
- The Roman City of London Was Founded ca 50-60 CE - Fremantleboy
Along the banks of the Thames just north of London Bridge, six meters below the current street level, lie the oldest remains of infant London.
The city has changed through its two millennia of occupation, but some things have not. There are still houses in these oldest parts of London that were built on the walls and foundations of two millennia ago. Their dimensions are the same today as they have always been. And just as she was then, London is today a bustling international metropolis.
As natural as she seems now, however, London is not evolve naturally from humble origins in the most natural place of occupation. She was thrust quite suddenly onto the Romano-British scene, but she took well to the spotlight and has appeared natural, for most part, ever since
London Before Roman Britain
Before there were Romans in London, there was also little else. Though many 17th to 19th century antiquarians have tried to see an ancient Celtic sacred landscape in their contemporary London, the sad fact remains that no archaeological evidence has indicated any settlement prior to the Roman invasion of Britain.
The only thing pre-Roman about London seems to be her name. Though no etymology has been universally accepted, most seem to think the word is either Celtic or even earlier. The most recent theory involves a reconstructed pre-Celtic word, *Plowonidonjon, translating roughly to boat river or flowing river.
Early London History: A Roman Military Encampment
The Romans arrived in Britain in the year of 43 CE and, like most foreign invaders, they were not met with open arms. The Trinovantes tribe put up a fight and the Romans pursued them through the neighbouring Catuvellauni territory, later home to the city of London, as the Trinovantes retreated to their capital Colchester.
Before the Roman army could enter Colchester, however, they had to sit tight and wait for the Roman emperor, Claudius, to travel from Rome to England to participate.
In the meantime, they set up an encampment and maybe even built a bridge across the Thames. The most likely place for such a bridge, geographically and geologically, would have been Westminster. A very early Roman road leading to Westminster suggests that the waiting Romans did indeed choose the most logical place. The encampment itself would have been close by.
Roman London not a Military Site
Early London did not evolve out of this military encampment. Indeed, within the boundaries of Roman London not a single military object has been found. Nor have there been any finds to indicate a continuous settlement from the invasion in 43 CE.
When Emperor Claudius arrived, it would seem that the Roman army moved on. When London finally was founded, it was for other reasons entirely.
Why Found a Roman City at London?
A few years after the Claudian invasion of Britain, a strong Roman military presence in south east England was no longer a priority. But leaving the south east with a power vacuum would no doubt have had catastrophic results – at least from a Roman perspective. A Roman presence was necessary to govern and administer.
Even before there were Romans in London, there was a Celtic road running near or through it with a ferry, rather than a bridge, at Southwark or London Bridge. It had been abandoned for some years, but it was a decidedly good spot to found a city. A city here would control north and southward movement across the Thames, and, just as importantly, would allow merchants and their goods to thrive thanks to the availability of a deep-water port.
And so, they chose a site and laid out the first street of London, a nine meter (30 feet) wide main street now six meters below modern Lombard and Fenchurch Street.
Sources
Marsden, P., Roman London, London 1980.
Merrifield, R., Roman London, London 1969.
Milne, G., Book of Roman London: Urban Archaeology in the Nation's Capital, London 1995.
Morris, J., Londinium: London in the Roman Empire, London 1982.
