Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[kavan]

Nathan said:- >They might have had some sort of fruity spread.

Drat. There goes my argument for a definitive late summer/autumn campaign.

[Renatus]

I cannot resist mentioning that all this planning, conspiring, mass deception and careful preparation would seem to be the direct opposite of incuriosus, 'careless' or 'negligent'...

But I am increasingly thinking that we cannot really take Tacitus on his word about all this, so we are back to square one...

There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Lewis & Short (and my even older dictionary) defines 'incuriosus' as 'careless, unconcerned, regardless, indifferent'.  In this context, it only means that they did not bother to sow crops.  It has no bearing on any other preparations that would have had to be made.

[Nathan Ross]

There's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I suspect you are trying to have your translation cake and eat it!

There goes my argument for a definitive late summer/autumn campaign.

I still think it was most likely late summer/autumn. But definitive arguments are thin on the ground, it seems.

[Crispianus]

Nathan said:- >They might have had some sort of fruity spread.

Drat. There goes my argument for a definitive late summer/autumn campaign.

July... but some varieties can also be later, typically we have picked wild soft fruit from july through september(were at about 450+m alt, so about 2 weeks behind the lowlanders)... so if the time line is correct for a summer revolt then its quite likely there would have been fresh rapberries available IMO...

How to store, I suppose they could be dried, I doubt they would keep wet for very long even in a fridge or cooked and stored in a pot... soon go mouldy.

[Renatus]

I suspect you are trying to have your translation cake and eat it!

Nope.  Just logic.  However, I think that there is some justification in one of your recent comments and, although I would not go so far as to disbelieve him, I would say that Tacitus has to be treated with caution.  I am happy to follow him on questions of fact but it is when he ascribes motives to certain actions that one has to be careful.  Like all ancient historians, he had his prejudices and these have to taken into account.  Deryk has commented that he had little time for governors whom he did not regard as being sufficiently aggressive but we can look at their supposed inaction and see why it should be so.  You yourself have remarked that he considered the Britons as being childlike in rushing to war while neglecting the necessities of life and I recall that a long time back in this thread you commented that, in saying that they flew to arms, he was applying the stereotype of the thoughtless barbarian.  To some extent, he contradicts himself.  He says that the Iceni engaged in a secret conspiracy with the Trinovantes and other tribes.  Such conspiracies are not formed overnight and the making of one is incompatible with the notion of their flying to arms on the instant.  Likewise, embarking upon a campaign that involved the uprooting of a whole tribe is not something that can be undertaken without at least some organisation.

So, I believe that we can trust him when he says that there was a famine and that the principal reason for that was the failure to plant crops (although Suetonius' reprisals may have contributed).  It is when he attributes that failure to carelessness, negligence, failure to have regard to the consequences or however you want to translate incuriosus that he betrays his biases.  In my judgment, the failure to plant crops was a conscious decision made on the assumption that it was pointless to waste time and resources on planting a crop that it would probably be impossible to harvest.

[Nathan Ross]

It is when he attributes that failure to carelessness, negligence, failure to have regard to the consequences or however you want to translate incuriosus that he betrays his biases.  In my judgment, the failure to plant crops was a conscious decision...

Yes, absolutely. There is, I think, no way of reconstructing this episode that would have the Britons falling into a fit of forgetfulness or lassitude and somehow failing to provide for themselves. The suggestion is Tacitean bias, as you say.

It could have been a deliberate strategy. I would think it more likely a product of their revolt going awry; they had intended to be back on their own lands by sowing time, and to have reaped a considerable stock of grain from the Roman granaries to support them over winter. Instead they lost everything, and those that survived were too busy escaping from Roman attacks to do any sowing, and so fell into a long cycle of famine.

But there seems to be no way of determining which option is correct, so we'll have to just stick with our opinions for now!

[John1]

"But I am increasingly thinking that we cannot really take Tacitus on his word about all this, so we are back to square one..." FANTASTIC  !!!!!! I never ever, in my wildest dreams thought I would ever hear this from Nathan...... Square One being topography and strategic location xxxxxx

623,672

[Nathan Ross]

FANTASTIC  !!!!!!...... Square One being topography and strategic location

Before you become too enthused, I was of course referring to his word on this matter of sowing and the reasons for famine.

Without Tacitus's other words, we have no topography, no chronology, no last battle, and pretty much no Boudica.

[[email protected]]

To all similiar minded Pilgrims in retirement. I am on the search yet again for a lost battlefield. The Mons Graupius site to be exact and like the others I believe Tacitus is correct. If anyone has a topographical search engine and wishes to jointly participate in this forlorn hope, then please info me in confidence at [email protected]. PS I know what to look for and what if..... this site does actually exist?

[John1]

try this thread, reviving dead posts is standard operating procedure on here:

https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/showth...s+graupius

628,397

[John1]

Christmas Treat time.

Prof. Will Bowden (Nottingham Uni and Venta Icenorum) is being put in the ring by the Battlefields Trust, can't wait......

POST MATCH REPORT !!!!!
Prof Bowden tells us we're entirely wasting our time....

"The descriptions of the battle are almost entirely derived from a highly standardised set of literary devices that would have recognition for their readers. It is doubtful any factual information can be derived from the battle descriptions."

"There is no way to build a research programme to find the battlefield. if it is to be found it will be through serendipitous finds by metal detectorists"

"The hunt will be like Richard III, it would never get research Council money" 
(didn't mention the BFT doing surveys of Dunstable or Cuttle Mill, or all the research money that has gone into Mancetter.)

Battlefields shown in diagram were Mancetter, Heydon (William Foot) and Ogbourne (Steve Kaye) Seemed to be a scan  from British Archaeology 165 March 2019

Another archaeologist sceptic who will fall to the RAT thread of doom sooner of later. He is keen to find Boudiccas grave to get on Digging for Britain though.....

[Nathan Ross]

Prof Bowden tells us we're entirely wasting our time.... It is doubtful any factual information can be derived from the battle descriptions.

Thanks for the update!

To an extent, I tend to agree with the professor. But if we are to follow Tacitus at all, we can at least gain an idea of the shape of the campaign and the general area we should be looking at - close to St Albans and London, on the Roman road network, probably on high ground.

As I never tire of pointing out, the site at Newground near Tring has indeed turned up serendipitous finds by metal detectorists, along with excavated Roman military material, including armour and weapon fragments, of approximately the right date. But it would take a far more thorough and wide-ranging excavation by a professional team to establish anything more than the shadow of a possibility.

[Renatus]

To an extent, I tend to agree with the professor.

So do I, so far as Dio is concerned.  Not so Tacitus.

[John1]

BBC World Service doesn't give a location but does NOT repeat Mancetter ;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1rmb

Radio 4 spectacularly states that is would take an hour and a half to list all the nominated Battle sites..... a characteristically glib take on the topic from media academics.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07n8nrg

632,395

BBC 3 gets in on it with Unearthing Britannia's Tribes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0013s3r

639,038

[MonsGraupius]

kavanDid the Romans have raspberry jam?

They might have had some sort of fruity spread - here's a recipe for apricot jam, for example. But without sugar as a preservative and sweetener (presumably they used honey instead?) the result probably would not have tasted much like our jam today.

There are various ways to preserve fruits. The key is to remove moisture until the RH is below about 45% which prevents bacterial and fungal growth. The reason they add sugar, is because sugar is hygroscopic, and it allows the fruit to remain "wet" whilst the RH is still low - this is what jam is - a mixture that has a low %RH due to the sugar, which still retains enough moisture to move i.e. be "spreadable". The sugar is not needed to preserve the fruit, but without the sugar, at the required %RH, the mixture becomes solid. And, at the extreme you get dried fruit.

I'm not sure I used raspberries, but I did preserve some fruit by mashing it up and then drying it as a sheet (seeds included). It can then be rolled up. It then has the consistency of licorice all sorts.

You can also preserve fruit in alcohol and vinegar.