+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. (/showthread.php?tid=16575)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 12:27 PM)John1 Wrote: I think we're stuck without finds on any of these sites.
Have you forgotten all those Roman military finds at Newground?
![[Image: wink.png]](https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/images/icons/wink.png){kind=icon}
re.flankable: high chalk ridges on either side, woods behind (albeit not your tangled willow scrub!) = about the best battlefield topography in southeast England.
(09-19-2022, 12:27 PM)John1 Wrote: it's unclear whether those lines are defending an approach from the north or south
From the south-east. St Albans direction. The blue circles represent the Britons...
Meanwhile, thinking about topography, I was having another look at one of the sites that Deryk suggested a few years ago - the valley southeast of Ivinghoe Beacon.
This would address an advance by the Britons up the Gade Valley: the 'middle route' between Watling Street and Akeman Street (my thinking is that, had the Britons chosen this route, Suetonius could have redeployed his troops to meet them in good time).
Still quite 'flankable', especially over the high ground towards Steps Hill, although a Roman cavalry force placed up there would deter that, I would think, and could then contribute to the battle by sweeping down the slopes into the enemy flank.
Just an idea, anyway.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 11:08 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:I have shown, firstly that the "destruction of Southwark" is undated and a very limited fire as there are DATED evidence for buildings on the south of the Thames standing throughout the period ... so no general destruction on the south. Moreover, I had explained how the lamp which shows signs of starting the fire ... so nothing to do with Boudica.(09-19-2022, 10:10 AM)MonsGraupius Wrote: I have provided plenty of evidence for that and you have not given one credible reason to reject it.
You have 'provided' little but heated bluster, fanciful assertion and scorn.
Evidence for destruction at Southwark, and Dio's reference to fords of the Thames*, are both 'credible reasons' to think that it did not form an impassable barrier. I have not 'asserted' anything as fact, while you have done so repeatedly.
(09-19-2022, 11:08 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: * Dio 60.20.5-6: "Thence the Britons retired to the river Thames at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood-tide forms a lake. This they easily crossed because they knew where the firm ground and the easy passages in this region were to be found; but the Romans in attempting to follow them were not so successful."
LOL! The lake or pool is a well known feature of the Thames, as is the ford under the Roman bridge. And, it is easily crossed for a few minutes a day at the right point of the tide. And it is also easily defended because there is only one easy passages and if you had been paying attention you would have known that.
Might I ask whether you have any actual evidence, which I have not already covered and/or already shown to be irrelevant ... and indeed the slightest explanation as to why Suetonius travels all the way from Wales to a small unimportant settlement, bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans ... and then according to you ... he just turns around and heads back into the midst of hostile forces, bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans.
Seems as if you have no idea that London was an insignificant settlement at the time of the Romans!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 05:30 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: I have shown, firstly
You really haven't.
The destruction was extensive, and is dated to 55-70, and I have quoted sources to support this. The buildings you mentioned probably date from reconstruction after the fire. Unless your lamp also burned most of London, it was not the cause.
(09-19-2022, 05:30 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans.
Why do you keep claiming this? I have been saying exactly the opposite for over ten years.
(09-19-2022, 05:30 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: Seems as if you have no idea that London was an insignificant settlement at the time of the Romans!
This would be the settlement of c.10,000 people, second only to Colchester (c.15,000) in the whole of Britain, and twice the size of St Albans (c.5000)? The major entrepot for the Gallic trade and base of the procurator? That little place? Hmmmmm....
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-19-2022
(09-18-2022, 11:25 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: I am interested to know if you have any similar 'circumstantial' reasons for thinking west was best.
I would like to add a point or two to Nathan's summary, albeit with some repetition.
Suetonius withdrew northwards into the almost certainly friendly territory of the Catuvellauni, who were sufficiently Romanized for their tribal capital to be made a municipium, as far as St. Albans. As Nathan has said, this was at the junction of Akeman Street and Watling Street and thus provided a rallying point for reinforcements coming from the north down Watling Street and from the west along Akeman Street. It was also within scouting range of London and allowed him to monitor the movements of the enemy. In addition, it also provided a possible haven for the civilians.
