"Tube-style" map of Roman roads

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Swampster]

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.

[Tim]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Tim]

I did not know Waltham Abbey had more horse poo than London...

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

just to (re)ask the daft question then.....why was Londoninium chosen by the Romans...chance or clearly defined pathway?

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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?

By 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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Erpingham]

but 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?