https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/aug/07/london-centric-britain-blame-romans-roads-map-sasha-trubetskoy
We can blame the Romans for Londonocentrism, apparently.
I think I might go to Alauna this afternoon. It's only about 10 minutes down the road and I haven't been to the Roman centre they opened a while back.
All but the first few hundred yards will be on one of those roads, though it has more speed cameras than in the Roman days.
Given the average speed traffic moves I doubt it took the Roman Legions much longer to get from Londinium to Caesaromagus than it does on the A12 at rush hour...
Nice find Duncan.
The parallels are amusing :) working in.london on a regular basis I can ascribe to the speed of traffic flow although not much horse poo these days
Quote from: Holly on August 08, 2017, 09:45:56 AM
The parallels are amusing :) working in.london on a regular basis I can ascribe to the speed of traffic flow although not much horse poo these days
True: the Royal Gunpowder Mills have accordingly had to relocate to Waltham Abbey. ;)
I did not know Waltham Abbey had more horse poo than London...
Probably not, but it has fewer traffic jams, thus enabling the ingredients to be delivered in more timely fashion.
The article asks whether the UK's capital would currently be elsewhere than London had Roman surveyors started from existing trading ports. This raises the question of why London became a key nexus in the road network in the first place, and this may have more to do with the logistics of conquest (landing correctly at Thanet, etc.) than with potential pre-existing starting-points. Had there been any advantage in shipping invading legions directly to Poole or Southampton, Caesar and Claudius would doubtless have done so.
just to (re)ask the daft question then.....why was Londoninium chosen by the Romans...chance or clearly defined pathway?
Quote from: Holly on August 14, 2017, 07:10:26 AM
just to (re)ask the daft question then.....why was Londoninium chosen by the Romans...chance or clearly defined pathway?
London is sometimes described as the lowest (tidal) ford on the Thames, as well as being suitable for sea-going ships of the time. Routes would have led to the ford from north and south of the river. Anyway, this is what I remember from visiting the Museum of London :) Why it stayed the capital, other than its useful location, I await an explanation from the Romanists.
I am not sure Londinium ever was the capital during Roman times: that honour generally fell to Camulodunum (Camelot/Colchester), which has been a military town more or less since its inception. Londinium was never officially a city (municipa): it seems never to have had a curia, and hence would have lacked city status, although it may have been raised from a vicus to a colonia under Hadrian, which would have conferred Roman citizenship upon the inhabitants. It was however a most convenient place for merchants from the Empire to buy, sell and exchange goods and for Imperial administrators to tax them, and took on a life of its own. It may have become the de facto administrative capital, and was considered worthy of a wall when Septimius Severus was campaigning in Britannia.
Capital or no, it did however persist, and a combination of imperial logistics, trade with the Empire and its convenient location for administrators meant that if it had not existed, someone would have had to invent it. Once Diocletian separated the civil and military functions of the Empire (a key feature in its downfall once people started taking the division seriously) it seems to have become the de facto civil and administrative capital while Camulodunum (Colonia Claudia Victricensis) remained the military capital, although the military governor as often as not operated from Eboracum, which was in any case the capital of Britannia Inferior (merely a designation of position, not a judgement upon the capacity of the locals).
Londinium, like Camulodunum, existed at a point where its river was still navigable for all manner of ships (as of the Empire period), and hence was a key location for rapid movement of goods and supplies. The road network took these across the country with a minimum of hesitation, deviation or repetition and the non-municipa status may have allowed a few legal loopholes about getting rich there without having to join a curia. Since a municipa was assessed for taxation which had to be collected by the curia, who also had to make up any shortfall themselves, Londinium's apparently anomalous status may have been by design, or at least there may have been strong vested interests in not upgrading to a municipa.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
I am not sure Londinium ever was the capital during Roman times: that honour generally fell to Camulodunum (Camelot/Colchester),
there, that's better ;)
re Londinium becoming the capital....is that in reality a 'post Roman' thing?
Quote from: Holly on August 14, 2017, 09:17:13 AM
re Londinium becoming the capital....is that in reality a 'post Roman' thing?
It dates from Aethelstan's reign, following which London (
Lundenburh) was where the
Witanagemot chose kings and these kings made their decrees.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
I am not sure Londinium ever was the capital during Roman times: that honour generally fell to Camulodunum (Camelot/Colchester), which has been a military town more or less since its inception.
Originally rather than generally?
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LondiniumBy this time, Britain's provincial administration had also almost certainly been moved to Londinium from Camulodunum (Colchester in Essex). The precise date of this change is unknown and no surviving source explicitly states that Londinium was "the capital of Britain" but there are several strong indications of this status: 2nd-century roofing tiles have been found marked by the "Procurator" or "Publican of the Province of Britain at Londinium",[22] the remains of a governor's palace and tombstones belonging to the governor's staff have been discovered, and the city was well defended and armed, with a new military camp erected at the beginning of the 2nd century, despite being far from any frontier.[23] Despite some corruption to the text, the list of bishops for the 314 Council of Arles indicates that either Restitutus or Adelphius came from Londinium.[26] The city seems to have been the seat of the diocesan vicar and one of the provincial governors following the Diocletian Reforms around the year 300; it had been renamed Augusta—a common epithet of provincial capitals—by 368.
Quote from: http://www.ancient.eu/article/1041/New archaeological research is showing that London's elevated status stemmed partly from a Roman military and political reaction to Boadicea's violent destruction of London and other key cities in the mid 1st century AD. The investigation, carried out by Museum of London Archaeology (Mola), suggests that the Romans shifted the capital of their British province from Colchester to London shortly after her revolt.
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 14, 2017, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
I am not sure Londinium ever was the capital during Roman times: that honour generally fell to Camulodunum (Camelot/Colchester), which has been a military town more or less since its inception.
Originally rather than generally?
Perhaps. There is no clear evidence of Londinium ever being the formal capital, or at least none of which I am aware. There are plenty of hints that it occupied a position of significance in the administration of Britannia, but we may note that when Constantius Chlorus died and his son Constantine was proclaimed emperor, it was at Eboracum (York). Camulodunum however contains the largest theatre and only known chariot circus in Britannia, which suggests a degree of continuing importance.
Quotebut we may note that when Constantius Chlorus died and his son Constantine was proclaimed emperor, it was at Eboracum (York).
But wasn't this because Constantius Chlorus was campaigning in the North, rather than visiting the capital?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2017, 09:54:02 AM
Quote from: Duncan Head on August 14, 2017, 09:28:20 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on August 14, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
I am not sure Londinium ever was the capital during Roman times: that honour generally fell to Camulodunum (Camelot/Colchester), which has been a military town more or less since its inception.
Originally rather than generally?
Perhaps. There is no clear evidence of Londinium ever being the formal capital, or at least none of which I am aware. There are plenty of hints that it occupied a position of significance in the administration of Britannia, but we may note that when Constantius Chlorus died and his son Constantine was proclaimed emperor, it was at Eboracum (York). Camulodunum however contains the largest theatre and only known chariot circus in Britannia, which suggests a degree of continuing importance.
London probably had a circus as yet not found. Camulodunum's amphitheatre may have been found but not yet proven - the largest yet is in Chester. I wonder if London had more than one amphitheatre - the one under the Guildhall is within the city walls which is fairly unusual.
Camulodunum has the largest theatre _found_ in Britain - apparently there are only five and two of these are by Colchester.
York had its benefits for directing military operations - Septimius Severus also operated from there. C. Chlorus was overwintering there, probably intending to return further north but stayed in York once he was dying.
I suspect the port of London is the key thing. Sure, there was cross-channel traffic pre-invasion, but by using London the Romans could get sea traffic not just further north but also some way into the country and closer to the initial areas of operations. The legions then fan out from there, building the roads as they go.
The area around the port becomes more developed as it has the transport infrastructure - I suspect there was a good deal of riverine traffic too. After all, there are only a small number of rivers going into the heart of England and the Thames is the most convenient for Continental traffic.
In other words, the roads didn't lead to or from London. London grew because of the roads.
As trade declined with the retreat of empire, London also declined. As trade started to pick up, London became resettled, then suffered under Viking attack.
