Talk:Watling Street/Archive 1

Archive 1

old comments

Does anyone think the second section of this article (The bit quoted from a book) should be deleted. As it dosent realy make a proper article at the moment

If no-one objects I'll take it as a yes.

It should be merged really. ~~

Is this merger OK?. I added the information from the book quote and deleted it.

---

DOVER? I visited the Roman Ruins at Richborough (Ritupiae) near Sandwich, Kent a couple of years ago whilst on holiday. This is an English Heritage site. According o the information I got there, the original Watling Street headed east out of Canterbury to Ritupiae (not sure about spelling). The land east of the castle was originally detached from the mainland and has filled in over the last 2000 years. This created a landing point which was easy to defend once established and Ritupiae was a fortified town which was the stopping off point for Romans entering and leaving England. Hence the road to Londinium started there, out of the original west gate.

I have not modified the article as I am not 100% certain, maybe someone could look into this.

According to this map Here Watling Street went to Dover. A Roman road went to Ritupae but it probably wasn't the Watling Street. G-Man 19:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Beyond Viriconium?

The text says nothing about the section shown on the map beyond Wroxeter, where the road turns south and heads towards South Wales. What's the rationale behind counting this as the continuation of Watling Street, and not as a subsidiary route? Rojomoke 17:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Milton Keynes Heritage" (map)

References - 1)"Milton Keynes Heritage" (map), Milton Keynes Development Corporation, 1983 links only back to the article. I have this map (somewhere), would there be a copyright issue adding it ?

Until 2053 yes there is! (under UK law. Despite the fact that the tax payer paid for it, the taxpayer doesn't own it). I assume that EP owns the copyright now. Wiki Commons tends to enforce copyright very firmly. It's a real shame because there are loads of good dates on there for all sorts of things. Apart from in the Library, I haven't seen it for years, so it must be out of print. Maybe you could write to EP to ask for it to be put on MKWEB where at least it would be accessible but protected from commercial exploitation? --Concrete Cowboy 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. You're right about the dates and the amount of history on it, including how some of the estates and roads got their names too. I really must sort out a username on here sometime.

Found map, requesting permission from English Partnerships (11.12.06)

Route of Watling Street

In north of Bury, the town of Affetside has a route called "Watling Street", which I had always assumed was Roman - and the local Council's website seems to agree - http://www.bury.gov.uk/VisitorGuidesAndMaps/History.htm . This isn't refered to anywhere in the text. Could someone who is qualified to assess whether this is true or false consider adding something? larkim 16:42, 19 March 2007 (GMT)

There are other Watling Streets, and as the origin of its name suggests a link with foreigners, any road leading to a "foreign" place could have picked up this name.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 19:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was interested to note that there is another Watling Street in Bury, and this appears to follow the same route as the section in Affetside, indicating that this is a continued part of the same route. See http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&saddr=watling+street,+affetside&daddr=Watling+St,+Bury,+Lancashire+BL8,+United+Kingdom&hl=en&geocode=&mra=cc&dirflg=w&sll=53.602575,-2.353745&sspn=0.056125,0.154495&ie=UTF8&ll=53.603405,-2.349701&spn=0.056124,0.154495&z=13&lci=lmc:wikipedia_en for a route highlighting both sections. Larkim (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Legions planted an ash tree at every second mile?

There is a claim in article Two Mile Ash that it was a Roman custom to plant an ash tree every two miles. Does anyone have a citation to support this assertion? --Concrete Cowboy 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Route Uncertainty

Didn't Time Team a few years ago demonstrate that part of the supposed route in Kent was a few hundred yards off? More detail on this from someone would turn into a nice additional snippet for this page. Martin Packer (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It seems crazy to suggest that the Roman Road turned to run around Greenwich Park which wasn't laid out for a thousand years after the Romans. The old Ordnance Survey maps clearly show linear features labeled Roman Remains which if projected run roughly from the western end of Old Dover Road in the east, and Deptford Bridge in the west. This was "discovered" by Time Team. I guess the original route may have run to the mouth of Deptford Creek but was later diverted to head for a different crossing point near to Deptford Bridge. Interestingly, if my "original" route is projected it ends up at St Thomas' Hospital, which Time Team also suggest is a crossing point of the River Thames. Perhaps the Thames which was not constrained in those day moved south at Greenwich as a result of scour to the outside of the bend in the river as it continued to meander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djmoorhouse (talk • contribs) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Modern meaning" of Watling Street

The article implies that today the term "Watling Street" is used to refer to the A2 and A5 roads even where they run nowhere near the historical route. This is not my experience; where I lived in Bexleyheath "Watling Street" unambiguously meant the historical route (now officially known as Shooters Hill Road, Broadway, etc along its route with a small stretch still officially called Watling Street). No one would consider that it means the A2, which in that area runs roughly parallel but a few miles away from the historical route.

