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

Entry: Dere Street - A Journey through Roman Britain - A25812443
Author: Bob Stafford. ACE ; - Keeper of The Treacle Shadow - Support the Beeblecasters @ A29805636 - U3151547

This the last of a set of entries please comment Happy Christmas everyone

Happy new year

Any ideas please

Any comments

Hello any one any ideas please

Hi Bob.. I'll have a look a this later

Not much to point out here ...just be careful with regards to speling

It's look fine to me, Bob.


One little typo:

>>Up to the 1850's Dere Street << = 1850s

(remove the apostrophe)

Thanks lil all done


any more comments please

Any more ideas

Constantius wasn't the founder of Constantinople. The founder of Constantinople was Constantine. Constantius was Constantine's father.

Thanks I will sort that

Introduction - you should say that this is a Roman Wall you are talking about in the introduction.

Eburacum -- wasn't York known as Eboracum with an "o"?

The name Eburacum has an alternate interpretation as the Land or estate of Ebros, this emplanes why in the history by Geoffrey of Monmouth the fouding king of York was Ebracus. -- in what way does it explain this? The names Ebros and Ebracus are not the same, are they?

Theatres and temples to the Gods including, -- this sentence fragment is cut off. It doesn't tell us anything.

Tribal City Tribal Civitas -- remove the duplication

a mansio -- please add a footnote explaiining mansio

"An unusual use of VIIII instead of the more formal IX." -- this is not an unusual use. It is the normal use. Romans never wrote IX for nine, nor did they ever write IV for four.

Caesar Gaius Messius and Caesar, our lord Gaius Messius -- the second pillar did not literally say "our lord". What did it say?

Contantius was not the son of Constantine the founder of Constantinople, he was the father of Constantine the Great, the founder of Constantinople.

G

Introduction - you should say that this is a Roman Wall you are talking about in the introduction. Done


Eburacum -- wasn't York known as Eboracum with an "o"? apparently not entirely

http://www.romanmap.com/htm/names/York.htm
The Roman Map of Britain Eburacum or Eboracum York, Yorkshire
Eburacum (R&C 137) next
Eborakon Legiwn V¢ NikhforoV  Eboracum (Ptolemy II 3 10)
Eburacum (AI 4661 Iter I)
Eburacum (AI 4684 Iter II)
Eburaco (AI 4757 Iter v)
Eburaco (AI 4786 Iter viii)
Sextae (ND xl3 illustration)
Praefectus legionis sextae (ND xl18 text)



The name Eburacum has an alternate interpretation as the Land or estate of Ebros, this emplanes why in the history by Geoffrey of Monmouth the fouding king of York was Ebracus. -- in what way does it explain this? The names Ebros and Ebracus are not the same, are they?

Very possably given the name of York was either Eburacum or Eboracum


Theatres and temples to the Gods including, -- this sentence fragment is cut off. It doesn't tell us anything. True This has been changed


Tribal City Tribal Civitas -- remove the duplication Removed


a mansio -- please add a footnote explaiining mansio Done


"An unusual use of VIIII instead of the more formal IX." -- this is not an unusual use. It is the normal use. Romans never wrote IX for nine, nor did they ever write IV for four. Removed … however it is not writing I was referring to it is easier to carve IX for nine check inscriptions for examples.


Caesar Gaius Messius and Caesar, our lord Gaius Messius -- the second pillar did not literally say "our lord". What did it say?
Acording to my referance
IMP CAES G MESSIVS
"Imperator Caesar Gaius Messius."
IMP CAES DO N G MESS
"Imperator Caesar, our lord Gaius Messius.

Do you have better information mine might be wrong



Contantius was not the son of Constantine the founder of Constantinople, he was the father of Constantine the Great, the founder of Constantinople. Done



Thanks for the interest and the effort

The Romans did not write IX. They did not carve IX. If they saw IX they would have been puzzled, and perhaps thought that you intended to write XI, 11, because IX was not the Roman for 9. The Roman for 9 was VIIII.

You put the two messages in italics, which means that they were direct quotes, and I doubt that the ROmans used English in their inscriptions.

The Romans did not write IX. They did not carve IX. If they saw IX they would have been puzzled, and perhaps thought that you intended to write XI, 11, because IX was not the Roman for 9. The Roman for 9 was VIIII.

Ok Its out now anyway

You put the two messages in italics, which means that they were direct quotes, and I doubt that the ROmans used English in their inscriptions.

I will remove the italics Any more points the input is very helpful by the way

Any more comments please

Have I done everything ....

Looks fine to me - here are only a few things I noticed:

>>this emplanes why in the history by Geoffrey of Monmouth<<
do you mean *explains*?

>>The Roarong Stream<<
*Roaring*

>>horse and foot tropes numbering 500 strong<<
*troops*

>>it terminates at Melrose so complete the journey this part of the journey has been included<<
I don't follow - I think some words may be out of order.

Thank you pailaway all done