Is this link dead for my computer only?<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
<br>
Martin <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 3,458
Threads: 839
Joined: Feb 2001
Reputation:
19
What is BM? And, the link is an article in the Reg tabloid, so I think you mean this book?<br>
<br>
Ad 43 : The Roman Invasion of England<br>
by John Manley<br>
This item will be published in June 2002<br>
Tempus Pub Ltd; ISBN: 0752419595; (June 2002) <p>Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/
ICQ 940236
</p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
BM - British Museum. And yeah, that book is on sale there. <p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>
Posts: 2,237
Threads: 275
Joined: Feb 2001
Reputation:
33
The link at the Register (I thought *everybody* read the Register...) was to reports of Amazon charging ridiculous amounts for postage of books.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
Blogging,
tweeting, and
mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Posts: 3,458
Threads: 839
Joined: Feb 2001
Reputation:
19
I just thought it was a new British VAT tax. I do read the Reg daily too, both editions. <p>Richard Campbell, Legio XX.
http://www.geocities.com/richsc53/studies/
ICQ 940236
</p><i></i>
Richard Campbell
Legio XX - Alexandria, Virginia
RAT member #6?
Posts: 2,237
Threads: 275
Joined: Feb 2001
Reputation:
33
And the dud link? If you copy a URL and put a bracket immediately after it, ezboard includes the bracket (thus making a dud link). I thought brackets weren't allowed in cgi - oh well, at least I know what not to do in future. The new VAT is what we're going to have to pay on things we buy from America (like my spiffy /. fleece), all thanks to the EC byzantinocrats.<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles
Blogging,
tweeting, and
mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Posts: 48
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2002
Reputation:
0
Dud links and computer errors aside, what do you think of the thesis? I picked my copy up last month at Housesteads... I have only had time to skim it, tho' I have read his conclusions, as well as the S. Frere article in last year's Britannia.<br>
<br>
I can see some merit, and some fault, in both... Frere too readily dismisses the archaeological finds in Sussex since they don't fit his model. Manley has explained the geography around Rutupiae well enough, but does not appear to have explained the "strategic geography" of coming "up" from Sussex vice "in" from Kent... But to be fair, I do need to read the full work to compare properly with Frere.<br>
<br>
BTW, speaking of geography. Does anyone know of a good source that explains British geography in the Imperial period? I'm thinking about the Fens and the Wash, and just how "wet" they were in the period 55 BCE to 600 CE... I recently visited the "Iceni Village" in Norfolk, and they had a set of maps that for practical purposes showed the Fens as "sea." This would explain sites in Norfolk today that "border" the Fens that etymologically (is that a word? ) come down to us as "so & so's beach" or "landing place" but are 40-some-odd miles inland... unless the Fens were open to the sea and highly tidal during the Angles' invasion...<br>
<br>
<p>==========================================<BR>
"If there's one thing we don't want to see, it's Americans fighting Americans. I won't stand for it, not here, not anywhere." Sergeant Frank Tree, 10th Armored Division, Saturday, 13 December 1941... a little after 0701 hrs... somewhere near Santa Monica, Calif.</p><i></i>
Duane C. Young, M.A.
I thought what was interesting is that Manley appears to change his views during the course of the book-- and more or less says so.<br>
<br>
A useful and interesting read I thought.<br>
The Kent and Sussex conferences, articles -re43AD are online <p><img src="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.martin/AUXILIA/icon.gif" width="46" height="65" align="right">
</p><i></i>