06-14-2016, 10:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-14-2016, 11:17 AM by Nathan Ross.)
(06-14-2016, 08:11 AM)John1 Wrote: the case for the revolt in 60 AD rather than 61AD
Thanks! I'd missed that detail in the article.
I'm not sure how they draw their conclusion though.
"...the information implies that London, which had been destroyed by Boudica, was up and running again as a city by October, 62 AD..." - It surely wouldn't take more than a few months to get a major trading settlement like London, mainly constructed of timber-framed buildings, 'up and running' again. This document dates to more than a year after the traditional date of the destruction.
In fact, if provisions were still being brought from St Albans, it would suggest a later date for the revolt, rather than an earlier one!
(06-13-2016, 03:08 PM)John1 Wrote: Ribemont sur Ancre... I can't imagine battlefield memorials have only entered human culture in the last few hundred years.
Surely not, as we see them at Tropaeum Traiani and Actium.
But in this case the site wasn't on Iceni territory, and the Romans had control afterwards - so would the Roman authorities want to commemorate the site? Or the local people? If so, how?
Thanks for the note about Ribemont, which I've never heard of before. Very odd and rather morbid, with all the corpses standing up like that!
Nathan Ross