Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
Roman history gives the emperor Claudius credit for conquering Britain, but the Romans had been there years before, skirmishing and subduing tribes and forming alliances with British leaders. But in 43, Claudius himself went there and formally took possession of the territory.
Technically, it was Claudius because he was the emperor and actually went there. But Claudius was nonmilitary and his generals, the actual leaders of the Roman forces were Plautius and Vespasian.
No, not quite. A Roman legion is a part of a Roman army. However at certain times and under certain conditions a "legion" could be considered the actual army. For example, if there was a need for a river crossing, a legion would be sent in to build a bridge and it would be said that the "army" built the bridge. It's all a matter of words. Generally, though, an army consisted of several legions under one commander.
Yes, but they sent off the upper class to rule another place, and brought in a new aristocracy. The idea was that the foreign ruling class would not be sympathetic to the people, and keep them under control. It worked. That was what happened to the 10 northern tribes of Israel, and the Babylonians copied this when they conquered Judah and Benjamin in the south - that's why their upper class was sent to Babylon, and the people remained in Judah.
No. The Roman Empire was contained to the Mediterranean, the furthest they came in that direction was northern Britain. The Romans certainly sent explorers out far and wide. Roman Explorers sailed up the Baltic Sea as far as Finland and Estonia and reported back on what they found. It is recorded that after Claudius conquered Britain in 43AD ships were sent around the northern seas to check that Britain really was an island. During this journey the Roman navy conquered the Orkney Islands and conducted raids on the people living up there (the Caledonians or Picts). The ancient Greeks (e.g. Strabo) recorded that a place called Thuleexisted six days sailing north of Britain - this was what is known today as Iceland. The knowledge of the Greeks was handed down to the Romans who referred to Thule in many poems and stories. The Romans knew that the far north was frozen and full of ice, but they never went as far as the north pole. They didn't have compasses so would not have known about the magnetic effect of the poles. Sometimes a place called Ultima Thule is recorded which might refer to Greenland, but no Roman explorer ever went there. The short answer is - they knew about Iceland and they knew that the north pole was a frozen waste land, but they never went to either.
Mark Antony was a general in the Roman army. He came to Rome because (it is thought) his uncle (Ceasar) sent for him.
The Siege is what sent Roman from Jericho. This ended the war.
Britain never "occupied" Spain. Britain did go to Portugal, and from there sent an army under Wellsley to fight the French under Napolean. The British and Spanish were allies.
During the expansion of the Roman Empire the army sent the wealth of conqured territories and slaves back to Rome, to fuel the Roman economy. The army was followed into territories by merchants and traders who would then acquire goods for sale in Roman markets. During the reign of Augustus the army repaired roads, and set up permenant barracks along trade routes to make travel to and from other territories safer.I hate roman army and i love Germany
No, not quite. A Roman legion is a part of a Roman army. However at certain times and under certain conditions a "legion" could be considered the actual army. For example, if there was a need for a river crossing, a legion would be sent in to build a bridge and it would be said that the "army" built the bridge. It's all a matter of words. Generally, though, an army consisted of several legions under one commander.
Julius Caesar was interested in obtaining gold and silver from conquered foes. Part of this booty was sent to the Roman Treasury, part was given to his soldiers and himself.
It is thought that Patrick's original name was Maelwyn Succat and he was a British Celt possibly born in Wales around 387. Britain was a Roman colony until around 409 AD when the last legions left. That would have made him a Roman citizen.The Celtic Britons had adopted many aspects of Roman culture and were referred to as 'Romanized Britons'. In today's terms he would be a Welshman.For more detailed information on St. Patrick, you can read his autobiography "Confession" online. See the Related Link below for a direct link to St. Patrick's biography.No. Patrick was born in Britain of romanized British (Celtic) parentage.
Yes, but they sent off the upper class to rule another place, and brought in a new aristocracy. The idea was that the foreign ruling class would not be sympathetic to the people, and keep them under control. It worked. That was what happened to the 10 northern tribes of Israel, and the Babylonians copied this when they conquered Judah and Benjamin in the south - that's why their upper class was sent to Babylon, and the people remained in Judah.
The Germanic peoples who invaded the Western Roman Empire were either already Arian Christians or converted to Roman Catholicism. Emperor Charlemagne conquered norther Germany and sent priests to covert the peoples there to Christianity. Missionaries travelled around the pagan parts of Europe to spread Christianity.
No. The Roman Empire was contained to the Mediterranean, the furthest they came in that direction was northern Britain. The Romans certainly sent explorers out far and wide. Roman Explorers sailed up the Baltic Sea as far as Finland and Estonia and reported back on what they found. It is recorded that after Claudius conquered Britain in 43AD ships were sent around the northern seas to check that Britain really was an island. During this journey the Roman navy conquered the Orkney Islands and conducted raids on the people living up there (the Caledonians or Picts). The ancient Greeks (e.g. Strabo) recorded that a place called Thuleexisted six days sailing north of Britain - this was what is known today as Iceland. The knowledge of the Greeks was handed down to the Romans who referred to Thule in many poems and stories. The Romans knew that the far north was frozen and full of ice, but they never went as far as the north pole. They didn't have compasses so would not have known about the magnetic effect of the poles. Sometimes a place called Ultima Thule is recorded which might refer to Greenland, but no Roman explorer ever went there. The short answer is - they knew about Iceland and they knew that the north pole was a frozen waste land, but they never went to either.
Mark Antony was a general in the Roman army. He came to Rome because (it is thought) his uncle (Ceasar) sent for him.
Tribute
Yangdi sent an army to destroy Korea. But he failed.
Under the reign of Emperor Claudius, four Roman legions totaling around 20,000 men along with an approximate number of auxiliaries under the command Aulus Plautius made the first significant conquests in Britain beginning in AD 43. However, Roman military and territorial gains would continue to be made, often piecemeal, under subsequent emperors over time.