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

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

Except that the only bridge was London Bridge.

I thought the first bridge in London was at Vauxhall?

When the Romans arrived they headed first for London.

I doubt that, since they founded London.

--
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

In message , John Rowland
writes

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

Except that the only bridge was London Bridge.

I thought the first bridge in London was at Vauxhall?

You've been watching the Time Team
As I recall, the remains they found were more likely to have been a quay
or platform rather than an actual Thames crossing.

When the Romans arrived they headed first for London.

I doubt that, since they founded London.

They headed for what is now London because that was the first viable
crossing point of the Thames. Whether it was actually at Brentford,
Westminster (or even Vauxhall) nobody knows.

For anyone interested, there are some hypothesised aerial views of
London in Roman times at the Museum of London website:

http://tinyurl.com/tbiu

If accurate, they give a good idea of how difficult it would have been
to cross the marshy terrain immediately south of the river.
--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

They headed for what is now London because that was the first viable
crossing point of the Thames. Whether it was actually at Brentford,
Westminster (or even Vauxhall) nobody knows.

The first bridge was at Staines.

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:59:48 -0000, "Bondee"
wrote:


The first bridge was at Staines.


There was a crossing point at Brentford (a ford)

K typed


On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:59:48 -0000, "Bondee"
wrote:


The first bridge was at Staines.


There was a crossing point at Brentford (a ford)

The Brent *and* the Thames?

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...
K typed


On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:59:48 -0000, "Bondee"
wrote:


The first bridge was at Staines.


There was a crossing point at Brentford (a ford)

The Brent *and* the Thames?

Ah! My apologies. I don't know why I related "crossing" to "bridge". Not
thinking straight.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:46:10 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:



There was a crossing point at Brentford (a ford)

The Brent *and* the Thames?

Just the Thames, I think. I'm sure there is a plaque about it in
Brentford.

In article , Paul Terry
writes
When the Romans arrived they headed first for London.

Actually, they headed first for Brentwood, where they fought and
defeated the locals.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article , Clive D. W. Feather
writes
In article , Paul Terry |||news_04
writes
When the Romans arrived they headed first for London.

Actually, they headed first for Brentwood,

Who wouldn't? ;-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk