Rome brought light to the darkest and the most barbaric places of the world, and if and when it did, these were areas that posed value to the strategic interests of the empire rather than be regions that needed civilizing. Britain was the island whose unique geography allowed founding a city serving the imperial interests well. Its conquest improved the image of the empire as a formidable force to reckon with and enhanced the reputation of the emperor. Furthermore, the introduction of religious and cultural buildings into Londinium served the ideological purpose of exposing the new subjects to the dominant culture contributing to their assimilation, which minimized the threat of revolts making for political stability. Londinium also came to be a place of provincial government. Economically, the occupants built a port in Londinium allowing the delivery of goods like metals and grain key to the political stability of the empire. The city provided opportunities for Britons to earn their living, to pay taxes for imported goods, and feed their people with products that reached the port of the new settlement. Overall, the unique geographic conditions of the area convinced the Romans of the need to build Londinium, for it had massive politico-ideological and economico-political benefits leaving it an important niche among the imperial territorial gains.
Geography and Later Architectural Inclusions Making for Londinium Overall Uniqueness Perfectly Discerned by the Romans
There are clear reasons for the city to have remained very essential to Romans. Its geographical peculiarities coupled with Roman architectural novelties added at a later date may have allowed the Romans to perceive the benefits of building the settlement and keeping controlling it as an important mainstay. Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.11) stated that it had been by Romans that the political, commercial, religious, and military importance of London was established. A seven short years following the military triumph of Aulus Plautius, whose 40.000-strong army won in a canter against a local tribe of the Catuvellauni in 43 AD, Ostorius Scapula, a Roman governor, founded a permanent trading post they called Londinium, which he did on the northern bank of the Thames River, Cornhill, its topmost point. Marshy ground notwithstanding, the similarity to the eternal city was what drew the Romans. Indeed, London straddles the Thames, as Rome does the Tiber.
More importantly, it does so at an elevated point where the Thames River is narrow enough to remain bridgeable enabling transit south and north as much as it is deep enough for it to create a harbor for large vessels traversing west to east. The high ground kept the future city defensible, as was the case with Rome (Bucholz and Ward 2012, p.11). Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.13) noted that the chief east-west artery into the country along with the location of Londinium had made the settlement of great military importance. City location at the first bridgeable point along the river at a place with plenty of gravel hills on the northern coast was geographically ideal and consequently of tremendous military relevance (Wallace 2015, p.13). The military base is one of the theories rationalizing the foundation of Londinium, the other being a trading settlement of Roman merchants, yet the lack of military equipment during archeological excavations is a testimony to the economic reasons for city establishment (Fraser 2011).
As argued by Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.13), they who controlled Londinium, controlled access to the fertile valley of the Thames River. The valley was an abundant source of timber for fuel and building, brick earth, water, and fertile silts (Merrifield 1983, p.1). National Geographic (n.d.) explained that silty soil was often more fertile than other kinds of soil, which makes it ideal for crop cultivation. In controlling access to the river, the Romans could utilize whatever resources the river had to offer, including water naturally needed for irrigation. The valley was the area where to grow the crops of grain, one of the critical tradable commodities. According to Merrifield (1983, p.1), the Thames remained relevant as the natural leverage of communication for a wealthy population and the gateway into Britain since it lies opposite another critical water way on the other side of the North Sea. The Rhine River provides access to the center of Europe along with a route for the transportation of people, merchandise, and ideas. Due to the two waterways, Londinium has always been cosmopolitan in nature (Merrifield 1983, p.2). Londinium was readily accessible by sea from Gaul along with other western parts of the Roman Empire (Sheppard 2000, p.29). Since Londinium gave access to Thames and Thames provided access to Britain, the settlement founded by the Romans left the rest of Britain accessible through the river.
Obviously, the unique geography allowed creating infrastructural objects facilitating and stimulating commerce and economic growth, the factors making Londinium important. According to Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.11), the blending of a north-south bridge and an east-west river transformed Londinium into the crossroads of trade and immigration as much as they did Rome. Londinium went on to become the intersection of six principal roads into the interior (Bucholz and Ward 2012, p.11). Kelcey and Müller (2011, p.211) noted that the town of Londinium had become the center of an unparalleled network of Roman roads reaching the remotest parts of Britain. Merrifield (1983, p.171) stated that the Roman authorities had never dismissed Londinium as strategically unimportant as a center of the road network and a port. Being the largest town that it was, Londinium was the center of the new road network (Sheppard 2000, p.29). Ironically, just as all roads led to Rome, so too did they in Britain where Londinium was local Rome. According to Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.11), the Thames connected the interior with the North Sea, La Manche, and the rest of imperial Europe. Built circa 60 AD, the Roman bridge linking Londinium on the north bank with the much smaller settlement of Southwark on the south bank was the first such construction to have ever been built there. There is an opinion of this structure having been the only bridge in London until 1750 (Bucholz and Ward 2012, p.11). Thus, Londinium had infrastructural elements like bridge remaining unique and scarcely reproduced in the centuries to come. What it gave the settlement was the ability to deliver goods to where they departed to other parts of the empire.
The geography of the area described in the sentences above, obviously, made for multifunctional settlement thereby proving important in many ways. The geography may be said to have made functional benefits like defensibility or the goods delivery capacity apparent to the Romans leaving them convinced of the relevance of what later would become Londinium. Merrifield (1983, p.171) further claimed that the Roman administration had spared no expense in maintaining and reestablishing it. They invested heavily in the city even at a time when it was in a state of decomposition. A series of Roman rulers viewed Londinium as being central to the efficient control of the island (Merrifield 1983, p.171). If so, there must be complex rationales behind such desperate attempts to preserve the city in a functional state, such as politico-ideological and economico-political reasons.
Clear Politico-Ideological Rationales
On the eve of island’s conquest, the Romans had something to prove and correct. The British adventures of Julius Caesar were unsuccessful in part due to the lack of proper intelligence or the failure to use it adequately (Sheldon 2004, p.115). Indeed, the attempts made of conquering the insular land in the years before largely came to no good, which means the military reputation took a blow to a degree in the process. Julius Caesar’s campaign did not yield as much as expected. Surely, such military reputation meant a lot at the time, as victories were a touchstone of might that kept other empires or subjects in check; thus, a valiant conquest was a show of strength and a visual reminder thereof. Londinium was a place from which to control the province, a staying sign of the Roman superiority and military prowess. Therefore, its occupation had a political and security relevance ensuring national integrity from internal and external threats alike. The reputation of the empire stood to gain from the incorporation of Britain and Londinium was a hub ensuring the longevity of Romans’ occupation in many ways that created the strong power image for all. Leaving the subjugation undone would have been a sign of weakness, and the soldiers of the empire showed none.
More importantly, the conquest of Britain offered reputational gains for the emperor who could increase his gravitas and top standing on the political arena. Shotter (2004, p.19) agreed that the conquest of Britain was expected to stimulate the reputation of Emperor Claudius by contradicting the prevalent perception of him as a fool. The subjugation of the island would solidify his image as soldier’ emperor as well (Shotter 2004, p.19). Needless to explain how much the support of legions meant to emperors. The role of Londinium was in its maintenance of control of the region whose conquest symbolized the might and added to emperor’s gravitas since the region never knelt down to none other than Julius Caesar. The control of Londinium allowed preserving the conquest, a standing sign of Claudius unmatched accomplishment, the feat of strategic genius never performed by legendary Caesar.
Speaking of other political rationales, Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.11) described the combination of the bridge and river as having contributed to immigration. There may be an interesting conclusion to draw therefrom in terms of what could reinforce the belief of the Romans in Londinium utility. The stimulation of immigration, by itself, could have been an important advantage to the Romans contrary to the attribution of the resettlement process to the empire’s demise. When in a healthy does, immigration can arguable be healthy to a multiethnic imperial political formation. What may happen may be that people relocate from where there used to be a monolithic social group hostile to occupants and what went on to become a demographically diluted region less prone to insurgencies. Revolts were characteristic of the province. Tacitus (1942) suggested that the Romans had to quench a revolt in Britain in 69 AD by using military force. It is fair to assume that insurgencies were a particularly delicate matter to the empire, which added to the importance of population dilution.
Speller (2004, p.201) noted that rebellions like the Jewish revolt of the 130s had grave consequences with regard to confidence, respect, and face. Worse, they challenged power. How the Romans dealt with the unruly Jews was through slaughter or dispersion to keep them from assuming a cohesive cultural and national group (Speller 2004, p.201). Evidently, the Romans did not want Britons contesting their imperium; thus, the dilution of the population could have served the purpose of preventing revolts before they could materialize as they did in Judea. While the empire had a vast contingent of forces, it was hard stretching its troops thin to keep all provinces equally protected; thus, keeping them less ethnically homogenous allowed maintaining stability, as did the process of cultural assimilation and ideological influence.
The ideological motivation of building and developing Londinium may seem inconspicuous within a larger political set of reasons, yet it was the case. Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.12) suggested that the Romans had rebuilt Londinium following its plunder and destruction at the hands of the Iceni tribe in 60 AD. The new city had baths, basilicas, a forum, an amphitheater, and temples. According to Introduction: London after A.D. 60 (1928), judging by the bronze head of a statue found in the Thames in 1834, historians believe the city to have had a huge statue of Emperor Hadrian possibly forming an awe-inspiring memorial of imperial domination. Mierse (1990, p.290) noted that sculptures had been a part of the imperial propaganda. The Romans cultivated Romanization to add to their control locally (Bunson 1991, p.243). It is fair to presume that religious elements of architecture like temples introduced local populace to religion as an important element of culture gradually Romanizing the locals.
What is more important, the commercial importance of the city guaranteed the flow of people from other settlements while the architectural content of Londinium ensured their exposure to the imperial means of propaganda; therefore, the propagandistic and assimilatory values of the city may be considered great, and rightfully so. People converging from all Britain for trade or other purposes could read the ideological message of Roman grandeur and dominance, and architecture did a great job making the presence of the emperor felt. Merrifield (1983, p.138) stated that the Romans would build small shrines by the roads for the comfort of those travelling who could be willing to ensure a successful and safe journey by making a vow of a future gift or making the offering to a deity. It seems that Romans did well to saturate the conquered region with the architectural instruments of acculturation like shrines. There would have been unable to make the influence of religion this profound if they had not built the network of roads from Londinium. Dobson, Sander, and Woodfield (2000, p.30) confirmed that the Romans had built roads from Londinium to other parts of the island. Furthermore, Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.13) noted that the authorities commissioned the conversion of local temples into churches after the empire falling Christian between the 2nd and 4th centuries, whereupon the city became a religious center. As follows from this, Londinium gained the status of the central beacon of state religion and the principal instrument of cultural assimilation. Even if it did not and its religious influence had been strong before, the place did not leave performing its assimilatory function. This ideological rationale served the political purpose since helped achieve the political goal of control through the ideological reshaping of new subjects’ cultural and spiritual mentality.
Last, but not least, Bucholz and Ward (2012, p.13) noted that Londinium had become the site of the riverside palace of the provincial governor, which turned it into the capital city of the Roman Britain as well as the important contact point for imperial policy. Two senior and two junior magistrates formed the internal government of the city. A town council composed of 100 Celtic property owners elected by freeborn male citizens assisted the magistrates. The wealthy elite was in charge of the city from its inception, yet it had democratic features (Bucholz and Ward 2012, p.13). Londinium had a great political weight as a sit of the new administration issuing edicts or decrees for subjects to follow. As Londinium became the capital of the British province, the city became the center of the political power and the headquarters of the regional ruling elite.
The Unique Alliance of Economic and Political Motivations
At some point, people settling within the city came trading with soldiers stationed in Londinium for area protection, as did artisans (Dobson, Sander, and Woodfield 2000, p.30). Following standard logic, the city became a place providing stable welfare for plenty of Britons. If left to their own resources, without them having been provided with job opportunities, Britons could have staged a massive revolt out of frustration and despair. Thus, Londinium importance was obvious if so many merchants and artisans flocked together contributing to the production of tradable and taxable goods, apart from earning their living. As early as 60 AD, the settlement covered the area from Cornhill to the Thames being the single biggest on the British soil. Back then, it already had a flourishing market. By creating a large timber quay by 80 AD, the occupants gave Londinium its first essential role, which was that of crossroads, a harbor, and a commercial entrepot. Archeological evidence is supportive of London integration into the imperial trading system, with Mediterranean pottery, Rhenish wine, Iberian and African olive oil, Italian tableware, lamps, and sculpture consumed within the confines of the city (Bucholz and Ward 2012, p.11).
York Archeological Trust (2007) noted that foreigners settling in Britain wanted there to be olives, grapes, and figs; thus, they diversified their ration or daily diet with these imported products, of which archeological excavations are indicative. The province of Britain was not only the consumer. Merrifield (1983, p.138) noted that the production of salt through seawater evaporation had been an essential industry of the Essex coast and the Thames estuary, and salt may have been an important goods traded in Londinium, as the commodity used not to find little market, that is, the product was very popular with locals. Consumed was also grain from the local countryside (Bucholz and Ward 2012, p.11). Britain did export the grain of its own, such as barley and wheat, to say nothing of metals like silver, iron, and lead brought from Britain as well (York Archeological Trust 2007). Obviously, much of these commodities passed through the port of Londinium.
It follows from the above that Britain seems to have had a consumption market; thus, Rome could export its staple commodities to this province where they found some ready market using the port of Londinium. However, the above-produced evidence insists on there being a two-way circulation of goods, which means the Londinium port was an important transitional point in the system of the movement of taxable goods. Taxes is another source of budgetary arrivals needed to maintain imperial efforts, be they military or civilian while additional gold is a means of enhancing political and military stability, as the Romans could afford the recruitment of more troops or the preservation of their requisite contingent during a crisis when gold reserve was probably welcome. Goldstein (2010, p.3) confirmed that the Romans had set taxes or customs duties on imported commodities. As is evident in the paragraph above, Britain exported metals to other parts of the empire that were an important resource for the belligerent empire needing it for the production of weaponry, which was expendable. Thus, port of Londinium became a transit point for bringing goods and resources critical to the survival of the empire, which proves its enormous importance, and historians hold that it was the major facility involved in the process. Schneer (2015) reassured that Londinium rose to the status of the chief port city of the province owing to its location of the Thames.
Furthermore, since grain was a local produce, Romans are likely to have exported it back to Rome or other less fertile provinces with much lower yield where it was in short supply due to climate or soil conditions. Kelcey and Müller (2011, p.211) explained that the cattle and corn lands of Kent, Essex, and Hertfordshire yielded abundant crops. As for the potential destinations of this production, Kraybill (1996, p.67) noted that Rome was the major destination of provincial exports. Still, the eternal city was not the only end market. Jones (1996, p.215) suggested that Britain exported grain to the Rhine frontier as well as serving as an emergency reserve should a disaster befall Germany or Gaul. These exports in the later period of the empire history are said to vindicate the reversal of the earlier necessity to import grain to Britain and Romano-British productivity and prosperity. That the empire had the province exporting the product is a sign of the blow dealt on the continental agriculture by invading barbarians (Jones 1996, p.215).
As far as the importance of food products in the empire is concerned, the lack of such commodity as grain once led the citizens of Prusa to riot demanding that grain prices not be as high as they were. Even given the unusual productivity, provinces would very often face deficits (Kraybill 1996, p.67). Grain was central to the political stability. As follows from the popular Roman maxim, all people needed for them to stay calm were bread and circuses. The lack of such was fraught with the outbreak of popular discontent and revolts. London could have been an important part of the logistical system of food supply critical to empire maintenance. Thus, Londinium and its port facility brought a source of political stability to other parts of the empire in addition to sending important metal resources contributing to the maintenance of the military might of imperial legions. However, it is not that the grain and other products cultivated in Britain and moved to Londinium were not central to the political stability of the center of province governance. Kelcey and Müller (2011, p.211) stated that the vast network of roads from Londinium allowed delivering food to the city from the most distant corners of Britain. Hibbert, Weinreb, Keay J., and Keay J. (2011, p.494) explained that new roads built in 50 AD in Southwark, now a London district, began from the site of the new settlement, Londinium. Thus, it is only logical to deduce therefrom that the construction of Londinium allowed the Romans to plan and build roads, through which to move food, the source of political stability and popular satisfaction, to the governance capital of the important province.
There should be no forgetting how important of a commodity slaves were in antiquity. Blake (1861) confirmed that slaves from the coast of Britain had partially supplied the Roman market. Scheidel (2010, p.2) noted that the Roman had become a slave economy owing to their paramount role in the productive process. Romans as such formed a slave society (Scheidel 2010, p.2). Lechte and Newman (2013, p.36) explained that slavery in Rome served not only an economic, but also a social function as much as it did in Athens. From the economic perspective, failing slaves, these societies would have been unable to generate the wealth making it possible for educated men to have time to engage in politics. More than that, slave labor made a wide cultural accomplishment in the fields like art possible. From the social viewpoint, slavery maintained the principal formal divisions in society between free and unfree members. The social status rested upon unfree labor. Possessing slaves was a yardstick of high social status (Lechte and Newman 2013, p.36). With this in view, Londinium acting as a principal trade hub was a trading post supplying Rome with the lifeblood or sinews of their economy and social life in slaves.
Conclusions
Thus, the geography of Londinium made it a city worth founding, as it had significant political and economic benefits. If the Romans wished to control Londinium, it was most likely because it allowed protecting its regional strategic interests. The conquest of the island left unvanquished by Julius Caesar won the empire reputational points building an image of a strong, undaunted power. Emperor Claudius too sought to improve his reputation through the conquest, and Londinium as a place of controlling the province allowed maintaining the image of both. Furthermore, the construction of religious and other cultural objects of architecture like temples and statues spread the word of those in power to the ones coming to Londinium whose importance was ensured through trade and economic opportunities for Britons. Since temples performed the ideological function of acculturation, the Romans could achieve the goal of assimilation preventing the potential outburst of popular anger against occupants. Londinium became the important crossroads of immigration, which could also restrain revolts, with portions of the indigenous population departing only for their place to be taken by people from other parts of the empire. Economically, Londinium, as the biggest port, helped Britain become an important consumer market and the exporter of valuable resources like metals and grain central to the maintenance of the political and military stability of the empire.
