h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Gnomon

Point well taken I missed the house style my fault

Thanks for taking the time please review and comment I hope I did not miss anything...

Bob...

Hi Bob,

Great subject to choose. There are still a few grammatical errors, but others are far more qualified than I to advise on these.

My personal feeling relates to readability. At the moment there are so many facts and figures it has become confusing.

For instance,

<>

Could that be clearer written as:

"The precise landing point is unclear with possible sites being Richborough, Chichester or near Southampton."

The Roman names could be included as footnotes.

I think telling the story in chronological order is important. The great quote from Caractacus should be placed near the end of the Entry IMO. (Incidentally, there was a track record of quotes such as these being recorded. They were usually made up, forming part of the propaganda perpetrated by those in the Senate who yearned for a return to the Republic destroyed by Caesar. Nowadays, they'd probably be in the Respect party )

Would it be an idea to explore why and how four legions conquered an estimated four million?

For a suggested structure, how about -

1) Political scene at the time (new emperor, seen by many as weak and a little effete seeking an easy conquest)

2) The legions involved, their experience and the tactics they used.

3) The opposition, their organisation and tactics.

The scene is now nicely set for an analysis of the invasion itself. Cover the landing and the major battles, emphasising the mobility of the legions (for instance, the legions were fighting in Wales when Boudica staged her uprising and they had to march quickly to take her on).

As it stands, the piece is an invaluable touchstone for quick reference. However, you venture into descriptive text at times which makes me think you want it to be more than that.

Hi Bob, interesting to see another entry on the Romans!

Again, I have a load of entries on this you can link to (there's a bit about this very invasion in my "The Romans in Britain: A Brief History" entry).

I have to say though, I felt that it didn't really flow. Could you do a few paragraphs at the beginning detailing the progress of the invasion, and we'll see how that works?

In fact, never mind that, SWL's structure is better.

Here's the Brief History entry: A3383868

Links to some of my other Roman entries are in there.

The way it looks like going it might turn into a uni entry

Might be easier to re-enact it and keep a diary

You call this "The 2nd Roman Invasion of Britain" and in the first line you have a footnote explaining how it is the 3rd Invasion. But even if you call it "The 3rd Roman Invasion of Britain", it is still going to be odd, as it is the main invasion that people think of, the one where the Romans conquered Britain. The other two were really only attempted invasions. I think you should call the entry:

The Roman Invasion of Britain

and be done with it. Then you can explain in the first paragraph that although there were two previous attempts in 55 and 54 BC, they failed. Go on to say that in this invasion, the Romans conquered all of Great Britain except for the north of Scotland.

You're going to need something about the actual invasion and how it progressed, rather than giving details of the legions and where they were stationed.

Hi Gnomon
Agreed have a look at the last bit the campaign in calidonia and see if that is closer to what you had in mind.

I haven't looked at the detailed campaigns yet, I'm just looking at the introduction section, which is everything up to the first header. You need to say in this section that the Roman invasion acheived its aim, conquering virtually the all of present England and Wales and some of present Scotland within about 40 years.

The introduction should be a summary, so you shouldn't introduce too much trivial detail. The section about co-operation from the inhabitants should either be removed or expanded and should be at the end of the Introduction.

Bob? Whatsupwithis?

I have no prior knowledge of the topic whatsoever.

I find the writing style comfortable, reasonable to read, follow and understand.

It is a good, solid start. Obviously a considerable labour and worth it.

This part confuses me:
Gnaeus Julius Agricola was commanded to take the legion along the western coast of Britain and over the Pennines. This action was taken with Legion XX Valeria who shadowed Legion XX The Valeria Victrix, moving north through the vale of York.

As far as I can make out there existed only a single Legion XX.

Just a tiny quick one:


'And can you who have got such possessions and so many of them, covet our poor tents'?

Should the ' and ? be the other way round, i.e. '...tents?'- presuming that the ? is part of the original quote.

I'll have a further look through later.

Good article though. Reads well.