Britain DO radiate around London. But London is not supposed to have existed before the Romans founded it.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Note that our Terry visited the major Gaulish forts at Alesia and Bibracte to tell us that the extensive excavations there show the whole place covered in bog standard Roman basilicas, bath houses and the rest.

It was taken for granted that the Celtic layers were immediately underneath, where no trace of their wooden structures remain. But then, post holes are rather hard to eradicate. The idea -- and the consequences -- of the Celts' stone buildings {why wouldn't they have them?} being easy to demolish and rebuild and therefore completely obliterate didn't seem to have been considered.
---
Note also that as an example of advanced Celtic engineering belying their reputation as barbarians we were shown a damn great wooden roadway over an Irish bog. With a near twin in northern Germany, these are the most substantial wooden structures surviving from the ancient world... or in Europe... or from that period... or something like that.

Dating to the late BCs, this would appear to agree with my view that a) northern Germany and Denmark (Northern Megalithia) were Celtic and b) the Saxons probably ousted the Celts from inland northwards. I guess we don't hear much about the northern lot -- and they are generally not reckoned into Celticdom by the authorities -- because Julius Caesar didn't or didn't have to beat 'em up.

Of course, Caesar enlisted local talent to build his British invasion fleet, which I have presumed to be North Sea/Baltic types, "Vikings" or Saxons" for short. Unless the remaining northern Celts were by then too far away and isolated, there's a chance that the local sea-faring knowledge was Celtic. (If so, presumably either their allegiance to the Celts of the British Isles was weaker than the pay cheque... or the Celts were no longer in charge of the England Caesar was fixing to invade.)
---
Perhaps it's more than a chance: the masters of the English Channel were the Saxons... but they don't appear on the scene until the ADs. Ptolemy mentions them, but not before a hundred-and-odd AD. Carausias has some dealings with them in the 3rd century and the position of Count of the Saxon Shore comes about in the 4th century. The trackway was built in Germany at much the same time as the Gundestrup Cauldron was about in Jutland. Yeah, I reckon the Celts were still a force to be reckoned with at that end of the North Sea in Julius Caesar's day.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
Of course, Caesar enlisted local talent to build his British invasion fleet, which I have presumed to be North Sea/Baltic types, "Vikings" or Saxons" for short. .

Which brings me to my pet hypothesis.

What we call the Saxon invasion was the Roman invasion. Both happened at the same time. The Saxons were nothing more than Roman mercenaries. They ran the place on behalf of the empire.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Saxons being Roman auxilia would explain the presence of the Thames Valley Saxons.
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

TelMiles wrote:
The Saxons being Roman auxilia would explain the presence of the Thames Valley Saxons.

That's very interesting, because I know less than nothing about all of this stuff. I'm just an idea box -- unadulterated by knowledge of any significant value.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yea, Ishmael, as the Anglo-Saxons moved eastwards and northwards from Wessex, they found more Saxons already in the Thames Valley area, and they are reported as having been there for a long time. If my memory doesn't fail me, they were known as the Gewissae, or something very similar.
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

as the Anglo-Saxons moved eastwards and northwards from Wessex, they found more Saxons already in the Thames Valley area, and they are reported as having been there for a long time.

But if the place was already replete with Saxons running the show, why were they then moving eastwards and northwards? And if anyone did move eastwards and northwards, why did they find other Saxons only in the Thames valley?

On the other hand, if the Saxon Shore was the Saxon Zone or Saxon Franchise, then when they moved to take over the whole place after the Romans left, they would certainly come across whoever had already made their way up the one and only inland extension of the east coast.

---

Glad you're here, Tel: never heard of this before.

Needless to say, the Wikipedia stub says the poor dears were confused...
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Gewissae seem to be a quite important settlement of Saxons as the story goes that they married into the ruling line of Wessex or that even their leader became the co-leader (Cuthwulf) of the West Saxons, along with Ceawlin. Orthodoxy repeats this story but offers only rambling reasons as to why there are Saxons in the Thames valley at such an early age. The simple answer is, I believe, as is being said here, that they were Roman Auxilia, allowed to settle the land, and when the Romans left, the Saxons saw their chance and took over.

DPCrisp wrote:
Glad you're here, Tel: never heard of this before.

High praise indeed, thank you very much
Send private message Send e-mail
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How's this for what happened?

The Celts hold sway over most of Britain...the Romans turn up and drive the Celts westwards...The Romans bring large numbers of Saxon auxilia...They allow them to settle once the Celts are pacified...They settle particularly in East Anglia and other isolated pockets, Bernicia, Thames Valley...The Romans leave and a power vacuum ensues, the Saxons then fight the Celts for control and the Saxons win. Thus, the Saxon "invasion" of the late 5th century didn't happen in the way orthodoxy said it did.

What do you think?
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

TelMiles wrote:
What do you think?

I like anything that's new.

As for Me....What I'm looking to do is truncate history -- because I strongly suspect the Dark Ages were contemporary with whatever history it is that we think of as "Roman" history.

So I put the Saxon and Roman invasion as one invasion. Everything the Saxons did, they did in the employ of Rome. Perhaps at first their forces were supplemented with Legions and later, were left alone on the island to do as they wished. I don't know. But the Roman Villas were contemporary with the Saxon Hill forts -- in my purely hypothetical version of things.

The Romans left only when the Normans arrived. And that shortens up the time line quite nicely.

Hmmm....that's odd....Norman...Roman....N'roman? No Roman? New Roman? Is Normandy, New Roma-ndy?

I know I know. I'm ignorant and crazy.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I see what you are saying Ishmael, and your theory may find support from the Roman Catholic Church and St Augustine himself! His behaviour upon arriving in Britain is most odd, at first he "converts" the Anglo-Saxons, but then goes over to the "Britons" (who have been Christians for donkey's years) and threatens them with "Saxon retribution" when they don't agree to go over to the Roman Church way of doing things. Odd, Church man using essentially Pagans (as many of them still were) against fellow Christians? Augustine was sent by Rome...with the brief to use the Saxon Auxilia against the Britons? Could be.
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

TelMiles wrote:
I see what you are saying Ishmael, and your theory may find support from the Roman Catholic Church and St Augustine himself!

And what if I told you that Britain was "Christian" before Italy was Christian? Impossible? Of course it is. So I won't tell you that.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

With history, I am personally on a quest for truth (or as close as I can get to it) so I'm always ready to hear new theories and stuff (curious how many times on this self-appointed "Truth-Quest" I have come up against orthodoxy). I'm very interested in your Britain was Christian first theory, I don't think it is impossible, I have just never heard of it before, so enlighten me!
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

the Wikipedia stub says the poor dears were confused...

It's Bede again. I've seen him accused of "writing history backwards" and, if there's something in his Ecclesiastical History which historians find surprising, it becomes an "interpolation", "carefully and laboriously inserted", which is one way of explaining away oddities I suppose.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Always an easy "get out" that, Hatty. But we is wise to 'em.
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group