Could this be original research, perhaps posted by someone who has this unusual usage in their circle of friends? Conversely maybe maybe my circle of friends is unusual... this is a classic citation needed situation. Could someone shed some light? Otherwise I'll post an appropriate notice on the article. Quietbritishjim (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree: delete. In anticipation I have changed the lead image (which was bothering anyway). --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"The stretch of the road between London and Dover is today known as the A2"

As someone who is also familiar with Shooters Hill, and in fact with the A2 and Watling Street throughout Kent, I agree with Quietbritishjim that this is inaccurate. The A2 is, for much of its course, a modern road (where 'modern' means anything from the 18th century onwards) that runs roughly parallell with Watling Street. Watling street and the A2 are one and the same only along part of the route. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB196 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mostly fixed, although sourcing (here) and details (at A2's article) might be helpful. — LlywelynII 22:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

name

It is too much of a jump to say that because a route is recorded in the Antonine Itinerary under such a heading it was "known as" Iter II or Iter III. Many of the older, larger or more popular Roman roads had widely recognised names (such as the Via Flaminia or the Via Egnatia), but there was no road numbering system such as modern governments use. Anyone writing a list of routes such as the Antonine Itinerary would have seen a need to put in headings so as to organise the material. That is not the same thing. These references should be amended or deleted. Deipnosophista (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried a fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So if Iter III in the Antonine list only went from Dover as far as London, do we have any basis to use it for the section from London to Chester? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This does need referencing, possibly from somewhere a bit more solid than my source, which is an online extract, twice removed, from a nineteenth century translation from the Latin. Shouldn't be too difficult. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need referencing. It's simply inaccurate. Fixed. — LlywelynII 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't "known" as the Iter II at all. That was an addition by a modern editor of the text, although it's helpful to use. — LlywelynII 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Iter III and Iter II

Old Moonraker's source, Roman-Britain.org [1] that Iter III is only the section from Dover to London. It says that Iter II runs from London to Chester, then Manchester, then York, then back to Carlisle, to finish at the wall at Birrens in Dumfries & Galloway. The overall name is the 'Antonine Itinerary'. The problem with Roman-Britain.org is that the author admits to 'correcting' the source because it fails to account for the crossroads between Watling Street and the Fosse Way. His/her primary source is 'Parthey and Pinder's Edition (1848, Berlin); including Wesseling's 1735 additions.' [1735??!!] Wesseling appears to be the originator of the Iter designations, if I understand the R-B.org correctly. So here's the question: do we add Iter II? Or do we remove Iter III as dubious? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, the source in which I had so little faith is now a 404, an additional reason for finding a better. What I was actually hoping for was that a contributor with access to a copy of Ivan Margary's Roman Roads in Britain, the definitive work on the topic, would step forward. Fifty quid or membership of a good library would fix this, but I have neither.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The link http://www.roman-britain.org/antonine-itinerary.htm is currently working. But the fundamental point remains: we need a notable source such as the one you mentioned. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How good is "Roman Roads in Britain by Thomas Codrington published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge London, 1903 "
This gives [at the table annotated Page 89] a curious variety of Iters, but certainly Antonine Iter II northbound from London to Wroxeter. Is Margary more recent, based on better scholarship? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Margary: "Ivan Margary’s Roman Roads in Britain (published in 1955 and 1956; most recent edition 1973) remains the standard text on Roman roads" recommends English Heritage. Quoting from Smith, Nicky Pre-industrial Roads, Trackways and Canals May 2011. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I took a course at the University of Birmingham (England) on Roman roads, and this was considered the bible. I've got a copy but not sure what edition. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to it until Friday, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Iter II - from the Wall to Richborough Port, 491 1/2 miles. Going through Carlisle, York, Manchester, Chester, London, Canterbury, finishing at Richborough (numberous other places are mentioned).

Iter III -- From London to Dover Port.

This is from Margary, Revised edition 1967.

Please read my post below! Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found a copy in a charity shop and have made a feeble start (index slips to mark the intended page refs), much delayed. I'm happy to continue, but does anybody else (with expert knowledge) want to do it? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

We add Iter II and note Itinera III and IV and the bypass in Iter VI. Nothing you couldn't've figured out from the Roman Britain source, although it's good to have newer scholarly treatments as well. — LlywelynII 23:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Roman roads

Now that I have the attention of several editors, this article was, in my opinion, turned into a mess by an editor. My comments from its talk page: The page is a bit of a mess. The structure is poor, and the sourcing is worse. Far too much reliance on an 1890 dictionary (cited 50 times) a Cyclopedia of American Horticulture dating 1900, etc - about references dating no later than 1902, about 8 modern ones. And the lead is a mess, I agree. It probably goes into too much detail and it really should not need citations, as it should be based on cited material in the main article. Anyone want to have a go at structure? Eg:

Lead

History/Development of Roman roads

Use

Construction methods

Road system

I don't know where to put etymology

This is just a very rough stab and I'm not particularly happy with it, but I'm hesitant to improve it without a better structure. Dougweller (talk)4:55 pm, 17 November 2010, Wednesday (8 months, 28 days ago) (UTC+0)

Outdated

Given the very heavy reliance on sources written over a century ago, I've tagged this as outdated. See my comments above. Dougweller (talk)4:46 pm, 9 June 2011, Thursday (2 months, 7 days ago) (UTC+1)

Anyone want to have a go? It's true that the version before these old references were added was basically unreferenced - see [2], but the current version is not exactly user friendly or up to date. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Etymology would go in a #Name section after the lead, but you wouldn't include all of that on every page on every Roman road. You'd just discuss it at Roman road. Which is where this should be located. — LlywelynII 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Route

Pace the guys above, Roman Britain Online is mostly fine but some things do slip through the cracks: Togodumnus misspells placenames ending with -is because he isn't sure whether they're third declension or not. The terminus at the Wall isn't "Magnis" but Magnae (sometimes given as Magna).

More importantly, it's not the one in Kenchester; it's the one on the Wall. (Not Togodumnus's mistake: some editor here did that.)

Most importantly, Magnae is not the terminus of this road at all. (Again, us.) Magnae was the terminus (or midpoint) of the Maiden Way bypass. The actual Roman route (if we're giving the whole thing, which modern scholarship suggests we shouldn't except in the Roman section) ran to Carlisle and then on to Blatobulgium. — LlywelynII 23:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

20th century

Looking around, it seems like the 19th century scholars were fine with just calling the entirety of Route II "Watling Street" but modern scholars seem much more desirous to restrict that name to the southern leg (i.e., its original Saxon usage). I think the way forward is to simply present the Roman route as the Roman route (it bears telling since the road itself later assumed this name) and then discuss the ways in which the Saxons &c. named and understood what was left behind.

• Do we have a source on when Dover came to be seen as the primary terminus? It was certainly Richborough in antiquity. Did the Saxons consider "Watling Street" to go to a port at all? or to simply end at the Kentish capital in Canterbury? If so, who started the Dover thing?
• Do we have a source on when modern scholarship began to restrict the name to the southern leg?

 — LlywelynII 23:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Route map picture Wroxeter through Wales

I have mentioned this also on the talk page on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Watling_Street_route.jpg Currently, on the Wikipedia Watling Street Wikipedia article, there is a caption right under the picture which states, "note: the westernmost segment, running south from Wroxeter, is not generally considered part of the Street; see text". The text states, "While another section of Iter II linked Wroxeter to Chester, and other roads were built into north Wales and central Wales, these are not generally considered to be part of Watling Street. Thus the Roman routes which comprise Watling Street are all of Iter III and the middle-southern section of Iter II." A close examination shows that an older, uncited map of Roman Britain was used as the underlying source. The Watling Street route has been highlighted with a computer drawing tool. The shade of red is slightly different for the Wroxeter into Wales segment. By the dating, this picture has existed for this article since 2006 in this form.

It would seem that an update to the highlighting, or some different kind of route notation would be helpful here. Group29 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup. Will see what I can do. Fixed. — LlywelynII 23:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks! Group29 (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

• 1
• 2

although better would be mimicking his style and providing current details about the present route. Anyone write a book about walking this yet? — LlywelynII 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)