http://www.johnchaple.co.uk/romanroad.htm

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

http://www.johnchaple.co.uk/romanroad.htm

Interesting... I had thought the same too but never done the research.

If you look where it ends up on the map it's right by Buckingham Palace.
Which is also where Watling Street (A5) ends up if you extend it past Marble
Arch. Anyone know whether it's coincidence that these both meet at
Buckingham Palace, i.e. why Buckingham Palace was built where it is now?

Angus

http://www.johnchaple.co.uk/romanroad.htm

That is quite an interesting read though the suggestion that people
assume it was built to cross London Bridge is quite puzzling. Even
Wikipedia says it is pretty much accepted the route into the City via
London Bridge is not the original one and the 1903 document it links
to talks about it being likely to go to the Thorney Island area (just
west of Westminster Bridge) to use the well known ford there.

Perhaps the same technique should be tried out to find evidence for
the route of Ermine Street where it is lost through Edmonton.

In message , John Rowland
writes

http://www.johnchaple.co.uk/romanroad.htm

It is a little hard to see why the Romans - who did indeed usually, but
not invariably, build roads in straight lines - would have aligned their
principal road in England to miss their main river crossing (at London
Bridge) and totally avoid their principal city in England, merely in
order to traverse swampy marshland and cross the river at an almost
unknown location at Thorney island.

However, it has been suggested before (so "you read it first hear" seems
a bit implausible). Basing research on early 18th-century sources such
as Stukeley (long before any reliable historic method was established)
and tiny shifts in ground movement seems to me to be very hopeful - on
London clay you can expect such ground sinkage in less than a century,
let alone in almost two millenia.

--
Paul Terry

However, it has been suggested before (so "you read it first hear" seems
a bit implausible).

Very interesting, and you may have stumbled across some interesting evidence
of the past. However I'm afraid I have to agree about reading it here first.

A TV programme- probably Time Team, although if not something like it- dug
up part of the grounds of Lambeth Palace to try to find the ford over the
Thames which was the means by which Watling Street crossed to what's now
Westminster.

But anyway, if ths is real evidence of the route in urban parts of London
it's an endevour to be applauded.

However, it has been suggested before (so "you read it first hear" seems
a bit implausible).

Very interesting, and you may have stumbled across some interesting
evidence
of the past. However I'm afraid I have to agree about reading it here
first.

A TV programme- probably Time Team, although if not something like it- dug
up part of the grounds of Lambeth Palace to try to find the ford over the
Thames which was the means by which Watling Street crossed to what's now
Westminster.

But anyway, if ths is real evidence of the route in urban parts of London
it's an endevour to be applauded.

Indeed. And with people suggesting "why would they build their main route
away from the city of London" - well perhaps it was the first bypass!!!

Peter

"AstraVanMan" wrote in message
...
However, it has been suggested before (so "you read it first hear"
seems
a bit implausible).

Very interesting, and you may have stumbled across some interesting
evidence
of the past. However I'm afraid I have to agree about reading it here
first.

A TV programme- probably Time Team, although if not something like it-
dug
up part of the grounds of Lambeth Palace to try to find the ford over
the
Thames which was the means by which Watling Street crossed to what's now
Westminster.

But anyway, if ths is real evidence of the route in urban parts of
London
it's an endevour to be applauded.

Indeed. And with people suggesting "why would they build their main route
away from the city of London" - well perhaps it was the first bypass!!!

South-east Kent would still have been the easiest place for the Romans to
access the UK, and so a bypass round London to reach the main artery to the
milands and the north-west (Watling St A5) would seem to make sense. Also
it's a bit of a coincidence that *both* the A2 and A5 are called Watling
Street - the logical explanation is that they are the same road.

Angus

I'm not an expert, but I think that both the Watling St crossing at
Westminster, and the deviation in Greenwich are within mainstream
thinking. If Watling Street ignores London, maybe that means it was
built before London existed. I think there's a theory that the
general route of Watling St, at least N. of the Thames, might go back
to even before the Romans.

It might be a good time to look for signs on the ground. It's been
the best summer since the bronze age, so lots of new things might be
showing up - and might vanish again when the rain starts again.

It would probably be interesting to fly around in a plane along with
an expert archeologist.

Looking for Roman roads got unfashionable for a while. There was a
group of road hunters, who called themselves the "Viatores" who put
out a book called "Roman Roads in the SE Midlands", or some such.
It's centred about roughly St. Albans, but goes all the way down to
the Thames. I think it's generally reckoned that they were a bit
over enthusiastic, and found a few roads which didn't actually exist.

Also there's a new book out by somebody called Davies, who used to be
a road engineer at the Transportation Research Lab in Bracknell.
That's fairly near Silchester, which has a number of roman roads
converging on it, so when he retired he decided to study Roman roads
at Reading U, and ended up writing his book. He's got an article on
the web. Look at the latest British Archeology Magazine
www.britarch.ac.uk

Jeremy Parker

In message , Angus Bryant
writes

South-east Kent would still have been the easiest place for the Romans to
access the UK, and so a bypass round London to reach the main artery to the
milands and the north-west (Watling St A5) would seem to make sense.

Except that the only bridge was London Bridge. Crossing at Westminster
meant either getting very wet or loading everything onto a ferry.

Having said that, I think there is some evidence that the Westminster
route would have been used before the building of London Bridge, but the
latter is believed to have been built within 7 years of the Romans'
arrival, so it wouldn't have had a lot of use.

Also it's a bit of a coincidence that *both* the A2 and A5 are called
Watling Street - the logical explanation is that they are the same road.

Neither was named Watling Street until more than 800 years after either
had been built - it is an Anglo-Saxon name.

Almost the only contemporary source of information on Roman roads in
Britain is Antonine's Itinery, written some time after the network had
been finished. Most of the route from Wroxeter to Dover is described as
Iter II, suggesting that by then both parts of what is now Watling
Street were considered to be part of a continuous route (via what is now
the city of London).

However, I don't think it was built as such. When the Romans arrived
they headed first for London. Roads to other places doubtless followed
after various local tribes were subdued.

--
Paul Terry

"Angus Bryant" wrote in message
...
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

http://www.johnchaple.co.uk/romanroad.htm

Interesting... I had thought the same too but never done the research.

If you look where it ends up on the map it's right by Buckingham Palace.
Which is also where Watling Street (A5) ends up if you extend it past
Marble
Arch. Anyone know whether it's coincidence that these both meet at
Buckingham Palace, i.e. why Buckingham Palace was built where it is now?

First "it is at the point of a pentacle" posting wins a rubber chicken.

--
Brian
"You don't stop laughing because you grow old. You grow old because you stop
laughing."