Talk:Roman London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I think this should be moved to Roman London. If we're going to periodise all of the History of London article. Then we would use Saxon London, Medieval London etc and it would be more consistant. Secondly, Londinium was re-named as Augusta at some point in the 3rd century. Any thoughts? G-Man * 19:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Roman London would not be consistant with the other articles in Category:Roman towns and cities in England. The renaming to Augusta is not very well known and rarely used, but there should be a note of it in the intro. I would agree that subsequent London history articles should be as you suggest, although it should be Anglo-Saxon London to line up with Category:Anglo-Saxon England and its sub-categories (and possibly Norman and Medieval London, although similar categories vary). London was essentially refounded in Anglo-Saxon times with an Old English version of the name which has been used since that time. Londinium is also archaeological, where as the others are historical. Walgamanus 08:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But if we're going to have articles on Anglo-Saxon London to be consistant with Anglo-Saxon England, then this is inconsistant with Roman Britain. Also logically if we have this we should also have articles on Lundenwic and Lundenburgh and all of the other historical variants of the name London. G-Man * 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a bit contradictory. However, Roman Britain is a very popular expression and should be kept on the grounds of common usage. I don't think Roman London, Roman Winchester or Roman anywhere is used in quite the same way. The trouble is that several Roman towns and many Roman forts do not have successive Saxon settlements, so you can't use these to call them Roman whatever, besides the fact that this is incorrect and misleading. When I created the Londinium article, there was a long list of relevant articles already pointing to it whose wikilinks I did not have to fix. There were two for Roman London. I think this shows well how the term Londinium is also in common usage. I wouldn't argue for a separate article for Lundenburgh because this is where modern London begins. However, you could argue that Lundenwic should have its own article because it was a separate development in what is now Westminster. It's is a fine line. Walgamanus 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seem as this discussion wasn't really going anywhere I've decided to be bold and move it anyway. I've created an article on Anglo-Saxon London and intend to create further periodised articles. G-Man * 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)