In message , Angus Bryant
writes

South-east Kent would still have been the easiest place for the Romans to
access the UK, and so a bypass round London to reach the main artery to the
milands and the north-west (Watling St A5) would seem to make sense.

Except that the only bridge was London Bridge. Crossing at Westminster
meant either getting very wet or loading everything onto a ferry.

Having said that, I think there is some evidence that the Westminster
route would have been used before the building of London Bridge, but the
latter is believed to have been built within 7 years of the Romans'
arrival, so it wouldn't have had a lot of use.

Also it's a bit of a coincidence that *both* the A2 and A5 are called
Watling Street - the logical explanation is that they are the same road.

Neither was named Watling Street until more than 800 years after either
had been built - it is an Anglo-Saxon name.

Almost the only contemporary source of information on Roman roads in
Britain is Antonine's Itinery, written some time after the network had
been finished. Most of the route from Wroxeter to Dover is described as
Iter II, suggesting that by then both parts of what is now Watling
Street were considered to be part of a continuous route (via what is now
the city of London).

However, I don't think it was built as such. When the Romans arrived
they headed first for London. Roads to other places doubtless followed
after various local tribes were subdued.

--
Paul Terry