Talk:Verulamium

Verlamion
Should Verlamion, the Iron Age settlement that preceded the Roman city, have its own article? At the moment 'Verlamion' redirects here. Legis 11:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so, if enough information can be dug up about it. To be honest, I'd never heard of Verlamion, yet it appears to have been a major settlement in Britain at the time. An administrative place where (probably) coins were struck, and (according to Verulamium) one of the first pre-Roman places recorded by name. --A bit iffy 12:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's not enough on Verlamion to justify a separate article, and no need for such excessive subdivision. They're really no more than variant spellings for the same placename. I've proposed merging the two articles again. --Nicknack009 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is not much on Verlamion at the moment (what there is, I stuck down after visiting the museum in St Albans). But I think they are conceptually distinct - the Roman market town, and the iron age settlement that it was built on top of.  My own view would be to leave them separate; the Verlamion article will become less stubby over time, and links a number other articles relating to iron age Britain at the time that are not related to the Roman site (contrast Special:Whatlinkshere/Verlamion with Special:Whatlinkshere/Verulamium). --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Verlamion was what the Romans called an Oppidum, i.e. a dispersed settlement surrounded by earthworks. It was a poly-focal settlement and extended over a much larger area than Veralamium. As Francis Pryor puts it in his book "Britain BC": By treating Verlamion as Veralamium were are treating chalk as cheese. Currently the Verlamion article may not be that big, but I expect it to be added to so as to make an article that will stand on its own. So I vote a big NO to a merge. --Dumbo1 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archeology
Should this article link to Mortimer Wheeler as he excavated the Roman Theatre Wilmot1 20:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.--A bit iffy 07:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

History - why did Verulamium become so important
I live near the place (cycling distance) and have wandered around it and looked at the museum and read the descriptions and suchlike, but there's an aspect of the history not mentioned that's always bothered me. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could add it to this article.

The question is "Why?". The people in the museum say it's the third largest Roman city in England, one day's march from London on the road north and therefore grew in importance because everyone stopped there. Bonk! If that made sense, there'd be a similar sized town every 26 miles between London and Scotland. As far as I can see, it's not near a port, river crossing, natural resource or anything else that'd cause it to be the hub of anything in particular.

Before the Roman's set up shop I gather it was probably a local capital for a while (Tasciovanus'), but that was all over long before it started to grow in the second century. Not only that, but the town was pretty comprehensively trashed (by various accounts) in the AD60/61 uprising and almost burnt down in AD155. If it's destroyed, why did everyone hang around? Not only that, but after the fire it was rebuilt bigger than ever in stone, which seems to be the first time it was properly fortified too. Were the fortifications the reason it then grew? Or were the temples/theatre a big draw? Surely these would be manifestations of wealth, not the cause. Or is it proximity to mines?

I'd thank any ancient historian prepared to elucidate. Perhaps it's something so obvious to history buffs that no one has bothered to mention it.

Fjleonhardt (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it was like the suburbs of Londonnium? Close enough but not too close enough to live near the capital but not close enough to be bothered by all the urban nastiness of a large trading centre eg the docks, the commecial activities with the continent, the military or the urban poor. St Albans - in its river valley - might have just been the right place where - with the right amount of cash, a person of standing could settle but not too far away from the centres of commerce. Other large towns not too far from London were the likes of Caesaromagus (Chelmsford) or Venta Belgarum (Winchester). There were Roman towns at Staines, Ewell, Dorking, Croydon and Kingston upon Thames. All these urban settlements were within Britannia Superior, the permanent pax romana part of Britain. All Military legionary bases were located in the rough uncivilised Britannia Inferior where the "undomesticated" variety of Brythonic peoples lived. St Albans was on a direct line of Edgeware Road so that too was probably a desirable trait for a town. People's attitude to property was the same as it is now, it just proves how cataclysmic the collapse of Roman rule was in Britain that such refined urban centres such as St Albans could be reduced to rubble in a century and replaced with illiteracy, social and econmic breakdown and the rule of law.146.200.202.126 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)