romans

[moranclan]

I have a question for my homework can anyone help? "how far did the romans come to invade Britain?"

[dot.hawkes]

well if Julius caesar set out from his place in Rome, he would have gone 829.20 miles or 1334.43 Kilometers, depending how straight the roads were, which, if he built them, would be very straight, they landed in Deal in Kent.

[shaneystar2]

His troops were already stationed in Portus Itius (today's Boulogne) as he was already in charge as governor in Gaul.. So he just had to cross the channel really ..a distance of about 20 miles . He didn't actually march out from Rome to invade us .

[fredpuli47]

Except that Julius Caesar didn't conquer Britain ! He turned up twice (54 and 53 BC )but left. The Emperor Claudius was responsible for the conquest. His forces arrived and conquered from 43 BC. But they didn't have to travel far,just the width of the Channel, landing at Richborough (Kent), in that the Romans already ruled what is now France (Gaul), though the army did include units that came from farther afield than northern Gaul.

[jno]

Claudius didn't do that much himself, turning up after the initial fighting, along with some elephants (he captured Colchester with them, I think). After a few weeks he went back to Rome for a triumphal parade. So he basically went all the way from Rome to Colchester; I wonder which town he preferred?

[Octavius]

Are we talking about the Invasion in 55BC and 54BC or the Invasion and Conquest in 43AD?

Although Julius Caesar wintered in Sequani (modern Lyon) many of his Gallic and Germanic campaigns were undertook in Summer and so it is likely he would have been elsewhere at the time. In 55BC, he sent a tribune, to scout the British coast in a single warship. He probably examined the Kent coast between Hythe and Sandwich, but was unable to land, since he "did not dare leave his ship and entrust himself to the barbarians", and after five days returned to give Caesar what intelligence he had managed to gather.

Following this Caesar gathered a large fleet at Portius Illius (Boulogne). Initially he tried to land at Dubris (Dover). However, when he came in sight of shore, the massed forces of the Britons gathered on the overlooking cliffs dissuaded him from landing, since the cliffs were "so close to the shore that javelins could be thrown down from" them onto anyone landing there. After waiting there at anchor "until the 9th hour" and convening a council of war, he ordered his subordinates to act on their own initiative and then sailed the fleet about seven miles along the coast to an open beach. In the absence of archaeological evidence at the landing point, this beach was most probably at Walmer. It was thought in the 19th century to be near Deal Castle - hence a house there named SPQR - but is now thought to be half a mile further south, where it is now marked by a concrete memorial.

In the latter, the Roman Army sailed from Boulogne in France across the English Channel and landed at Richborough in Kent. The British tribes met the Romans in a fiercely fought battle at the River Medway. After much bloodshed the Romans emerged victorious and 4 Legions went on to conquer all of England, much of Wales and parts of Scotland.

So generally speaking it could be 18 miles or 25 miles, or for a full invasion and conquest,

[Octavius]

blinking AB,

....several hundred miles over land and sea.

[Lil O'lady]

People, people!
'Conquering Britain' was not done by landing on the south coast of what later became England and planting a standard, whether that was by Julius Caesar or by the troops sent by Claudius.
Over the course of almost a century Roman miltary occupation moved gradually from SE to NW across the mainland, sometimes welcomed in as when Cartimandua of the Brigantes tribe got rid of an awkward husband by making alliance with the Romans (must have been something he said). Other times the Romans suffered setbacks as in the Boudicca revolt. They penetrated as far as the Firth of Forth in Scotland (the 'Antonine Wall') but by the end of the first century AD the northern limit of the Roman territory in mainland Britain was settled along the line of what we now call Hadrian's Wall, stretching from west to east across the country.
Even at the time of the Julian landings 'Romans' comprised a multiplicity of people who came from all over mainland Europe and north africa. Some invaders may have been recruited in northern France an so did not have very far to travel at all.

[MustafaTickl]

Boadicea had wheels.

[jno]

the question was invade, not conquer, Lil. Modern Britain wasn't conquered at all; they didn't conquer Scotland, and why would they want to?

[dundurn]

There was no national boundary which would have allowed the Romans (or anyone else) to distinguish England from Scotland. The Scots were still in Ireland when the Romans were in Britain - it was the Picts who faced the Legions. Many of the tribes (such as the Brigantes) were closely related to tribes in the South of the island. To categorize the Northern tribes as somehow braver or more difficult to conquer than those further South is a major error. The North of Britannia escaped the worst and the best of Roman civilisation because of awkward terrain, extended supply routes and the realisation by the Romans that there was nothing much there that they wanted. As to stopping at Antonine's Wall tell that to Agricola; he had major successes well North of there. There is still a theory that the Grampians are named after his biggest victory at Mons Graupius (location conjectured but still uncertain).

[jno]

fair enough, dundurn, but to put it more precisely: they didn't conquer all of what we now call Scotland, so they didn't conquer all of what we now know as Britain. But as I said, why would they want to? No offence intended, but there weren't enough people, or enough rich land, to make it worth the effort. A wall to keep unwanted attackers out would have been all they needed.

[Octavius]

Originally my answer said 'is there more to this question' because it seemed a bit vague. After chopping it about a bit to achieve the word limit, it stilll managed to leave some out.

Of course whilst historically correct, I think that saying what we now know as England, Wales and Scotland etc is far more productive than being pedantic about tribal regions - unless of course the Q specifically asks for it.