I never said it was not founded by the Romans though and i know this i said earlier i love Military history and especially Rome. Colchester would be another and yes while you have a point about immigrants founding it they are hardly like modern day immigrants when these are European people interacting with other Europeans within Europe.
Rubbish. You're picking an artificial and arbitrary modern distinction ("European") and applying it to 2000 years ago when it was of no relevance (and didn't even exist). That's hardly a compelling point. Nobody thought of themselves as European back then - that's an extremely recent idea.
Rome provides a good example - time and time again, neighbouring tribes were so culturally seperated that they couldn't even ally, let alone unify, to fight of a direct threat of invasion and conquest by an external enemy! The British tribes, for example, could have defeated the Roman invasion by allying, even just a temporary alliance. Even if half of them allied, it would have been enough. Yet they didn't, even with a hugely capable and charismatic leader (Caractacus) trying to forge that alliance. You're painting a picture of a commonality ("European") which wasn't even anywhere near close to existing.
Back then we were the Barbarians and they brought us civilization close to what we would assume as a modern civilization with city's, taxes, bath houses and roman roads.
Not entirely true. Consider, for example, Poole's pre-Roman docks. Poole was a major port at least 300 years before the Roman invasion, heavily built up from the natural harbour with large permanent structures. It was probably used before then, but the oldest extant remains date from the mid 3rd century BC. Artificial docks nearly 300 feet long, solidly built with stone. Obviously, this means there was very large scale international trading going on in Iron Age Britain. You don't built docks that size by hand unless you need them.
There's some evidence of international trade from southern Britain back into the Bronze Age, possibly more than 3000 years ago (i.e. before Rome even existed). It's not explicitly stated, but there's good reason to think that the British Isles are the "tin islands" from which Bronze Age meditterranean cultures got the tin they needed to make bronze. Out the med, along the coast northwards and it's not long until you reach the south coast of Britain, where you could trade for boatloads of tin.
Iron Age British tribes were quite civilised, living mostly in permanent settlements (including some large enough to count as cities in those days) and capable of building major structures. The Romans saw them as barbarians...but the Romans saw pretty much everyone else as barbarians. Part of the reason for Rome invading was that Roman leaders thought (correctly) that most of the British tribes were barbarians who were civilised enough to welcome Roman civilisation, to see it as an upgrade.
And not all the Britons adapted to Roman culture mate. Many opposed it including the Iceni who actually burned it to the ground before Paulinus crushed them with his Wedge formation at Watling Street.
The Icenii accepted client nation status and were adapting to Roman culture. It was the brutality and stupidity of the procturator fiscal at the time that eventually triggered the revolt bubbling as a result of the ignorant policies of the governor, implemented ignorantly and arrogantly by the army. If the Romans had stuck with standard imperial policy for the circumstances, the revolt wouldn't have happened.
You could have chosen Caractacus' coalition as a better example, as that was opposition to Roman rule on principle rather than as a result of insane psycho fury.
But the best example of your point (which, incidentally, does nothing to counter mine) would be the Dumnonii because they never romanised. Right through the Roman period, they remained Iron Age Britons. The only Roman remains found in their lands are either clearly official (e.g. the Roman army base in Exeter) or very likely official (e.g. some Roman remains related to mining, which the Roman authorities would almost certainly have controlled or at least kept a close eye on).
I just meant to say that people harp on about London being a shining example of how rich the UK could become boosted by migrant labour. London is just lucky to have been the first real major city to have it all with the Thames for transport and later the City Of London based there. Even today it is one of the biggest financial centers in the world maybe second only to New york? I just do not believe that migrants have made London the city it is today. At least not the migrants that are relevant to this thread.
Neither do I, but you were making a generalisation that I think is invalid.
You almost had me though you so and so i take it you played RTW as a kid and got into history the same way?
No. I studied Latin at school with a superb teacher and that got me interested in ancient Rome. My interest in British history expanded from there, mostly.
Are you into say Napoleonic and others?
No. Roman, with a side interest in later medieval England and 19th century England (because of how often I found the roots of modern English things in that period of time).
Send me a trust so as not to go off topic.
This thread has a topic?