In article , John Rowland
writes

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

An interesting read, but I'm not quite convinced about the point of
intersection. Using the 1:50,000 map of East London, the line of
Watling Street from Kent seems to just touch the bank of the Thames at
Greenwich, rather than cross the river as shown on the map on John's
page. Maybe a slight deviation would have been needed, as the river
bank would have been a bit marshy, I'd imagine. Continuing on the same
straight line takes us to the Thames just south of the present
Westminster Bridge, perhaps not far from the horse ferry, after which
Horseferry Road was named.

I found it a bit harder to trace the line of Watling Street south from
Marble Arch, as the road curves somewhat in the stretch south from
Edgware leaving several possible alignments, but the most likely
projection would take it to the Thames just north of the Tate Gallery,
i.e. some way upstream from the other projection line. These two lines
do, indeed, seem to intersect pretty close to Buckingham Palace.
Perhaps there was some more curvature in this stretch of the Roman road,
but it's hard to guess how much, and therefore exactly where the river
crossing might have been. How far back does the horse ferry go back, I
wonder?

--
Clive Page

"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

"Clive Page" wrote in message
news
In article , John Rowland
writes

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

Using the 1:50,000 map of East London, the line of
Watling Street from Kent seems to just touch the
bank of the Thames at Greenwich, rather than
cross the river as shown on the map on John's page.

I hope everyone realises that the John who wrote the page is not me and
probably doesn't read this group.

Maybe a slight deviation would have been needed,
as the river bank would have been a bit marshy, I'd imagine.

My first thought when looking at the Deptford part of the map map was that
the Thames had probably moved a bit since Roman times. It is normal for the
outside of loops to be eroded, and deposition to occur on the inner curve -
that's how the Greenwch loop was formed in the first place.

Continuing on the same
straight line takes us to the Thames just south
of the present Westminster Bridge, perhaps
not far from the horse ferry, after which
Horseferry Road was named.

I found it a bit harder to trace the line of Watling
Street south from Marble Arch, as the road
curves somewhat in the stretch south from
Edgware leaving several possible alignments,
but the most likely projection would take it to
the Thames just north of the Tate Gallery,
i.e. some way upstream from the other projection line.

I wonder if a map showing the location of other rivers and islands in the
area might explain why a ferry would go from the Tate Gallery area to the
Waterloo area.

Perhaps there was some more curvature in this stretch
of the Roman road, but it's hard to guess how much,

Why guess, when you can go dip-spotting? ;-)

--
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

"Tony Wilson" wrote in message ...
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.

Time Team also excavated a part of Greenwich Park, and found traces of
Watling Street along its proposed "straight" alignment there. The
programme's repeated fairly frequently on the Discovery Channel and is
worth looking out for.

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

An interesting read, but I'm not quite convinced about the point of
intersection. Using the 1:50,000 map of East London, the line of
Watling Street from Kent seems to just touch the bank of the Thames at
Greenwich, rather than cross the river as shown on the map on John's
page. Maybe a slight deviation would have been needed, as the river
bank would have been a bit marshy, I'd imagine. Continuing on the same
straight line takes us to the Thames just south of the present
Westminster Bridge, perhaps not far from the horse ferry, after which
Horseferry Road was named.

Well I've just drawn a straight line on Memory-Map, and it just touches the
bank of the Thames at Greenwich, like you say, and if you follow a straight
line from Shooter's Hill Road (I actually started the line from Crook Log in
Bexleyheath), along Old Dover Road, through Greenwich Park and beyond, it
actually ends up at the Northern Roundabout (junction of A40 Westway and the
A3220).

So maybe the Romans had a bit of foresight, and the original route of
Watling St went up to join the Westway, and then all the traffic could head
up the A40/M40/M42/M6/M54 to get up to Holyhead, which means all the
queueing coming out of town up to Savoy Circus on the A40, and around
Birmingham on the M6, was caused by the Romans, and they just built the rest
of the A5 for a laugh :-)

Peter

"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.

"John Rowland" wrote in message ...

Perhaps there was some more curvature in this stretch
of the Roman road, but it's hard to guess how much,

Why guess, when you can go dip-spotting? ;-)

Interesting thread, although it seems just a little too neat & tidy to
me - some of those photos on the site don't show obvious dips and one
(Brick Street) doesn't show a dip at all - just a very sharp brow of
the hill (or the side of an embankment). I wonder if exploring a
number of London streets linked only by a random line of an equal
length would not reveal subsidence in an similar number of locations?
I'm not saying the theory is wrong - just a healthy dose of
scepticism, to prove it would probably need excavation of a fair
number of these sites.

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.