When it became clear that the rebels were advancing towards him, he withdrew westwards to the area of Tring. He could not withdraw further up Watling Street, as that would mean abandoning the Akeman Street junction and would allow the rebels to block troops coming from the west. Taking a position there would still allow troops from the north to reach him, depending upon how far down Watling Street they had progressed. They could branch off on to the Icknield Way at Dunstable, which would bring them to Aston Clinton just west of Tring, or they could turn on to the Fosse Way at High Cross and thence to Cirencester and on to Akeman Street or they could turn on to Ryknield Street at Letocetum (Wall) and join the Fosse north of Cirencester. He would still be within scouting distance of the rebels as they approached St. Albans. If the rebels advanced further towards him along Akeman Street, as I believe they did, he could withdraw further westwards towards Alchester. This would mean abandoning the Aston Clinton junction but the northern troops would still have the Fosse Way and Ryknield Street options.
I am doubtful of Suetonius adopting Fabian tactics. I think his 'delay' was simply a matter of avoiding engaging the enemy until he was sufficiently reinforced.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 06:10 PM)Renatus Wrote: I am doubtful of Suetonius adopting Fabian tactics.
Whether he consciously did or not, I think Tacitus is at least implying he did.
This could be nothing more than Tacitus trying to cast a potentially embarrassing period of hesitation in the best possible light. But there must have been a resemblance to a strategy there for the implication to have any force.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-19-2022
(09-18-2022, 11:52 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote:I am too busy to copy the references Of Cliffe and its River crossing, and you would probably ignore me again, so please if you want to talk about crossing the River Thames then just search 'Cliffe history - The Thames Crossing'.(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: The Bridge, it's just a bridge. Before the Romans turned up, there hadn't even been a bridge. For thousands of years, people had crossed the River Thames without any need for this BRIDGE.The Thames is extremely difficult to cross, to the extent that I know the names of the two people who have attempted it (in the tidal section) in the last century, one failed to the extent they were forced to swim, the other succeeded.
In contrast, Hadrians and the Antonine wall are far easier to cross without using the gate. It is after all just a 12 foot wall, with a much lower chance of death than attempting the ford at London Bridge. So is your argument that they were not a barrier and the Romans were being silly when they built them?
Should we dismiss Hadrians wall as a mere "folly?" because according to you, if people can get through, then it is no barrier at all?
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: You should understand it was the Roman army and traders who needed the bridge with their heavy armour, weapons and carts, not the tribesmen.And Boudica's army did not have carts?
Quote:The rest turned their back in flight, and flight proved difficult, because the surrounding waggons had blocked retreat. Our soldiers spared not to slay even the women, while the very beasts of burden, transfixed by the missiles, swelled the piles of bodies.(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: If SP had crossed the bridge then destroyed it, he would have done Boudica a favour and left himself isolated.Isolated?? ... in the SE of Britain amongst friendly tribes, with direct lines of supply from Rome. Are you saying if Suetonius went to Gaul he would be even more "isolated" ... and to Rome "Totally totally isolated"?
How is moving toward your own home and supplies and friendly tribes becoming "isolated"?
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: If you look at a map of crossing points navigable by foot from Oxford in the west to Cliffe in Kent, to the East, that is a distance of 100 miles, so unless you now start building a wall and a lot of forts I fail to see your plan.I have studied the Thames crossing points in detail, and the few crossing points below Goring are such poor quality that they were not even considered crossing points by the Anglo Saxons who said that Wallingford was the first crossing point of the Thames.
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: As i once said, you will find yourself retreating across the River Medway if you are not careful. (OH No! There's another bridge over the Medway).We are told Suetonius left London and that people were "overwhelmed" in London, which could only happen if Suetonius went south and pulled down the bridge.
And, as London was a minor settlement of no consequence, except for the bridge and the port, the only reason for him going to London was to either:
- Take down the bridge and use the Thames as a defensive line
- To secure London as a port for his supply lines
The galloping horseman scenarios do not include either of these objectives. No move northward explains why Suetonius came to London to secure the bridge or the port so they are all TOTALLY STUPID. The Thames is a defensive barrier as even Caesar found. Yet, suddenly the Galloping Horsemen claim it is not. How absurd!
(You will find other references)
I have lived in South Essex, North west London, St Albans, Near Dunstable and Northamptonshire, I've done my knowledge as the taxi drivers say.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 05:42 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:You: The Southwark destruction layer, dated to the same AD55-70 range as the other sites in London, is well attested. There's no 'Boudica did this' label, of course(09-19-2022, 05:30 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: I have shown, firstly
Dude, you really haven't.
The destruction was extensive, and is dated to 55-70, and I have quoted sources to support this. The buildings you mentioned probably date from reconstruction after the fire. Unless your lamp also burned most of London, it was not the cause.
The other problems are that Southwark island is too small for Suetonius so his camp would be south of the island, which means the buildings of Southwark are blocking his view, and as you yourself said: the river is easily crossed at London ford ... so if Suetonius could not destroy the ford, did Suetonius fortify the southern rampart off Southwark leaving Southwark it to Boudica?
And very simply ... if North London were all burning, all it takes is a wind from the north and the flames could have easily spread the short distance to Southwark. And indeed, a few burning arrows might also have done the same.
(09-19-2022, 05:42 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: If it's well attested, why could I only find one site. Might I suggest you are being extremely generous with the evidence ... which seems to amount to one site burnt down by one fire caused by an obviously dodgy lamp.
(09-19-2022, 05:30 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans.
Why do you keep claiming this? I have been saying exactly the opposite for over ten years.
For how long, Catalina, will you wave these straw men at us?
You do not say what you are "opposite of", but if you mean he did stay in St.Albans (which is precisely the opposite) Suetonius went to the minor settlement of London ... for absolutely no reason ... then goes to St.Albans and stayed there ... And yet he does nothing to secure the Thames, not against attacking the SE where he might have got auxiliaries from, nor even to secure his own supply lines ... that's an interesting theory.
(09-19-2022, 05:42 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:There is no evidence of the general size of settlements in 60AD, so I cannot see how you can say that:(09-19-2022, 05:30 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: Seems as if you have no idea that London was an insignificant settlement at the time of the Romans!
This would be the settlement of c.10,000 people, second only to Colchester (c.15,000) in the whole of Britain, and twice the size of St Albans (c.5000)? The major entrepot for the Gallic trade and base of the procurator? That little place? Hmmmmm....
Quote:In Britain, only three cities provide reasonably clear evidence for early stone walled circuits: the coloniae of Camulodunum (with walls of perhaps c.ad 65, soon after the Boudiccan insurrection), Glevum and Lindum (perhaps both walled at the time of their foundation c.100AD). Most other circuits in Britain, for example Chichester, Silchester and Verulamium, are usually considered to be much later, perhaps mid-3rd century.
The size of London in 55AD is shown as about 550x250m by Dominic Perring or 14 hectares, which is half that used as the definition of an iron-age Oppida. So not a big place by the size of iron-age towns.
Yes London had an early defined area, but that dates after the Boudican revolt.
Quote:Londinium’s landward walls, those on its northern, eastern and western sides, were also built of new stone and – with the Thames to the south – enclosed some 130ha (330 acres), an urban area larger than elsewhere in Britain. Most recent writers suggest that they were built close to ad 200 and thus were intermediate between the circuits of the early coloniae and those of the rest of the major towns or cities in lowland Britain (Esmonde Cleary 2003). Londinium’s landward walls, those on its northern, eastern and western sides, were also built of new stone and – with the Thames to the south – enclosed some 130ha (330 acres), an urban area larger than elsewhere in Britain. Most recent writers suggest that they were built close to ad 200 and thus were intermediate between the circuits of the early coloniae and those of the rest of the major towns or cities in lowland Britain (Esmonde Cleary 2003). However some archaeological evidence could place Londinium’s walls as late as c.ad 230 or beyond (Sankey & Stephenson 1991, 122),
And yet again, you refuse to admit the Thames is a defensive barrier ... it is like trying to discuss Hadrian's wall with someone who will not admit that it was a defensive barrier (it is in fact easier to cross Hadrian's wall than the lower Thames)
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 09:32 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: The size of London in 55AD is shown as about 550x250m by Dominic Perring or 14 hectares
Wrong again, I'm afraid. This is page 87 of Perring's London in the Roman World, 2022:
As you can see, London at the time was between 39 and 60 hectares, with a population of 10-15 thousand, and was 'Britain's most important town in AD60'.
This is according to the very historian you have just cited.
Anyway, it appears we have radically different views on all this, and any further debate will be a waste of time, so I shall leave things here.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-20-2022
(09-19-2022, 10:50 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-19-2022, 09:32 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: The size of London in 55AD is shown as about 550x250m by Dominic Perring or 14 hectares
Wrong again, I'm afraid. This is page 87 of Perring's London in the Roman World, 2022:
As you can see, London at the time was between 39 and 60 hectares, with a population of 10-15 thousand, and was 'Britain's most important town in AD60'.
This is according to the very historian you have just cited.
Anyway, it appears we have radically different views on all this, and any further debate will be a waste of time, so I shall leave things here.
The size of London given by Dominic Perring in 55AD is shown as 550x250m ... I may be out by a few 10s of meters, but that is the size he shows.
London was not an important town ... in that it wasn't a Roman or Civic town, the type of towns that someone of the status of Suetonius would even bother with ... except that it had a port and merchants and a bridge.
It was not a civil centre, it was not a military centre ... but the tradesmen and women were flourishing so it had grown rapidly, but in 60AD it was not an important town as far as Suetonius was concerned ... except that it had merchants and a port, which could be important if his key priority were logistics (but you reject that) and a bridge, which would be important if his key priority were to hold the SE (which you also reject).
So, there is absolutely nothing in Londinium worth Suetonius going there to see ... let alone defend ... let alone bypass St.Albans, a civic centre, to waste his time on merchants and traders ... which you claim have nothing at all to do with his campaign.
So why did Suetonius want Londinium as his "seat of war" ... when all it had was a bridge to the SE and second class merchants and traders? If it was reputation, he would have chosen St.Albans as a civic centre. Instead he goes past St.Albans to defend second class merchants and traders who you claim are of no benefit to him, because you have him rushing at speed back up north where he is then immediately cut off from those Merchants and traders and a crossing you do not defend. Neither the merchants and traders nor the bridge can be part of your strategy, when he knew London was just about to be taken. So, you have no reason for Suetonius to go to Londinium.
In contrast ... if you merely accept that Suetonius made the short crossing over the Thames. He then has numerous ports to use those merchants and traders and he can easily defend the Crossing. The only draw back is that Suetonius has to give up Londinium and St.Albans "for the sake of the province".
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Theoderic - 09-20-2022
MonsGraupius wrote:
So, what is the problem with understanding that the Thames is an extremely difficult barrier to cross ... what is it that people are having problems understanding ... THE THAMES IS A DEFENSIVE BARRIER!
This thread moves at such a rate it is difficult to know where to enter but here goes, with a feeling of impending doom….
If we go back only a few years before when Rome invaded in AD43 the Brythonic Tribes defended against the Roman advance at the River Medway.
This was a 2 day battle and the Brythons kept the Romans at bay and it is agreed that the there must have been a considerable force of Brythons there to have done this, however the Catuvellauni Kings Caratacus and his brother Togodumnus withdrew their army after the defeat by the Romans, across the Thames with tens of thousands of men so they could defend the northern banks.
The River Thames did not have embankments at that stage and at low tide the London Museum indicates there were islands in the River that could be used to easily cross at Southwark and at Westminster / Lambeth by the Brythons who had no heavy armour and knew the way.
Roman troops followed up and whilst Caratacus was away (no doubt getting extra forces), managed to cross the Thames, kill Togodumnus who was defending the northern shore and establish a bridgehead from whence they defeated the Brythons , Caratacjus fled and they waited for Claudius. It is tempting to think that it was the Batavians who did this, as they had at the Medway but unproven.
They main point here is that the Thames was crossed by armies without a bridge only 17 or so years before Boudica.
Of course Caesar also crossed the Thames, as did his Brythonic opponents with their chariots, in his second invasion even earlier, possible at Weybridge or Cobham or Westminster and as did William the Conqueror at Wallingford in 1066.
Like any defensive barrier (like the Maginot Line) if you cant go over it you can always go around.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-21-2022
(09-20-2022, 08:45 PM)Theoderic Wrote: MonsGraupius wrote:
So, what is the problem with understanding that the Thames is an extremely difficult barrier to cross ... what is it that people are having problems understanding ... THE THAMES IS A DEFENSIVE BARRIER!
This thread moves at such a rate it is difficult to know where to enter but here goes, with a feeling of impending doom….
If we go back only a few years before when Rome invaded in AD43 the Brythonic Tribes defended against the Roman advance at the River Medway.
The Romans tell us there were only British and an invasion of Belgae around 150BC. I've no idea who these non-historical "Brythonic" are. If you mean the British, please use the Roman terminology and just say British otherwise I have no idea what you mean.
(09-20-2022, 08:45 PM)Theoderic Wrote: The River Thames did not have embankments at that stage and at low tide the London Museum indicates there were islands in the River that could be used to easily cross at Southwark and at Westminster / Lambeth by the Britons who had no heavy armour and knew the way.
If you look at the map, you will see that the width of the main channel is very little different from that of today. Indeed, since the Thames would be crossed at low tide, when even today there are mud banks, the embankments make very little difference.
Because the width is much the same, that means the difficulty of crossing is not going to be very different. In theory, the Thames channel is crossable when the river is at low flow, but only for a very short period of time each tide. However, if the river were wider, what this means is that mud is more likely to settle on the banks, and the substantial mud banks make it MORE difficult to cross.
But, when I say "crossable", I am speaking as someone who has actually crossed large rivers the size of the Thames. We are not talking about a paddle with a bucket and spade. You would be terrified. The Spey is a comparable size river (smaller), and we have an account of the problems. I think the text is something like: "we had a problematic crossing, most got over, but a few women drowned". That is a non-tidal ford. In contrast the Thames at London is tidal, and being a long ford it would take some time, you could start crossing with virtually still water and before you get over the water could be flowing sufficiently to knock you from your feet and sweep you to your death.
(09-20-2022, 08:45 PM)Theoderic Wrote: The main point here is that the Thames was crossed by armies without a bridge only 17 or so years before Boudica.
At London Bridge. Because they built the bridge over the ford. Which is why London was the place to cross the Thames, which is why London was a critical place to hold to stop Boudica crossing the Thames. If the Thames were not crossable then, London would not exist.
(09-20-2022, 08:45 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Of course Caesar also crossed the Thames, as did his British opponents with their chariots, in his second invasion even earlier, possible at Weybridge or Cobham or Westminster and as did William the Conqueror at Wallingford in 1066.
The Picts & Scots crossed Hadrians wall ... your argument implies you think Hadrians wall was a mere folly and not a barrier, because it can be crossed.
(09-20-2022, 08:45 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Like any defensive barrier (like the Maginot Line) if you cant go over it you can always go around.
Which is why Suetonius after crossing south and putting troops to defend the Thames crossing (s), almost certainly moved west to defend the vulnerable west flank of the Thames line where the Thames could be easily crossed upstream of Goring.
The Thames is a barrier, like Hadrian's wall or the Antonine wall. Anyone could cross these ... just using a ladder ... but that does not stop them being a defensive line. And, likewise there are places or times the Thames could be crossed, but that does not stop it being a defensive line either.
The way a barrier like the Antonine wall or Thames works, is not to completely stop people getting across, instead it is to reduce the options for crossing and make those options that are available extremely costly to pursue, so that a small defensive force can hold back a much larger force.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-23-2022
(09-19-2022, 06:32 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-19-2022, 06:10 PM)Renatus Wrote: I am doubtful of Suetonius adopting Fabian tactics.
Whether he consciously did or not, I think Tacitus is at least implying he did.
This could be nothing more than Tacitus trying to cast a potentially embarrassing period of hesitation in the best possible light. But there must have been a resemblance to a strategy there for the implication to have any force.
I'm the first to admit I know nothing about Latin, but I thought Suetonius was forced into delaying the battle until he could rendezvous with his reinforcements, after St Albans was lost and some distance away. Perhaps his Plan was always to meet near St Albans, but that might have changed when he heard the Legion from Exeter was no longer to be expected.
I have always thought this post, from the beginning !, has understated the difficulties Boudicca must have faced trying to keep her 'army' in the field and united during the campaign, how Suetonius would have used it in his advantage.
On one side we have fit disciplined soldiers, well led, with supplies and food, who really have nowhere else to go to, and on the other a thrown together mix of farmers, their families and some warriors, on the road for the first time, with various leaders they'd probably never seen before, that have to scavenge for food, who need to or want to return home.
I can see huge benefit for Suetonius if he can keep Boudicca's army marching, getting weary and despondent, for as long as possible, so that when the time comes her army would be easier to break.
Personal experience has taught me to encourage confidence in an enemy, so they lose caution and think the victory is theirs, that is the time to attack. If I've been outnumbered, or they have weapons, I would run some distance so that I'm only facing one enemy at a time, the front one. The blood rush of the chasers when they think you are running away to escape them takes over their caution, and they don't realize you are taking them to a place of your choice.
Dio Suetonius encourage Boudicca to be overconfident by moving away,while making sure her army would be tired and hungry?
I believe it is a good reason to travel further away from St Albans, but stay within Catuvellauni territory.
It is only my opinion that by travelling to London Suetonius made sure he was a target and by sacrificing St Albans he looked weak, this is now a ploy set to trap Boudicca.
I would do this, would you?
I am sorry for the delay, but I've tried to keep away.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Theoderic - 09-24-2022
Owein Walker wrote
I have always thought this post, from the beginning !, has understated the difficulties Boudicca must have faced trying to keep her 'army' in the field and united during the campaign, how Suetonius would have used it in his advantage.
On one side we have fit disciplined soldiers, well led, with supplies and food, who really have nowhere else to go to, and on the other a thrown together mix of farmers, their families and some warriors
As I have said before I think that when SP heard of the uprising his immediate thought was to finish off the garrisoning of Anglesey and visit retribution on the Iceni and the Trinovantes for rebelling, by the most direct route and join with half of the Ninth taking the Fourteenth and half of the Second (possibly already with him) and lay waste the rebels homelands.
Normally where tribes had towns this was easy as the enemy was all in one place and a commander would march directly and destroy the town or an attacking army. This is what Cerialis did and was ambushed and overwhelmed, as the Brythons were expecting an immediate response from Rome and only had to wait by the Roman Roads to wait for a response.
As far as I am aware the Brythons never beat a Roman Army on the Battlefield, typically would use hit and run tactics and were only successful when using guerrilla tactics in ambuscades. Against a formal organised force they were defeated but unless trapped, dispersed and re-emerged later.
The tribes could put a lot of warriors in the field and certainly some would have been farmers in this type of conflict an d land repossession but although Tacitus mentions wives in the wagons this is unproven and they may have been single women driving the wagons therefore the association with families is also unproven, This was not a migration.
My conjecture is that when SP reached Wroxeter he heard of the loss of the Ninth and possibly the loss of Colchester or at least a request from Catus for troops.
It would seem logical that by going down Watling Street he could take his army to St Albans and protect the Roman Citizens there and also go down to London to protect Roman assets and get the latest information from Catus who unfortunately in the meantime had decamped to Gaul by ship/s so must have been aware of the carnage in Colchester.
SP marched down Watling Street depleting the food stocks at each Roman fort as he went through.
On arrival at St Albans he rested the majority of his troops, garrisoned the town and took the cavalry and some mounted troops to London to gain information and try to understand the situation in the East and to add troops to Catus’ force before marching on the Iceni and Trinovantes.
The Brythons were not there even though it had been many days since they had destroyed Colchester because London was not that important to them as they did not rely on trade with Rome from London but from the port near Colchester at Fingringhoe.
So after the sacking of Colchester the tribes went back to their homelands as they wanted to eject the people who had taken their lands and to be prepared for the attack on their homelands that they had every right to expect as a standard Roman tactic by SP.
Once they realised that SP was in London with a small force, they fully mobilised their army but SP retreated to St Albans taking grain and weapons with him and burning the warehouses at Southwark and burning the bridge before going back to St Albans.
Why wouldn't SP go South over the Thames?
His information that he relied on was faulty and he had been caught out by the Iceni and the Trinovantes and really did not know who he could rely on as allies. Could the Cantiaci be trusted, were the Atrebates still on Rome’s side? How would the Catuvellauni react? Could he be ambushed (Tacitus makes it clear that SP was concerned over this).
30,000 of his troops were north of the Thames and to the West and on the northern edge of the Midlands, he needed to get back to strength but also needed to understand how Boudica was going to react.
Would she be content to stay in her homelands or want to exact revenge on Rome.
In turn Boudica could not move until she saw what SP was going to do and once she saw him retreat from London was able to move her forces to attack him as he no longer posed a threat to her lands.
Her forces moved into London and in their disappointment at missing SP and not able to get food when they reached London, they destroyed it as they had Colchester and after a couple of days pursued SP to St Albans but again missed him as he left with the civilians.
Renatus wrote:
When it became clear that the rebels were advancing towards him (at St Albans) , he withdrew westwards abandoning the Akeman Street junction and would allow the rebels to block troops coming from the west. Taking a position there would still allow troops from the north to reach him, depending upon how far down Watling Street they had progressed. They could branch off on to the Icknield Way at Dunstable, which would bring them to Aston Clinton just west of Tring, or they could turn on to the Fosse Way at High Cross and thence to Cirencester and on to Akeman Street or they could turn on to Ryknield Street at Letocetum (Wall) and join the Fosse north of Cirencester. He would still be within scouting distance of the rebels as they approached St. Albans. If the rebels advanced further towards him along Akeman Street, as I believe they did, he could withdraw further westwards towards Alchester. This would mean abandoning the Aston Clinton junction but the northern troops would still have the Fosse Way and Ryknield Street options.
This explanation is, as Michael says, a re-iteration of Nathans statements and placing the battle site near Tring which allows access from “surrounding stations”.
By choosing his battle position next to the Icknield Way SP, forces Boudica to attack him as she cannot leave him there to threaten her lands if he stays, gets re-inforcements and is re-supplied ready to march up the Icknield way straight into Iceni heartlands
In his turn SP needed to confront the Brythons whilst they were all in one place to inflict as much damage as he could with his limited resources on the rebels.
He has already waited for them to follow him and now has chosen the battle site in the Chilterns.
I have spent a considerable amount of time looking at the valleys and defiles in the area on Google Earth and have visited the area around Tring.
My original placements were at Chivery and Hastoe and the surrounds but although it is possible after considerable debate here, I feel that it is not feasible so I have looked at a number of other sites in the area as follows including:
Wendover, Aston Clinton, The Gade valley near Frithsden, The vale below Ivinghoe Beacon, Aldbury and NewGround (Nathan’s preferred site) and
Pitstone Hill
Surprisingly although from Tacitus’ description of the site there would appear to be a number of options, his description is remarkably specific from a topographical point of view.
It is that access to the battle field is by a defile or a strip of land from a plain and on the other side of the battlefield there is a defile with woods behind it, that was large enough for 10,000 men and horses to charge out of.
Of all the sites that have been listed, the one at Pitstone Hill is the only one that fits the topography in this area (and most other proposed sites) and that doesn’t totally depend on the wagons being the only reason why the outcome was a military success for SP.
At Pitstone Hill there is a natural ampitheatre with two entrances, one that is like a tongue of land entering and the exit in a valley reaching up to 180 feet above the valley floor, that even today is wooded at the rear.
As this is a natural ampitheatre there are hills surrounding the battle site and there are only two ways off the battleground either past the Roman lines or back down the spit of land to the Aylesbury plain.
As Tacitus makes clear, SP is wary of an ambush (after what happened to the Ninth and also what had happened to Varus). It is my contention that SP did not go down Akeman Street but left St Albans and travelled up the Gade Valley, to avoid the roman road network, where there is plenty of water and which links to the Icknield Way.
At Ivinghoe Beacon he turned west along the Icknield Way towards Aston Clinton and went up into the valley at Pitstone Hill and prepared the site from which he could see that there were no enemies behind him and he had the whole of the battlesite and the plain to observe the enemy following him.
It was rare that the Brythons were brought to a formal battle and it was key that SP was able to cripple the Brythons with a heavy defeat otherwise they would only disperse, re-group and continue to harass him, as was normal, when he was on the road back to Cirencester.
At the ampitheatre at Pitstone, the hills surrounding the battlefield effectively means that once a few thousand Brythons enter, the entrance becomes a bottle neck if the Brythons performed their usual tactic of retreating back through it to fight another day. SP would have understood this and chosen the site carefully.
This may have been why he delayed to find the right site and also to ensure that Boudica would follow him.
The Brythons in their turn would have been wary but as they were pursuing what looked like a defeated Roman column that was holed up in a valley that they knew and not in the most favoured position, where the Roman army was at the base of a long slope, they were probably confident.
SP on the other hand was at the base of the slope so that when the two armies met at the charge it would be difficult for the Brythons to retreat quickly and chaos would ensue when they were charged.
It was the hills surrounding the battlefield that trapped the Brythons and funnelled them back to the entrance as SP planned but it was made worse by the baggage train that was pulled up around that battlefield, from where they were expecting to see the defeat of the Roman army.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-25-2022
(09-24-2022, 09:47 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Surprisingly although from Tacitus’ description of the site there would appear to be a number of options, his description is remarkably specific from a topographical point of view.
It is that access to the battle field is by a defile or a strip of land from a plain and on the other side of the battlefield there is a defile with woods behind it, that was large enough for 10,000 men and horses to charge out of.
Where does Tacitus say this?
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Theoderic - 09-25-2022
Theoderic wrote:
Surprisingly although from Tacitus’ description of the site there would appear to be a number of options, his description is remarkably specific from a topographical point of view.
It is that access to the battle field is by a defile or a strip of land from a plain and on the other side of the battlefield there is a defile with woods behind it, that was large enough for 10,000 men and horses to charge out of.
Renatus wrote:
Where does Tacitus say this?
Tacitus writes (open to interpretation):
He chose a position approached by a narrow defile…
The “position” refers to the battle field which is approached by a narrow “defile” or “strip / tongue of land” depending on your translation. So this is the entrance to the battle site.
….. and secured in the rear by a wood……and that the plain there was devoid of cover
Therefore the plain (battlefield) must have been between the entrance and the wood at the rear of the battlefield.
The legionaries were posted in serried ranks, the light-armed troops on either side, and the cavalry massed on the extreme wings.
The narrow defile gave them the shelter of a rampart.
This defile had to be between hills to give them a rampart like cover
The enemy, he knew, had no approach but in front. An open plain lay before him.
Therefore the Brythons had to cross the plain to get to the Roman line.
At first, the legionaries stood motionless, keeping to the defile as a natural protection: then, when closer advance of the enemy had enabled them to exhaust their missiles with
The Roman line was in a defile that was not at the entrance to the battle site, therefore there had to be a narrow entrance to the battle site and also a defile on the other side of the plain which was the battle field.
They brought even their wives to witness the victory and installed them in waggons, which they had stationed just over the extreme fringe of the plain.
The wagons had to be either on the hills surrounding the battlefield (otherwise the “wives” would not have been able to see the battle) or outside the entrance to the battlesite….
(At least that is the way I see it)
