0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The dry conditions revealed a wealth of detail within the (Roman) fort, with ditches and pits showing as dark green. The road through the fort shows as a broad, pale strip flanked by the finer lines of buildings and alleyways.
I feel we have little if any true idea of the Romans. In 47 AD the Roman city of Londinium was founded after the successful invasion under Claudius in 43 AD. Even comparing the modern invasion of Iraq and the build up in certain Iraqi cities with the influx of commerce, historians still cling to the idea London was established by the civitas.
That is just crazy. Facts tell them, troop commander, Aulus Plautius pushed his men up from their landing place in Kent towards Colchester, the Celt Baghdad. The Roman advance was halted by the river Thames and Plautius needed to build a bridge to get his men across. Oddly enough, that bridge has been excavated recently and found to be only yards from the modern London Bridge. Kinda reminds me of the only part of New Orleans to escape the levee failure, the oldest part, the French Quarter for those of you who feel ancient equates with stupid.
That Roman bridge proved a convenient central point for the new network of roads which soon spread out like a fan from the crossing place and allowed troop deployment. The Roman settlement on the north side of the bridge was named Londinium and became the green zone for goods brought on ships on the river to supply the army. An army that was miles and miles away from Rome in a time long before any kind of instant communication.How can 'historians' now call this a civilian town? How can historians correct documents in situ or even 2000 years of other historians whose work contradict these 'corrections?' Modern education nauseates.
If they did have those stores, Leonardo da Vinci would have made his helicopter.
This is pretty darn neat:
