The Roman invasion of Britain (AD 43) in imperial perspective: a response to Frere and Fulford

Few subjects have been more passionately discussed recently than the question of whether the invasion force in AD 43 landed in Kent or on the south coast or simultaneously in both areas. Recently Professor Frere and Professor Fulford joined forces to produce a series of arguments, each independently, supporting a landing in Kent. It is argued here that while archaeological or strategic considerations do not exclude either theory, some of the new 'evidence'– especially Frere's and Fulford's logistical and linguistic arguments – is demonstrably incorrect. Furthermore, the Kent hypothesis relies on the assumption of an unmentioned far–distance embassy and other non–straightforward interpretations of our main textual source, Cassius Dio. It is, however, not the aim of this paper to replace one one–sided hypothesis by another, but to point out the dangers of dogma.