Talk:Londinium

Comment 1

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)

Where is it?

I think somewhere near the beginning of this article someone should specify where the boundaries of Roman London are thought to be. Haonhien (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the request for maps should help... Allens (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Celtic Old European?

From the article:

Another theory which does not have widespread acceptance, proposed by Richard Coates, suggests that the name derives from pre-Celtic Old European — Plowonida — from two roots, plew and nejd, meaning something like "the flowing river" or "the wide flowing river".

Can someone please explain this? What on earth is "pre-Celtic Old European"? Does this refer to a non-Indo-European European language (e.g. Old European hydronymy)? If so, how can he provide this etymology, given that we know next to nothing about these languages? --Saforrest 17:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same question, when I saw I was beaten to it. To my best knowledge "Old European" is a hypothetical concept. The dictionary, unfortunately, got lost in the mail, and now we know nothing about it. The assertion in the article has to be wrong. Aviad2001 (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now given a better reference for Coates' article and a better description of the Old European hydronym, which was perhaps too hastily deleted by someone who didn't "like" it..--Wetman (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and improvement in the article; I would like, though, to point out that my deletion cannot really be referred to as "hasty" - you'd notice it took me nine whole months. Aviad2001 (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Constantius.jpg

Image:Constantius.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

I've just added the {{contradict}} dab to this article, because in the first section the article states that Londinium was not a military camp, but rather a private settlement, and in the next section, exactly the opposite is stated. Neither claim is referenced. 77.99.178.80 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not really a contradiction. At the beginning:

Londinium was established as a town by the Romans after the invasion of AD 43 led by the Roman Emperor Claudius. Archaeologists now believe that Londinium was founded as a civilian settlement or civitas by AD 50.

while the military camp relates to the move of the capital of Roman Britain to London, some decades later -- Udimu (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I also do not see contradiction, and as I think seven months are enough, I am going to take the "contradict" thingie. Leirus (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

this article desperately needs maps

It seems extraordinary that there are no maps of any sort in this article. The reader is given no idea of the location or extent of anything, except that they are somewhere in London. The article needs a map - or two. They don't need to be complex maps. In fact the simpler they are the better.

The article needs one map showing the limits of modern and Roman London. It then needs a second map with points marking the locations of the places mentioned in the article in relation to the limits of Roman London.

If someone could provide the appropriate coordinates, perhaps someone else could make the maps. Given the right information I could make the maps.

Cricobr (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lingua Gallica / Gaulish?

Gaulish was the Celtic language spoken by the Gauls of what is now France, Belgium, etc.

There is no reason whatsoever to believe it was a commonly spoken language in Roman London. The local Celtic language was British or Brythonic: the ancestor of Welsh, Breton and Cornish.