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

Entry: Roman York - A5936583
Author: Elentari - U202814

A companion piece to "Roman St. Albans". (A5935557)

Hello again

More pedantic comments from Frenchbean coming up

As for the St Albans entry... there are heaps of suppositions in this entry, which make it a little unconvincing imho.

You mention the IX Legion... have you read The Eagle of the Ninth? One of the scariest books I read as a teenager Not relevant to this entry at all, but it reminded me what a great book it is

>The city of York was one of the later Roman towns to be founded..< Perhaps remover the first three words, because it wasn't a city at that time. And in fact, York wasn't founded by the Romans - Eboracum was - so maybe the Roman name could be in the title; "Eboracum: Roman York"?

>the seat of the provincial governor< - >...Provincial Governor<

Did Septimus Severus and Caracalla personally subdue resistance in the north? Reword that sentence to something like >They lived in the town for several years while there was a need to subdue resistance in the north<

In the para starting >By this time, York< (when is that btw?), I'd move the last sentence to go after the first. It seems to flow better.

Actually, the first sentence of that paragraph is a bit odd. I'd have thought that it went without saying that it was a pretty important place if the Emp was living there.

>VI legion< - >VI Legion< (twice)

When did Emp Honorurius tell the Brits to defend themselves? I've lost the timeline here and would appreciate more dates.

Para starting >The main town defence was the walls<... you've already said that until 108AD the defences were timber. Do you have any more information about them... how they were built, whether the timber fortress covered the same area as the stone-walled one?

Metric and imperial measurements needed (as comments for St Albans).

Are there any photos on the web of the multiangular tower?

The People section repeats much of the History section.

I'm confused about the Brigantes. In the History bit, they've become a threat and therefore the fortress is constructed. In the People section they're friendly and probably settling in the town. Are we talking different stages of the town's development?

Once again, it's rather an abrupt ending (cf St Albans)

I'd like to know more about what's left today which shows us that the Romans founded the settlement of York: street pattern for instance?

Are there 'Rows' like there are in Chester, where the post-Roman town dwellers built in front of and on top of the Roman villas, believing the vacated villas to be haunted/bad luck? The result is a very idiosyncratic arrangement of road-level shops with a walkway along their roofs and more shops set back at the first floor level.

Where can a visitor go to see artifacts? Have there been any great finds? Any archaeological digs going on?

If you were going to York specifically to see the Roman history, what's the 'must see' thing?



Frenchbean

Thanks, Frenchbean, I'll get onto it.

Ok, done! Phew!

Elentari

Amended title of this and the Stalbans entry are better now I think

>two river< ---- >two rivers<

>3.3 feet thick< and >9.8 feet high< is an odd mix of metric and imperial Probably more accurate to say >3ft 4inches< and >9ft 10inches<

Other than that


Fb

Fair point, I'll amend it. Thanks for all your suggestions!

*bumps* and asks for any more comments?

I remember reading (years ago)that a lady once saw the ghosts of a Roman mounted legion marching through a building (perhaps a pub). Because the ground level had risen since those times, they were visible only from the knees upwards.

Her story is interesting because she saw non-white soldiers and some of them were extremely scruffy with ragged clothing, non-standard weaponry etc etc and, at this time only the first inklings were coming though to archaeologists that the Roman army might have had conscripts, mercenaries etc etc.

This info was onlyt discussed in Romasn archaeology circles and so wasn't generally known or discussed. Also the woman had no archaeological contacts from where she mihght have picked up this info.

So, I beieve that she was interviewed by archeologists whi gained quite a bit of hitherto unknown information, which the archaeology only confirmed years later.

Yes, I'm sure I've heard about that too. Not in that much detail though.

Ok, I've added a link to the BBC history pages on the Romans for completeness.

I think this is ready now, but any more suggestions would be welcome...

See my post on the Lockleys thread for why you shouldn't have a 'Related BBC Links' section at the end anymore. The same goes for all your Romans entries in PR now.

Done. Thanks very much!

You're welcome. Thanks for making the change.

This is interesting stuff, but I think the early parts of it need a little tidying. It seems to repeat the fact that the Romans built Eboracum over and over again.

You tell us in the first paragraph that it was "the last major Roman town to be founded in Britain" and that it was "built on the River Ouse". Then you tell us "it was the Romans who built Eboracum in an excellent natural site" and describe the site. Then you tell us "In AD 70, the Governor of Britain, Petilius Cerealis, marched from the fortress at Lincoln with the IX Legion to invade the territory of the Brigantes. The Brigantes were defeated and the fortress at Eboracum was founded in AD 71". Then later you tell us "Eboracum was one of the later Roman towns to be founded after the conquest of 43 AD".
Later again, you tell us "Cerialis built a legionary fortress at what later became known as Eboracum."

You should introduce Eboracum in the first paragraph, but in the subsequent sections, you should start with the time before Eboracum was built, describe what was happening, and proceed to the building of Eboracum only once.


Some typos and house style changes:

3000 civilian inhabitants --> 3,000 civilian inhabitants

It on a junction of two rivers --> It is on a junction of two rivers

6000 odd men --> 6,000 odd men


It is also around this time that York was probably been upgraded to a colonia
-->
It is also probably around this time that York was upgraded to a colonia

Dux Britanniuarum --> Dux Britanniarum


25th June AD 306 --> 25 June, 306

Honourius --> Honorius

had told the British to defend themselves --> told the British to defend themselves

It is also around this time that York was probably been upgraded to a colonia
-->
It is also probably around this time that York was upgraded to a colonia


I mean that in the sense that York was probably upgraded to a colonia but we don't know for sure. I'll clarify it though.

Ok, I've changed the typos and stuff, let me know if you think the re-wording of the founding of the town is better or if you'd prefer more changes.

Going back to one of Frenchbean's comments in post 2...

">the seat of the provincial governor< - >...Provincial Governor<"

This is a debatable one and can probably go either way, but if I'm talking about a position I use lower case - 'the president went for a walk', but if I'm talking about a specific title/office or associating it with a name I use upper case - 'the President of the US/President Bush', so "provincial governor" would have been quite correct.

Yes, I think you're right. I'll change it back.

Sorry I didn't get back to you, Lean Tire; those changes you made for me make the entry read a lot better, in my opinion.

No problem. I rely on people like you to tell me these things, I have trouble spotting them in my own work.