Into The Wilderness

Curiously enough, if you type the word Radisson in Google searches, you will be directed to a hotel. There is some poetry in the fact that, searching for an explorer and adventurer from the past, you may go on some adventurous (we hope) voyage nowadays. But the point is that Radisson, Pierre-Esprit Radisson, or his companion and brother-in-law, Medard des Groseilliers, are not precisely well-known heroes of the Age of Discovery.

They belong to the XVII century, which is a pity, given that the next two centuries were, allegedly, the golden era of exploration, and the two prior were the era of Columbus and the Spanish conquistadores. Bur, alas, it seems that the XVII is gone blank in what respects to what the discovering of new lands or the adventure of travelling in the wilderness was at the moment, not being thermal clothes and GPS devices available

Another trouble with Radisson is that, albeit he wrote a volume on his travels, everyone regards it with some suspicion of non accuracy, not allowing comparison with the astounding success of Franklin and his account of his own polar expeditions. Yet another one is the known fact that the man was a consummate turncoat: he changed allegiances several times between England and France, which, at the time, was the worst thing a man could do to earn himself a good reputation. In subsequent centuries, as capitalism became the dominant philosophy, that would not be considered such a crime, as far as it is motivated by profit. But this is still the XVII century.

So, by now, we have a perfect stranger somewhat related with modern age mass tourism, a liar, and a well-known turncoat. Then, you may well think, who are you trying to pass as a hero? There is nothing heroic in Radisson…

But there is a lot of heroic stuff about Radisson. As a boy, he was captured by Mohawk Indians, then adopted. Late in his life, while hunting he was captured by white men and tortured, the kind of thing Indians, not Europeans, were supposed to do. In spite of his previous bad experience, he decided freely to go back to the white settlements, serving as an interpreter, which may count as his first (or second) turning of the coat. Later on , always with Groseilliers, he explored the wilderness of what now is Canada, in extension, established first contact with the Sioux tribe, were caught by Dutch privateers while on the Atlantic, spent years in still unknown locations, exploring, travelling, trading with the natives, making some profit that the always changing laws reduced very much in the way of taxes and fines.

That was a reason for changing masters. In the end, they were just trying to earn a living, and if the English could pay better…simple entrepreneurship. Besides the knowledge and the political support that Radisson and Groseilliers gained in England led to the creation of the Hudson’s Bay Company, which was to be capital to the colonization of the North, back there in America.

Certainly, he changed sides again when a great French offer was put on the table. But the truth was that everyone in France had second thoughts about the duo, and Radisson ended as a midshipman in the very unfortunate d’Estrées Fleet, almost dying drowned at Las Aves disaster. So, he spent his later years, coming back and forth between America and Europe and English and French allegiance, always trading furs, always having problems with taxes, licenses, political problems, war, peace ( when peace could be a disturbance for business it is that something has gone completely wrong). Even with a very patriotic father in law who would not allow his English daughter, and Radisson’s wife, to go and live with his husband in France any time he was serving the French.

What, then, made a hero of Pierre-Esprit Radisson? The fact that better men, in not so appalling circumstances, surrendered or fell through while he kept on doing what he did best: trade in furs and, in the meantime, unveil a large portion of the American continent. And all through this, he seemed not resentful to whatever life throw upon him, or the mistreatment his always suspicious masters could inflict. He complained, of course, but he kept business as usual going were the money was without a fuss. He persevered, through thick and thin, trying to make a living in and off the wilderness. Surely enough, he was not a very ethical man, he did not achieve glory, lands or wealth beyond imagination. But he was a common man, under not really common circumstances, and he did well enough to get three cities and a hotels group named after him. A common hero, although a seeming contradiction, is something quite rare to see since being a hero began to be a profession itself; welcome then, Pierre Radisson, a common, defective, plain, sometimes detestable man. A hero of truly human scale.

Edith Cavell: A Female Heroine.

Ok so we’ve heard about the great rock of Chickamauga George Henry Thomas, and the dastardly doctor William Palmer. But now it’s time for me to introduce the final heroine of this topic and the subject of this post … Ms Edith Cavell, for those of you, who like me have never heard of Edith Cavell, let me tell you just how heroic she was.

Born in 1865, in Norwich the daughter of an Anglican priest, and the eldest of four children, she was taught to share with the less fortunate regardless of what she had. In 1900, Edith Cavell went on to train as a nurse at London hospital after a brief period as a governess. Nursing, at this time was a relatively new occupation for women which had grown as a result of the prestige given to it by the work of Florence Nightingale (another heroine). By 1907 Edith was asked by Dr Depage to be the matron of a new nursing school in Brussels, L’Ėcole Belge d’Infirmiėres Diplȏmėes, before going on in 1910 to begin one of the first nursing journals ‘L’infirmiere’ which documented good nursing practises and basic standards, whilst continuing to teach in Brussels.
For anyone who knows history being in Brussels in 1910 is fine but to still be there four years later 1914 and you’re in hot water. When war broke out Edith Cavell was in England, although it wasn’t long before she was back in Belgium doing her bit for the war effort in her hospital , which was soon taken over by the British Red Cross. Not long after being back nurse Cavell and everyone else for that matter was in hot water. The German Schlieffen Plan’s, to get to France through Belgium was a success and this meant that the hospital along with Belgium was under German occupation and strict military rule. Now this was a dangerous situation for anyone to be in however Edith Cavell heroically went in further and began to aid British Soldiers who were stuck in Brussels, by hiding them in the hospital and in various safe houses it is estimated that 200 British servicemen were able to escape to natural Holland.

This is truly a heroic deed in my mind as she didn’t have to although it would have been hard to turn soldiers away and say you can’t help it’s harder still to take a risk and help them escape whilst under German military rule which had strict punishments for those found to be helping the enemy.

As Edith Cavell said ‘nothing but physical impossibility, lack of space and money would make me close my doors to Allied refugees’ and this continued to be the case as Edith continued to help despite the great risk to herself.

By the middle of 1915 nurse Cavell was under suspicion for helping the allied servicemen and her defence was not helped by her outspoken views with regard to the occupation. On the 3rd August 1915, Edith Cavell was arrested and held in St Giles prison for 10 weeks with the last two spent in solitary confinement, she didn’t even try to defend herself saying that she felt compelled to help anyone in need. After a short trial the military tribunal found her guilty of treason and she was sentenced to execution. A sentence which was considered as extremely harsh by many considering that she had been honest and the fact had helped both sides saving both allied and German lives as a result of her nursing.

Despite pleas from the American minister to Belgium and the Spanish minister Edith Cavell was executed alongside other Belgians suspected and convicted of similar charges.

After her death Edith Cavell still made an impact on the war effort and was used as an example of German brutality in both the British and American Press. She was portrayed as a heroic innocent figure, strong in her faith and a true patriot in that she was willing to die for her country. After the war her body was returned to Westminster abbey for a state burial before being later buried in Norwich Cathedral, where she remains a true heroine and a great lady.

Today a statue stands in St Martin’s Place; Trafalgar Square, London in her honour inscribed is her own words ‘Patriotism is not enough I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.’

Sources

http://www.biographyonline.net/humanitarian/edith-cavell.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Cavell

http://www.edithcavell.org.uk/

Sebastian Castellio

When we think of the big names associated with the Sixteenth century reformation, Sebastian Castellio is not among then. Luther, Calvin and Erasmus are some of the few big names that we think of. Unlike these big reformers, who are remembered for the development of different theological theories, Castellio arguably promoted a more important idea; the idea of tolerance.

So, who was Sebastian Castellio? He was born in 1515 at Saint-Martin-du-Frêne in the village of Bresse of Dauphine in Savoy. Castellio was a highly educated man, having studied at the University of Lyons and being fluent in a variety of languages including Italian, Latin, Hebrew and Greek. During his own lifetime, he was recognised by his fellow humanists and theologians as being a leading figure in his fields. Originally a strong Roman Catholic, he was drawn into reform after witnessing the burning of ‘heretics’ at Lyons and went to Strassburg in 1540 where he adopted the reformed religion and met John Calvin, who he would go on to have a defining relationship with. Castellio followed Calvin to Geneva in 1542, where he was given teaching position at the Geneva Academy, where he was to further make his mark as a scholar. Both of his translations of the Bible; the one into Latin in 1551 and the one into his own vernacular French in 1555 call for toleration. The Latin version was dedicated to Edward VI of England and is considered to be one of the first works which calls for toleration and understanding.

Amid the religious conflict and persecution which was taking place in the Sixteenth century, Castellio’s ideas stand out, and because of this he could arguably be deemed a man who was ahead of his own time. Instead of persecution, he recommended toleration and more gentle persuasion in order to spread the message of the Gospel, as well as being merciful to people who were not Christians as they were people who had not yet come to know the ‘truth’. The idea of dealing with different theological differences with love instead of with hate in order to in turn show the love of Christ is an idea which is apparent in modern religious thinking today. As Castellio himself puts it ‘Who would wish to serve Christ on condition that a difference of opinion on a controversial point with those in authority be punished by burning alive at the command of Christ himself?’[1].

Castellio was to come into conflict with Calvin, a man who had previously inspired and assisted him, over the issue of heretics. One of the best examples of this is in regards to the case of Michael Servetus, a theologian who was killed in Geneva for ‘heresy’. Castellio saw this as a murder of Servetus by Calvin, who he thought should have rebuked Servetus’s work with words and reason rather than by violent means. He saw it not as a defence of a doctrine, which was the reasoning behind the execution since aspects of Servetus’s work had involved an unorthodox look at the trinity, but an unjust killing. Castellio also believed that with guidance of the Holy Spirit, God’s word would be revealed and would help to clear up uncertainties in the Bible – the different sects of Christianity having partly been formed by disagreement about certain aspects of the Bible. However, like Calvin, Castellio has no love for people who were irreligious and who blatantly insulted the essential tenants of Christianity. Arguably, this tolerance came from the fact that Castellio believed that in order to be a Christian, you had to believe in God and Jesus Christ in his role as the Saviour, rather than the theological constructs which was a part of both Catholicism and Protestantism.

So why should Castellio be classed as one of our unknown heroes? He was one of the first figures to call for tolerance; a call which stretched from the Catholic Church to Calvin himself. This idea was revolutionary for a time in which there was so much religious conflict and extreme ways to do with the so-called ‘heretics’ of the time. The movement of liberal Christianity and tolerance grew out of Castellio’s movement and his mode of thought, which was passed down through his associates and followers in Basel. This idea of religious freedom and tolerance would eventually be adopted by the majority of Christian churches and eventually by the Catholic Church, whose actions against heretics in Geneva originally prompted him to join the reformed religion, as part of the Second Vatican Council in 1962-5.

[1] http://www.socinian.org/castellio.html

A Dastardly Doctor

We have already seen a piece on one of history’s forgotten heroes, so it only seems fair that I give you one of the villains.  It may seem a little creepy, but I have decided to tell you all about Victorian England’s most infamous poisoner. Whilst nowadays, people only remember Jack the Ripper from that time, there were other people with far more prolific sprees that both preceded and followed him. Rugeley is a little town found somewhere in Staffordshire (I’m not sure where, geography has never been a strong point of mine), completely unremarkable nowadays. However, in 1856, it was notorious as the home and killing ground of William Palmer – to the extent that the town council apparently petitioned to change the name of the town to relieve the notoriety.

Palmer was a doctor practicing in Rugeley from 1946-56, married to Annie Brookes and father to five legitimate children and at least one illegitimate one. The family home was on Market Street and is in fact still standing – it has been converted into shops now, but the building is still there. By all accounts, Palmer was a little too fond of gambling on the horse races and complained about the burden of supporting a young family that drained his gambling funds. It seems overly convenient that four of his legitimate children died within a month of their birth and that the illegitimate boy died “mysteriously” after a visit to his father.

It hardly seems surprising that all of Palmer’s debts led to the strange and fortuitous death of someone wealthy. His mother-in-law, a rich woman, dropped dead after declining to move in with her daughter’s family. Not long after, Mr Bladon of Ashby-de-la-Zouch and Mr Bly of Beccles both fell sick and died at the Palmer residence. William’s uncle was next on the list, stricken down by an incurable case of death following a glass of brandy with his nephew. An aunt fell sick whilst visiting, but threw away the pills prescribed to her by Palmer – only to find her chickens dead after they had eaten them.

Annie Palmer (née Brookes) was the good doctor’s next victim, dying only a few days after her husband had taken out an extravagantly huge life insurance policy on her. William’s brother suffered the same fate – though this time, the insurance company suspected foul play and refused to pay up. The final murder, and the one that the police convicted Palmer for was that of John Parsons Cook, a racing acquaintance who he was apparently treating for syphilis. Cook was taken to the pub opposite Palmer’s house, where the doctor treated him with morphine and strychnine-laced beef broth. Twenty hours of convulsions later, Cook was dead. In spite of a lack of clear, factual evidence, Palmer was sentenced to death after a twelve day trial. A crowd of twenty thousand flocked to Stafford to watch the execution.

Despite the hundred-odd years between William Palmer and the more notorious Harold Shipman, it’s impossible to miss the similarities. Most obviously, poison being the method of murder – that and the circumstantial evidence that was all it took for them to be sent to gaol.

What does this little story tell us? Some things really don’t change with time. Least of all, the human fascination with murder.

“The Rock”

Most possibly, you have not heard about the life and deeds of General George Henry Thomas. But you might have read his nickname somewhere. And that is a powerful one if ever there was, being “The Rock of Chickamauga”.

Thomas was some kind of hero, then, or he surely would not had earned such a sobriquet. And we have notice of many a general who has been elevated to the heroic category, so what is the problem with Thomas? If you are not interested in the American Civil War you may well not heard about him in your life, while you are to know some other general’s name even if you are not familiar to their times or circumstances. That is because, as almost in any other aspect of History, there are always secondary actors forgotten by the majority of us. Even such a hero( for some; categorising someone as a hero is always tricky, at the least) or at least a military genius as Bonaparte depended strongly on his Marechals, and he had to thank Louis Nicholas Davout, perhaps the best of them, for the victory at Jena-Auerstadt which stands as one of the most resounding in Napoleon’s career. So, why is this hero hidden from our eyes?

There are some characteristics in Thomas that make him not a fancy-full hero. He tried to keep away from politics; in fact he went as far as to reject his promotion to the rank of lieutenant-general because he had a hint that it was going to be a step to take him to the position of General in Chief. Had he had the desire of meddling in the political environment of the Reconstruction period, as, for instance, Grant was eager to do, he surely had accepted the offering. He kept protecting freedmen from white abuses and even protected African-American population from the Ku-Klux-Klan after the war was over, in contrast with many a Union officer who thought it was not worthy spilling white blood for them. Even, on the contrary that many top brass along History, he had no desire for posterity: he even destroyed his private papers saying he did not want “his life hawked in print for the eyes of the curious”[http://www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/215402201/]. We must consider this in the view of the somewhat amazing profusion of memoirs published after the war by its main (or not so) characters. In addition, Thomas decided to remain loyal to his country as a whole and not to his place of birth, what in a Civil War always requires a very strong sense of duty and some deep-rooted determination.

But, above all, what surfaces from a close view of Thomas’ life is ethics, not always freely available on the military. His well-earned nickname came from a rearguard action in a battle badly fought, worse managed by the Commander of the army, and thus lost . But a defeat could rapidly turn to a complete rout, and that kind of thing is known to have changed the course of many a war…General Thomas, the suspected pro-southerner on the eve of the war, the man called “Slow trot” by his very own cadets, made a choice. He decided, having received orders to retreat, better to keep his corps’s position in order to secure the orderly retreat of the whole army, gathering scattered units on Horseshoe Ridge, and thus probably saving the future of the Army of the Cumberland as an operative unit. That was a truly ethical choice, at the moment, considering he had his Commander’s order to get back, but pondering that, in doing so, he was merely trading his safety and that of his men for the life of too many others.

That is, I think, the kind of choice one expects from heroes. Yes, a hero must do heroic things, like winning and defeating enemies. But a real hero makes the difficult choice in the darkest hour, and keeps on doing it against all circumstances, despite glory, covers in the magazines, or posterity claims. In doing what he did at Chickamauga, Thomas showed he was made of the blood of heroes. In what he did after the war, he showed that a hero is sometimes silent, discreet, and diligent to the task entrusted, regardless of the seeming importance of it. While many others fought a war and then forget the whys, as victors, Thomas kept on fighting to assure some of the achievements that had such a toll for his fellow countrymen: end of slavery, democracy, independence of the institutions. In the meantime, most of his countrymen were going in the opposite direction, consenting on segregation, tampering with Presidential elections and forgetting to protect the weak and the poor.

It is tough to be a hero. To be an ethical hero, more so coming from the military, is an outstanding achievement, even if all you did was your work, with dedication, loyalty and a non compromising attitude towards what must be done. Now, obviously, there is no grand Thomas Memorial, no epic tombstone, even no great memories except for those familiar with the American Civil War. I guess, wherever he might be, General George Henry Thomas, the Rock of Chickamauga, must be very pleased with that.

Wincanceaster

To continue with the history of Winchester theme, this blog entry will briefly cover Anglo-Saxon Winchester or Wincanceaster.  I will begin with Winchester at the point of the departure of the Romans and then briefly cover the main areas that show the significance of the Anglo-Saxon capital.

Although many towns and cities became deserted, Winchester wasn’t completely abandoned following the end of the Roman period, though the population went into decline. According to archaeological settlement evidence, when the Saxons immigrated to Winchester in around the mid fifth century, they set up settlement outside the city walls instead of within them. The ceaster element of the city’s name indicates that in old English the Saxons arrived at Winchester that was surrounded by Roman walls. It became clear however that the population didn’t have the resources to attend to the upkeep of the city, since the old Romans drainage system fell into disrepair and the Roman south gate collapsed. The River Itchen also reclaimed large areas of the eastern part of the city meaning parts of the city had now become uninhabitable.

Politically the city continued to survive under Cerdic and his family when his son and grandson Cynric “succeeded to the kingdom” in 519 AD. The king of Wessex from 611 to 641, Cynegils (perhaps Cerdic’s great grandson) converted to Christianity in 635 along with the rest of the West Saxons thus making the city religiously important. Under the reign of Cynegils second son Cenwalh (642-73) a minster church was built that became known as the Old Minster. This made Winchester the very heart of the civilisation of Wessex and of England. Thus Winchester became the capital of Anglo-Saxon England. In 678 the Bishop of Wessex, Bishop Haeddi moved his throne to Winchester and the Old Minster became a Cathedral church. It also became the place where Kings and Bishops were buried.

Despite the advances that the Anglo-Saxons had made in Winchester, nothing could prepare them, and the rest of Britain, for the dangers ahead. The Vikings had swept over Britain, raiding and looting as they went and in the 850s and 860s they attacked Winchester. Under King Alfred the cities defence proved adequate with the defences being restored for the first time since the fourth century. Winchester also became part of the Burghal Hidage defence system from 886. This was a system of thirty towns in all that were fortified boroughs (Winchester being one of the two largest) with an estimated 2,400 men manning the cities defences. Under the reign of Alfred and his son Edward the Elder the Viking threat was faced and pushed back.

One of the most important features of Anglo-Saxon Winchester was the construction of the New Minster and Nun minster under King Alfred and his wife Ealhswith. They were both finished after 900 AD. The New Minster, completed under Edward the Elder, was run by secular clerks whilst the Nun Minster provided an area for worship for holy women within a cloister. The continued building at the Minsters would become the main focus in Winchester up to the Norman Conquest.  The three Minsters (including the Old Minster) thus greatly improved the significance of Winchester as an Anglo-Saxon city and also as England’s capital.

Here concludes the brief summary of Anglo-Saxon Winchester. I hope that this piece has highlighted the importance of the city both religiously and militarily to its own survival. Whilst the capital was moved to London following the Norman Conquest, Winchester will always have a place in the history of England with its past living on.

Sources:

http://www.visitwinchester.co.uk/site/about-winchester/brief-history

Barbara Carpenter Turner., Winchester (1980).

Tom Beaumont James., Winchester; From Prehistory to the Present (1997).

Some Kind of Hero…

We all think we know what is a hero. Or, at least, we all think we know. And of course we have our own particular heroes albeit it usually happens that, except for those within the family or something of the kind, most of our own private heroes happen to be someone elses’ heroes too.

Heroism is somewhat way far familiar to us as it may well be, given the consideration that heroic deeds are (or were) supposed to be quite extraordinary affaires, uncommon, even uncanny moments in time. But it seems we are very prone to grant lion-hearted qualities to almost everyone who struks us with his acts.

Beyond that realm of popular heroism, there always have existed the real heroes. Larger than life, or at least, larger than themselves figures who were the greatest, or very close, in war, science, sports, politics, diplomacy, medicine…sometimes they were just there in the right time, sometimes heroism was there at the very beginning of their lives, waiting, or that it seems when you listen to stories about Lincoln and the famous log cabin in the wilderness, for example. Anyway, there they are, History’s heroes…

But, wait a minute. Whatever happened to those who were not achieving the Academy Award in a leading role?  Those proud supporters, adjutants, ministers, wives, or just those figures that, for any reason, were relegated to anonymity or to live the obscure afterlife of the not-so-well-known, gaining recognition from awkward scholars or the very minute. With luck, some of them could apply for a book, or an article. Some happy few would reach the sky in a film or documentary. History is not known for its very generosity, is it?

So that is where we are now. We would like to know them. And we would like to think about their lives and see why they did not make it to stardom, maybe just ask ourselves whether they deserve the heroic status. For that mission, we have selected a few figures we consider not that well-known, and we would like to introduce them to our readers that have not met them yet, or refresh the memories of those familiar. In April we will discuss what makes a general a leader of men or not such, why reasoning and pacifism tend to lose important battles although falling always with dignity, why there are great explorers still unknown to the public in general and why some others, not really exploring, got massive appraisal. It could well be that, just because, we could explore some secondary villains whose evil deeds are not appreciate enough. Because, what is a hero without a villain to subdue?

Stay tuned. There is a lot of action still to come.

‘Venta Belgarum’

From the 22nd of January untill the 13th of March this year, the Discovery Centre, in Winchester, hosted a very visual, little exhibition in their gallery about the roman times in Britain, called: “The Forgotten Emperor: Battles, Betrayal and Murder in Roman Britain”[1]. I went up the corridor and took a look. It was fascinating. The whole story was explained on comic-book format, which I think it was brilliant. But that made me realised about one thing, I did know absolutely nothing about the roman and pre-roman history of Winchester…Me! A potential historian that has done local history before! It just sounded ridiculous in my head. Therefore, I decided to do some research, and this is what I am going to talk about today: a brief summary of the pre-Roman and Roman history of King Alfred’s City.

Pre-historical Winchester: Iron Age Settlement & Before

Winchester’s wonderful geographical location, in a valley, surrounded by hills, has been attracting settlers since Neolithic times. The settlers probably established themselves at the east, (nowadays the area of Winnal), at the south, (Twyford Down) and around the west hill [2]. Later on, in the Iron Age, the population seems to have move more towards the southerner part of the city. The archaeological evidences point us to the settlement in St. Catherine’s Hill, as well as the area of Oram’s arbour. The location seems ideal: a nice curved hill nearby the river Itchen, fertile land…What else did the people from this age could desire?

Unfortunately, we do not know much more about this period, but we can be sure of one thing. The community that got formed around Winchester was prosper, and this probably was what attracted the later Roman colonists.

The Romans in ‘Venta Belgarum’

Pics from City Museum, Winchester

Barbara Carpenter-Turner, famous local historian in the county of Hampshire stated in her study that “no one knows when or how the romans first came to Winchester”[3]. On the other hand, Tom Beaumont James supports the idea, based on evidences (archaeological sources I suppose) that they might have arrived to the locality around 50 A.D, occupying first the west bank of the river and the Tufa island[4]. Whenever this happened, the city grew and grew.B ased on what the archaeology from cemeteries tells us, the size of the city would have been of 3-4000 people in the 2nd century AD[5]. In the end, Venta Belgarum become an important market place and administrative centre, as well as a meeting point for people of different cultures and back grounds: romans, britons, and possibly early Saxons[6]. There should have been a forum, several shops and a basilica[7]. It is also known that the city acquired the status of ‘civitas’, presumably after the death of Cogidubnus, who seems like to have been the ruler of the region[8].

There is an interesting cultural issue I would like to discuss about the roman town. It seems likely that a considerable proportion of the population remained pagan. Some burials suggest that the celtic practices were still in use: there have been found several cases of cremation [9]. I do believe that it is likely that both cultures co-existed at the same time. It is well-known that the romans found difficulties to subjugate many provinces with celtic background, like the Gauls, or the Cantabros, in the north of Spain. So it doesn’t sound that shocking the fact that in the area of the Lower Brook Street, in Winchester, there has been found a figure of what seems to be Epona, c.100 AD [10]. Perhaps there was a temple nearby, whether it was pagan, roman, or roman-celtic at the same time, we would never be certain. Nonetheless, the mosaics found in late 19th and mid-20th century, in St.Clements and the Brooks, respectively [11], demonstrate that in any case there was a Roman culture and population settled in here.

This issue of the identity of city’s population and the culture clash has made some people believe that Winchester might have been, in fact Camelot [12], and that Arthur was a local ruler trying to make some opposition against the romans, hence the remaining paganism. I guess that having that wonderful Round Table in our Great Hall does not help to drag them away from their imaginative believes. Although, who knows, perhaps it we own something of the Arthurian legends to our lovely, cosy city.

Either if you are suspicious of the ‘Romannitas’ status of ‘Venta Belgarum’, or a true-believer of the Roman power in this location in the south of Britain, I think we all agree that this was the moment when the importance of the settlement begins.

As we will see in future updates, the city would go through several stages, some of them better, some of them worse, but I am quite sure that this was one of the key moments in its history.

Before I finish, I would like to invite you to see the already mentioned exhibition (if you can track wherever it is now), and, also, to visit the City Museum to contemplate some of the remaining that have been recovered. And also, here there is a link to some sources that mention the place of ‘Venta Belgarum’:

http://www.roman-britain.org/places/venta_belgarum.htm

This is  the link to the city museum:

http://www.winchester.gov.uk/LeisureAndCulture/MuseumsAndGalleries/WinchesterMuseums/CityMuseum/GeneralR.asp?id=SX9452-A781BAF6&cat=8194


Bibliography & References:

  1. http://www3.hants.gov.uk/wdc-children-eventdetails?id=91705
  2. T.B. James, Winchester: English Heritage Publications (London, 1997) 23
  3. B. Carpenter-Turner, Winchester (Southampton, 1980) 5
  4. T.B. James, Winchester: English Heritage Publications (London, 1997) 30
  5. T.B. James, Winchester: English Heritage Publications (London, 1997) 32
  6. B. Carpenter-Turner, Winchester (Southampton, 1980) 4
  7. T.B. James, Winchester: English Heritage Publications (London, 1997) 31
  8. P. Salway, A History of Roman Britain (Oxford and New York, 1993) 71
  9. T.B. James, Winchester: English Heritage Publications (London, 1997) 33-36
  10. T.B. James, Winchester: English Heritage Publications (London, 1997) 35
  11. B. Carpenter-Turner, Winchester (Southampton, 1980) 6
  12. B. Carpenter-Turner, Winchester (Southampton, 1980) 8