I have wondered why the Romans wanted to control Britain at all and why was London their headquarters. For the past 10 years or so, I have wandered around areas that were on the edge of the Roman Empire. It was always fairly clear why the empire would go to the trouble of conquering and maintaining colonies.
Tunisia—olives, wheat, citrus, control of sub-Sahara trade. France—every kind of agriculture, especially wine grapes. The Levant—wonderful food-growing land, great ports. Vienna—the establishment of grape-growing and other agriculture, mining in the area. It took a lot to feed the empire and farming was hard work. Tuscany was not enough. “Must conquer Carthage. Get food.” It makes sense if you are an emperor.
But London? Britain? Marshy. North. Cold-ish. Not that much like the south of France or Tuscany. Hard to get to. Restless natives.
Rome was quite used to restless natives—not a stopper tho Boadicea gave them some grief as I have learned. Galley slaves could get the ships across the channel—not a stopper. The restless natives, once conquered could become the galley slaves—efficient administration. Looking better.
Now I have taken a walking tour of Roman London and am heading soon to the Museum of London. It turns out that London was a more substantial settlement than previously thought—a large amphitheatre has been uncovered fairly recently in the grounds of city hall. As Bloomberg puts up a new skyscraper, the Temple of Mithras is being more fully excavated. Ledenhall market—a Victorian market, great coffee and pastries—sits atop the Roman Administration center. The Tower of London is built just outside the original Roman Wall, where the City of London wall has continued to stand for the last 2000 years. The current building boom in London is revealing more all the time as foundations are much deeper than previous buildings.
So, it seems that the main thing they wanted from the area was minerals. Lead and silver were easily extracted using native labor, once subdued. The Romans conquered from the marshy southeast. London was the farthest downriver they could wade across the Thames and the farthest upriver they could bring ships. London Bridge was built early during their stay but I do not think there are any bridge remains identified.
London is built on two little hills divided by Wallbrook: the Basilica on the top of one hill, the amphitheatre on the other. The general area outside London was so flat and marshy it was not feasible to live there. There had been a small settlement there prior to the Romans but little evidence has emerged in the excavations as far as I can see so far. But it was ideal for an administrative, military and shipping center in a resource-extraction economy. They conquered and controlled the rest of Britain up to Hadrian’s Wall eventually. The Romans remained in the area for about 350 years once they had subdued Boadicea and the other Icini. Short timers-really compared to the time they stayed elsewhere. The overall impression is of a site at the edge of the empire—sort of a wild west.
They withdrew relatively quickly in 410. London was not that much under attack but the barbarians were swarming all over the Western Roman Empire AND Rome itself fell to the Goths. So the Roman forces left the island to the Saxons, hopped into their boats and rowed on home.
Little bits remain. During WWII bombs left craters which exposed Roman ruins. Now, London is undergoing a great building boom with great skyscrapers digging deeply for foundations and exposing a variety of artifacts and buildings. One of the most important current archaeological digs going on now by the Museum of London is at the site of the Bloomberg building. It is on the previous bomb crater which revealed the Temple of Mithras but is deeper and new remains and artifacts are emerging. Bloomberg has said they will set up a reconstruction of the Temple of Mithras as they finish their building but it will be some time before we can see it. Now it is a construction zone and archaeological site.