References
“Introduction: London after A.D. 60.” 1928. In An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in London, Vol. 3, Roman London. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, pp. 33-56. British History Online. Available at: <http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/london/vol3/pp33-56#fns> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Blake, W.O., 1861. The history of slavery and the slave trade, ancient and modern. Compiled from authentic materials. H. Miller. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=g213AAAAMAAJ&pg=PR15&dq=export+of+slaves+from+Britain+during+the+Roman+Empire&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqwanVyvXLAhXpCJoKHSHxAO0Q6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=export%20of%20slaves%20from%20Britain%20during%20the%20Roman%20Empire&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Bucholz, R.O., and Ward, J.P., 2012. London: A social and cultural history, 1550-1750. Cambridge University Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=P7MhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=importance+of+Londinium+to+the+Romans&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwhejGpPXLAhXBDiwKHQK8By44ChDoAQg_MAU#v=onepage&q=importance%20of%20Londinium%20to%20the%20Romans&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Bunson, M., 1991. A dictionary of the Roman Empire. OUP USA. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=HsrGEFpW80UC&pg=PA243&lpg=PA243&dq=importance+of+Londinium+to+the+Romans&source=bl&ots=lZeyw-lPry&sig=BagGsunPBChd5wooDXEIwFOOfbM&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi82J624vTLAhUGlCwKHeAzCAk4ChDoAQhCMAY#v=onepage&q=importance%20of%20Londinium%20to%20the%20Romans&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Dobson, J., Sander, J., and Woodfield, J., 2000. Living geography: Book 1. Nelson Thornes. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=PKI9Px-m9EEC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=importance+of+Londinium+to+the+Romans&source=bl&ots=MJRO22YqNv&sig=HnktBnq5BXPoo2ObhlScfzMwLq0&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi82J624vTLAhUGlCwKHeAzCAk4ChDoAQhHMAc#v=onepage&q=importance%20of%20Londinium%20to%20the%20Romans&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Fraser, A., 2011. Warrior queens: Boadicea’s chariot. The UK: Hachette Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=iW5VS9G6unUC&pg=PT57&dq=importance+of+Londinium+to+the+Romans&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwhejGpPXLAhXBDiwKHQK8By44ChDoAQghMAE#v=onepage&q=importance%20of%20Londinium%20to%20the%20Romans&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Goldstein, N., 2010 Globalization and free trade. Infobase Publishing. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=bkotGqoG0u0C&pg=PA3&dq=the+Romans+imposed+taxes+on+trade&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC55bl5_nLAhXiJJoKHR1lAWsQ6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=the%20Romans%20imposed%20taxes%20on%20trade&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Hibbert, C., Weinreb, B., Keay, J., and Keay, J., 2011. The London Encyclopedia. 3rd ed. Pan MacMillan. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=xa0D0PqiwfEC&pg=PA494&lpg=PA494&dq=About+50+new+roads+were+built+converging+on+a+point+across+the+river+from+the+site+of+the+new+settlement&source=bl&ots=_rKorP7M3a&sig=bF8UNZhffC1HHaJtzhRbYAtb6qI&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitpaGa-PnLAhWDWCwKHeruAWgQ6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=About%2050%20new%20roads%20were%20built%20converging%20on%20a%20point%20across%20the%20river%20from%20the%20site%20of%20the%20new%20settlement&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Jones, M.E., 1996. The end of Roman Britain. Cornell University Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=hBNr765THaIC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=Roman+Britain+exported+grain&source=bl&ots=yaA87KEHw8&sig=wivJM5O-xr4tP7YHp5gkNGUckTg&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcosKm8PXLAhXJCCwKHbvcA6MQ6AEIOzAD#v=onepage&q=Roman%20Britain%20exported%20grain&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Kelcey, J.G., and Müller, N., 2011. Plants and habitats of European cities. Springer Science & Business Media. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=lUA-LzswzNsC&pg=PA211&dq=Londinium+became+a+thriving+port+by+A.D.+61.&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOtqairfXLAhVMjSwKHSUvDygQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Londinium%20became%20a%20thriving%20port%20by%20A.D.%2061.&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Kraybill, J.N., 1996. Imperial cult and commerce in John’s apocalypse. Sheffield Academic Press. A&C Black. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=F1avAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA67&dq=imperial+Rome+consumed+plenty+of+grain&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiszrTQ6_XLAhUJVSwKHWR8BAYQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=imperial%20Rome%20consumed%20plenty%20of%20grain&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Lechte, J., and Newman, S., 2013. Agamben and the politics of human rights: Statelessness, images, violence. Edinburgh University Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=WnGlBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&dq=the+roman+economy+could+not+function+without+slaves&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVgIXBxPfLAhUFKywKHbIMClIQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=the%20roman%20economy%20could%20not%20function%20without%20slaves&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Merrifield, R., 1983. London, the city of the Romans. University of California Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=39wl2I48e7kC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=fertile+Thames+valley+in+Roman+Britain&source=bl&ots=lq4_03ky61&sig=jTn9Z0K7TFUfuA3EsTUXZxHv6P0&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipusjgy_fLAhVrCpoKHbTVDuwQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=fertile%20Thames%20valley%20in%20Roman%20Britain&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Mierse, W.E., 1990. “The interplay between religion, politics, and entertainment in the Graeco-Roman world: Archeological and literary evidence,” in International Association for the History of Religions. The Notion of ‘religion’ in Comparative Research: Selected Proceedings of the XVI-th Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions (Rome, 3rd-8th September, 1990), L'ERMA di BRETSCHNEIDER, 289-294. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=4AKV1PK8bxcC&pg=PA290&dq=Roman+statues+were+a+part+of+imperial+propaganda&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRrvWC-PfLAhXECCwKHdW9ARQQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Roman%20statues%20were%20a%20part%20of%20imperial%20propaganda&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
National Geographic, n.d. Silt. [online]. Available at: <http://education.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/silt/> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Scheidel, W., 2010. Slavery in the Roman economy. Stanford, California: Stanford University. Available at: <https://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/091003.pdf> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Schneer, J., 2015. The Thames: England’s river. The UK: Hachette. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=ebInCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT24&dq=Londinium+was+the+biggest+port+in+Britain&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv347G6vnLAhXFXSwKHXqGBWsQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Londinium%20was%20the%20biggest%20port%20in%20Britain&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Sheldon, R.M., 2004. Intelligence activities in ancient Rome: Trust in the gods but verify. Routledge. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=fUyRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA115&dq=Caesar+Britain+campaign+was+unsuccessful&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSgZGPj_jLAhWBvywKHf-qDs4Q6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=Caesar%20Britain%20campaign%20was%20unsuccessful&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Sheppard, F., 2000. London: A history. Oxford University Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=M9qvtYYhRtAC&pg=PA29&dq=legions+stationed+in+Londinium&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGtJm-p_jLAhUI2SwKHbDDBrIQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=legions%20stationed%20in%20Londinium&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Shotter, D.C.A., 2004. Roman Britain. Psychology Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=0HLqGzb9C10C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=emperor+claudius+conquered+Britain+to+enhance+reputation&source=bl&ots=epOlFJnplZ&sig=N4Ch7q6bSgusGToyIhBeIKwrXNE&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi10JvC3PnLAhXGDSwKHSSjDf8Q6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=emperor%20claudius%20conquered%20Britain%20to%20enhance%20reputation&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Speller, E., 2004. Following Hadrian. A second-century journey through the Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=gVXFkh-tlBcC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=As+a+result+of+the+revolt+thousands+of+Jews+were+sold+into+slavery+and+thus+were+scattered+widely+in+the+Roman+world.&source=bl&ots=f6-dMkpYLM&sig=CxYjQbvv_GmbvCj0EoDeALURv2U&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihv_267vfLAhUJZCwKHRppDOMQ6AEINTAE#v=onepage&q&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Tacitus, P.C. Book 2 – (March – August, A.D. 69), translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. (1942). Available at: <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/tacitus/TacitusHistory02.html> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
York Archeological Trust, 2007. Life in Roman Britain. [online]. Available at: <http://www.iadb.co.uk/romans/main.php?P=5> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
Wallace, L.M., 2015. The origin of Roman London. Cambridge University Press. Available at: <https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=gbMkBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA13&dq=importance+of+Londinium+to+the+Romans&hl=uk&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwhejGpPXLAhXBDiwKHQK8By44ChDoAQhOMAc#v=onepage&q=importance%20of%20Londinium%20to%20the%20Romans&f=false> [Accessed 4 April 2016].