Winchester and the other A/S capitals were more politically important being both more secure (in theory) and more central. Of the four main kingdoms, the two inland capitals are both on Roman roads. Tamworth is also on the Tame, a major tributary of the Trent, allowing riverine trade within and beyond the kingdom. Had Ellendun gone the other way, perhaps Tamworth would have developed as capital of a united England. (Mercian hegemony would, of course, have made the country strong enough to drive out the Vikings before they could get established. All hail Mercia!)
so that combination of major waterway and early Roman road access gave London an edge in terms of its location although its preeminence wasnt possibly realised until late on....
Quote from: Holly on August 14, 2017, 02:04:47 PM
so that combination of major waterway and early Roman road access gave London an edge in terms of its location although its preeminence wasnt possibly realised until late on....
The power of economic geography strikes again.
I wonder how much of the size of London is down to its economic importance and how much due to political. The economic thing still applies now, even with the crazy building costs, with companies setting up there because that is where so many other businesses are. Is it a case of the economic importance creating the political importance which enhances the economic importance and so on?
Does the same thing apply to Paris? It has some advantages of the river, and it is also at centre of a road network. It grew large pretty early on but is that because Clovis had chosen it as capital or was it a geographical thing?
London and Paris are certainly far larger than the other OECD 'Large Urban Zones' both in their own countries and the other European LUZs. Italy on the other hand has three very equally sized LUZs around Milan, Rome and Naples. I suppose Rome has the benefit of being central but not much else. Germany also has little difference between Berlin and the Ruhr, with quite a few LUZs not much smaller. How much of this is due to economic geography and how much is due to centralising only happening from the late 19th century with Germany and Italy?
I think the economic draw for London was, as already mentioned, connectivity originally. We can forget in the modern age that London was even in my lifetime still a huge international port. Politics is important because the wealthy will be drawn to the seat of power, so a service economy supporting them will grow and you'll soon have a prosperous middle class, guilds, money-lending etc.
London centricity is a political/business 1-2 with the social.aspect following..ie you have to be seen to be in London to be anyone of importance
Quote from: Holly on August 14, 2017, 04:00:30 PM
London centricity is a political/business 1-2 with the social.aspect following..ie you have to be seen to be in London to be anyone of importance
I always knew there was a reason I'm unimportant :(
Talking of UK capitals, they are/were all ports. Co-incidence?
Quote from: Erpingham on August 14, 2017, 04:16:54 PM
Quote from: Holly on August 14, 2017, 04:00:30 PM
London centricity is a political/business 1-2 with the social.aspect following..ie you have to be seen to be in London to be anyone of importance
I always knew there was a reason I'm unimportant :(
Talking of UK capitals, they are/were all ports. Co-incidence?
Cardiff and Belfast were both chosen as capitals in the 20th century - Belfast since it is the major city. Cardiff almost by accident - it sounds like the secretary of state for Wales said more or less 'Oh, I suppose it might as well be Cardiff'. They didn't really expect that the capital would have much meaning with no devolved government at the time.
With Scotland, if a capital were chosen now and placed in a decent sized city then I guess it would be a port (historical or otherwise) simply because most of the cities in Scotland are by the sea. I presume the Tay was navigable enough for Perth (for Scone) to be a port, though I gather Scone was even less home to the Kings of the Scots than London was to the English kings.
I suppose most of the Atlantic and Scandinavian countries have port capitals. Of the once (and maybe future) countries in the Med, Catalonia/Aragon and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies had ports for capitals. Belgium's capital was chosen to try and keep Walloons and Flemings both happy. Russia tried a capital near port and went back to the old one. Poland didn't have access to the sea for much of the time when capitals became the thing to have. It is on a pretty big river, as are most of the remainder. There are - what -four? just on the Danube.
Quote from: Swampster on August 14, 2017, 03:18:12 PM
Italy on the other hand has three very equally sized LUZs around Milan, Rome and Naples. I suppose Rome has the benefit of being central but not much else. Germany also has little difference between Berlin and the Ruhr, with quite a few LUZs not much smaller. How much of this is due to economic geography and how much is due to centralising only happening from the late 19th century with Germany and Italy?
One suspects a lot of the latter, as Italy remained configured around Piedmont/Savoy, Rome (and the Papal States) and the Two Sicilies for longer than it has been a single country. Germany developed as an integrated whole from 1871 to 1945, and as a pair of rival nations (based on Bonn and Berlin respectively) from 1946 to 1991. I think politics easily trumped raw economics in these cases.