Talk:Roman conquest of Britain

message: This page overlaps considerably with Roman Britain.
Perhaps they should be combined? (I posted a corresponding
comment on Talk:Roman Britain. Fpahl 16:27, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  overlapping page 

message: Churchill in History of the English Speaking Peoples, v1, says by 78AD, Brit legionaries were the equal of, or second only to, Illyrians in quality. Can anybody confirm & include?  Trekphiler 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are legionary

message: Hi Neddy, I'm stalking you again. Made an alteration to your edit about the Britons retiring to the Thames. Dio specifically mentions the name of the river - 60:20.5, Ταμέσαν in the Greek (don't know any Greek, so I don't know what case it's in). --Nicknack009 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thames

message: Seems strange to identify Noviomagum with Colchester in a discussion of south to north vs east to west invasion of Britain by Claudius. Would it not be more logical to identify Noviomagum with the present town of Nijmegen in The Netherlands (as is commonly acknowledged to be the root of its name), which was a Roman stronghold? This might also end the discussion as to Rhine harbours versus French ones.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.191.21.11 (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be strange, but fortunately the article doesn't do that. It is known that Chichester (not Colchester) was called Noviomagus (not Noviomagum). The fact that Nijmegen was called Noviomagum is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noviomagum 

message: When Rome conquered England, it (England) was a land of scattered tribes, but through the Roman creating the fortress and roads, civilized Engand. This created the foundations for the British empire. if england was not conquered, caould it have been strong enough to colonize the 13 colonies. if it was some other nation colonizing us, and we might not have rebelled from that nation, or we might have rebelled, and not won (England had 10s of thousands of soldier, but French had 100s of thousands)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.175.65 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is irrelevant to the purpose of this page, which is to improve the article, but Rome conquered most of Britain, there was no England, and after Roman rule collapsed so did the cities and fortresses.  I can see no relationship between the Roman conquest of Britain and colonising North America. Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  resulted in the creation of the U.S. 

message: :Hello. I was researching Agricola and his successors, but I could not find the the names of his replacement(s).  Could somebody please add their names instead of calling them his "ineffectual successors"?  Rsercher (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't add what isn't known, sorry. Tacitus is very detailed on the succession of governors of Britain up to Agricola, but we have nothing relevant from him after that. No other ancient historian takes quite such an interest in affairs in Britain, so what we have after that is patchy. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Agricola's Successors

message: The direct use of post-Roman geographical descriptions such as Scotland, England and several counties is, I would suggest, misleading.  I propose that where an equivalent geographic term that has contemporaneous validity such as "northern Britain", "Caledonia" or "southern Britain" is available it should used in preference to a term that only came into use in later centuries.  Where no such term is available or it would be imprecise then modern geographical terms might be used indirectly.  For example I am pretty sure that there was no such thing as Dumfriesshire or the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright during the first century AD.  Therefore it would be better to make the following change from:
:In southern-most Scotland, Dumfriesshire and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright (home to the Selgovae) were heavily planted with forts ...
To:
:In southern-most Caledonia, the lands of the the Selgovae (appoximating to modern Dumfriesshire and the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright) were heavily planted with forts ...
I will make a start on this but as a similar naming proposal has proved controversial (see Talk:Scotland during the Roman Empire) this might require some discussion. Greenshed (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of post-Roman geographical descriptions 

message: Were any of the Roman campaigns intended to secure tin metal deposits? 71.218.15.84 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not speculate on what might have been in the minds of Roman planners. Unless there are Roman sources saying they were after tin we leave it out.Charles (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean secondary sources. Roman sources would be primary sources, and on matters of history we defer to peer reviewed historians writing in academic journals or scholarly treatises. One of the issues is that the Romans involved might not have been entirely forthright about their motives in this case. But I personally have no desire to add anything in particular on the topic given that the secondary sources are so inconclusive. 71.218.15.84 (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tin deposits? 

message: 𝙒𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝘽𝙤𝙪𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙘𝙖? 171.101.109.29 (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Romans invade 

message: @Rjdeadly, you tagged a couple of refs (Shotter (2000), pp. 189-198, Shotter (2004), pp. 28–35) as citation-needed. Is it that they're too short and we have no further details of those works, or something else? If the former, it's easily fixed; we can go back to 2020 when you copied the material in – with WP:COPYWITHIN proper attribution, there's no problem there – from Roman Cumbria and they seem to be in that article still. But maybe there was a reason you didn't bring those details over then and maybe another reason you're tagging the refs now; is there? NebY (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @NebY OK thanks. I'd forgotten I'd done that, so I've corrected it. Rjdeadly (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good - thank you! NebY (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the other refs need sorting if someone can help. Rjdeadly (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some; more work remains. NebY (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations