Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

The narrative is referring to London and does not move away. Which means they were cut off from crossing the Thames. That is the only reasonable way to interpret it.

No it isn't.  You have to look at the Latin.  The verb in the sentence is 'attinuerat'.  'Attineo' means 'to hold on, hold fast, delay, keep'.  Tacitus is quite clear.  What is holding those left behind is weakness of sex, infirmity of age or the attraction of the place.  There is nothing about being cut off, trapped or being unable to cross the Thames.

[MonsGraupius]

"Uncertain whether he should choose it as a seat of war".

ibi ambiguus, an illam sedem bello deligeret... (Annals 14.33)

It might be worth thinking about what sedem bello actually refers to here.

'Seat of war' can have two meanings. In the general sense it can just mean a place where the war happens, a 'theatre of operations' or 'scene of action'. Tacitus uses it this way in Histories (3.32), when he has the people of Cremona complain that their "town had twice been the seat of war" - meaning it had been attacked twice.

Lucan, in Pharsalia Book 2, provides a more developed explanation: "Capua was chosen as the seat of war; [Pompeius] resolved to make Capua the base of his chief campaign, and from there to extend and disperse his forces in order to meet the enemy..."

So Suetonius Paulinus could either have thought simply that he would fight a battle in London, or near London (the first meaning), or that he would make London his campaign base, and gather his troops there before sending them out against the rebels, wherever they might be.

Either way, he was not originally intending to evacuate the place immediately, or (I would say) to fortify it as a redoubt, but rather to base himself there and oversee ongoing field operations. It seems likely that he was surprised by the speed of the enemy's advance and the size of their army, and rapidly decided that he would have to seek a better location for his operational headquarters.

I've no idea why you draw a distinction between the place a army is, and the place an army fights. Moreover, we are told that Suetonius delays: "when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle". Given it took a whole summer to bring the Romans and Caledonians together at Mons Graupius, Romans habitually took a long time. It would not be unreasonable for Suetonius to have delayed till the next year. So, we know Suetonius was sitting somewhere "his seat for war", for some quite considerable time.

So, Suetonius' seat for war " ...from there to extend and disperse his forces in order to meet the enemy...".

Having chosen his "seat for war", Suetonius, then starts sending out patrols and forces, to start reasserting Roman control over an area and to start pushing back against Boudica. Foot soldiers could only travel about 15 miles out and back in a day, cavalry about 30miles. However, with the use of additional fortifications, he could start controlling an area up to 60miles around his "seat for war". So, long as that area protects his supply lines, he and his troops are then able to live quite happily preparing the army and equipment for war.

However, it is clear to me, that Suetonius was under pressure to "stop delaying" and to go out and pressure Boudica into a major battle.

At the battle of Mons Graupius, this was achieved by steadily increasing the area of Roman control up toward the heart of the Caledonians around Inverness and the Moray coast. We are even told of the impact hearing the Romans daily constructing the road that slowly and steadily brought them closer and closer to where they could strike the heartland of the Caledonians.

So, we can assume much the same. Once Suetonius sets off from his "seat of war", he then slowly develops his area of control, moving it more and more toward Boudica. Slowly, he regains settlements, subdues the rebels, and maintains the area he already controls firmly under his control. This is not the movement of a "point" ... as in a "join the dots". This is a widely dispersed army that is going out daily from each new encampment, and subduing a large area area around, until it is under Roman control, and then moving on to repeat the same.

Obviously, how long it takes to subdue an area, depends on how friendly it is. So, areas that had formerly been under Roman control before Boudica, would have readily submitted to Suetonius. So, perhaps he could have moved quite swiftly, moving camp every few days.

---

The narrative is referring to London and does not move away. Which means they were cut off from crossing the Thames. That is the only reasonable way to interpret it.

No it isn't.  You have to look at the Latin.  The verb in the sentence is 'attinuerat'.  'Attineo' means 'to hold on, hold fast, delay, keep'.  Tacitus is quite clear.  What is holding those left behind is weakness of sex, infirmity of age or the attraction of the place.  There is nothing about being cut off, trapped or being unable to cross the Thames.

:
Let's look at in context, which is what is important here

(A) he resolved to save the province at the cost of a single town [London]. (B) Nor did the tears and weeping of the people, as they implored his aid, deter him from giving the signal of departure and receiving into his army all who would go with him. © Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off overwhelmed by the enemy

Here we have a narrative at (A) which is clearly referring to London. So, we can assume that the next sentence (B) also refers to London. So, we can also infer that © refers to London. So, all of this action occurs in London as that is where the Narrative is.

And this is confirmed in the next sentence:

Like ruin fell on the town of Verulamium

Where it makes it clear it was referring to London, when it says the same ruin befell Verulamium.

So, the people who were overwhelmed, were overwhelmed in London, where as was quite clearly said, they could have easily walked across the Bridge over the Thames, unless that Bridge had been destroyed.

So, it follows that the reason they were overwhelmed in London, is because Suetonius goes south over the Thames, destroys the bridge, leaving those who through infirmity etc., had taken too long to get to London, unable to cross and so at the mercy of Boudica when she gets to London.

All this action occurs in London!

[Renatus]

All this action occurs in London!

Of course it does.  I don't know why you keep harping on about this; nobody has said anything different.  I repeat what Tacitus tells us.  The inhabitants of London who were overwhelmed by the rebels were those who could not leave because of sex or age or those who would not leave because of their attachment to the place.  None of them were going anywhere, bridge or no bridge, and you cannot use their fate to support your theory that Suetonius retreated south of the river.

[dadlamassu]

I cannot with my rudimentary Latin comment on the translation. However, the conjecture that the inhabitants who were slaughtered stayed put only because the bridge was destroyed appears to lack supporting text or archaeological evidence. (If I am wrong please correct me.) Tacitus' account has been repeated several times. It is a fact of warfare, current and in antiquity, that a significant proportion of the population flee but some stay put for a variety of reasons - stubbornness, illness, frailty, age, nowhere to go, caring for family, protecting property, family there for generations and many more reasons. So bridge or no bridge they stayed. We have seen this on TV in the current war in Ukraine, my son saw it in Afghanistan, I saw it in Iraq, my father saw it in WW2, grandfather saw it in WW1. No doubt Suetonius, Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Agamemnon, Genghis Khan, Attila and countless others before and since saw it.

[MonsGraupius]

All this action occurs in London!

Of course it does.  I don't know why you keep harping on about this; nobody has said anything different.  I repeat what Tacitus tells us.  The inhabitants of London who were overwhelmed by the rebels were those who could not leave because of sex or age or those who would not leave because of their attachment to the place.  None of them were going anywhere, bridge or no bridge, and you cannot use their fate to support your theory that Suetonius retreated south of the river.

Please! You are the one who is denying military logic!

We are told they were overwhelmed in London ... now please!!! Please! Please! Tell me how even a cripple cannot get the few hundred meters from London to the other side as your THEORY demands. It is just totally absurd. You're building your whole THEORY around an idea that people can't get across a 100m bridge and that Suetonius was such an ignorant Roman that he had no idea about the defensive benefit of th Thames.

Let you remind you who it was who couldn't walk across the 100m bridge:

chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex

WOMEN ... you would have us believe, that WOMEN .. were unable to walk down the bank to the bridge, across the bridge to the other side, where it merely takes a very small force to defend the bridge.

Are you seriously telling me WOMEN CAN'T CROSS A BRIDGE is that what your whole argument is based on ... a sexist view of women?

The only way that people can be overwhelmed in London which means not walking across a bridge, and when they have had plenty of warning as they clearly did ...  is if the bridge was demolished.

The only way a Roman general would demolish a bridge to the south, and to his supply lines, is if he is on the other side of that bridge.

Stop denying the facts! Suetonius went south across the river. That is the only thing that fits the text.

[Renatus]

chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex

Don't blame me; blame Tacitus.  However, having said that, I have been as guilty as you in not checking Church & Brodribb's translation on this point.  'Imbellis' does not mean 'weakness'; it means 'unwarlike, unfit for war, peaceful, fond of peace'.  So the comment may not be as sexist as you like to make out.

I have two pieces of advice to give to you, which I don't suppose you will take but I will give them anyway:

1.  Read Alan's post above as to how some people will react when under threat.  He draws on a wealth of military experience.

2.  Read Adrian Goldsworthy's paper ' "Instinctive Genius": The depiction of Caesar the general '.  You can find it easily online or on JSTOR.  That will tell you how the Romans responded to rebellions.  You may not like it but it will demonstrate that your concept of how Suetonius is likely to have acted is misconceived.

[MonsGraupius]

chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex

Don't blame me; blame Tacitus.  However, having said that, I have been as guilty as you in not checking Church & Brodribb's translation on this point.  'Imbellis' does not mean 'weakness'; it means 'unwarlike, unfit for war, peaceful, fond of peace'.  So the comment may not be as sexist as you like to make out.

I have two pieces of advice to give to you, which I don't suppose you will take

You are still trying to say. That someone in the much smaller settlement of London, who sees Boudica coming, will not "hobble" over the bridge. It's not that difficult a concept ... enemy coming ... they are but a few meters from the Bridge which goes directly from the Roman settlement to the other side. A bridge that is extremely easy to defend. yet you claim they did not.

It's not as if Boudica's raid on London was a surprise, which would account for some people being still in the settlement when it was overwhelmed. They had plenty of warning ... enough for Suetonius to ride hundreds of miles from Wales, take stock of the situation and then leave.

yet, you are claiming, that whilst Suetonius can travel hundreds of kilometres, that the people of London couldn't travel 0.1% of the distance to cross over the Thames.

Can I just rub in how ridiculous that is. A Slug can travel  about 5metres an hour. For Suetonius to get across London bridge at the same time as the slug travelling about 0.1% of the distance, (down the strand, to the bridge and 100m across), means Suetonius has to travel about 5km/hour.

So, quite literally a slug could have escaped London and got across the bridge well before Boudica arrived. It is the most trivial crossing in the world, until Suetonius takes down the bridge! That is the only way anyone could have been overwhelmed in London.

And, might I point out, that to sustain your hypothesis that Suetonius was totally mad as a general, you've gone from the Gallop down Watling street ... to a slug desperately going over London bridge ... and still not being overwhelmed.

[Renatus]

You are still trying to say. That someone in the much smaller settlement of London, who sees Boudica coming, will not "hobble" over the bridge. It's not that difficult a concept ... enemy coming ... they are but a few meters from the Bridge which goes directly from the Roman settlement to the other side. A bridge that is extremely easy to defend. yet you claim they did not.

I think I see the argument.  The bridge must have been destroyed as, if it had not been, all the remaining inhabitants of London, of whatever sex, age or state of health, would have crossed to the southern side.  There they would have been safe because the rebels, despite having travelled all the way from East Anglia, sacked a colony and virtually annihilated a Roman legion, would have been incapable of crossing the 100m over the bridge and wreaking their slaughter on the other side.  This would be because the bridge would have been defended by a 'small force' - Horatius risen from the dead, perhaps, as Suetonius had abandoned the town [Sorry, this sort of playground argumentation is catching].

You will forgive me, if I say that I am not convinced.

you've gone from the Gallop down Watling street

I will give you a third piece of advice.  Go back and read my posts on this thread (it will take some effort, I admit, as you evidently have not bothered to do so, so far) and then tell me where I have ever supported the idea of 'the gallop down Watling Street'.  You will have a hard task.

The trouble with all this is that you are seeking to impose your concept of military logic upon the Romans, who simply did not think that way.  Try reading Adrian Goldsworthy's paper, as I have suggested.

[MonsGraupius]

You are still trying to say. That someone in the much smaller settlement of London, who sees Boudica coming, will not "hobble" over the bridge. It's not that difficult a concept ... enemy coming ... they are but a few meters from the Bridge which goes directly from the Roman settlement to the other side. A bridge that is extremely easy to defend. yet you claim they did not.

I think I see the argument.  The bridge must have been destroyed as, if it had not been, all the remaining inhabitants of London, of whatever sex, age or state of health, would have crossed to the southern side.

Finally, you have seen the open goal, you have seen that it's such an obvious goal you take aim ...

  There they would have been safe because the rebels, despite having travelled all the way from East Anglia, sacked a colony and virtually annihilated a Roman legion, would have been incapable of crossing the 100m over the bridge and wreaking their slaughter on the other side.

and completely miss the target!!

It's a very easily destroyed bridge, and we have numerous examples of such bridges being destroyed in order to stop an enemy crossing. We also have at least one example of three people holding a bridge against an entire army, whilst someone called Renatus, tries to find an axe, having not considered the possibility that it might be a good idea to destroy the bridge and protect the civilians who crossed.

  This would be because the bridge would have been defended by a 'small force' - Horatius risen from the dead, perhaps, as Suetonius had abandoned the town [Sorry, this sort of playground argumentation is catching].

You will forgive me, if I say that I am not convinced.

But you do see, that if the civilians left London and crossed over, that the bridge could either be destroyed or defended using a small force.



So, I hope you will agree, that if you were a rich person from north of the Thames, deciding to take all your valuables over the bridge and head toward Gaul (and Roman-friendly areas of the SE), that you would put whatever pressure you can, to hold or destroy that bridge so that there are no hoards of Iceni flooding over, and so that you can escape.



Likewise, if you were a rich person from south of the Thames, or a Belgic Gaul tribal leader, you would also be rather keen to stop the marauding hoard of Iceni flooding over the Thames. So, llikewise, you would be putting pressure on Suetonius to hold or destroy the bridge.

And, if the bridge is held ... there is no problem crossing the short distance from London ... so the only scenario which is compatible with people being "overwhelmed in London" ... is if they reach London after the bridge is down.



Irrespective of the movement of Suetonius, the bridge, and any other crossings of the Thames, become critical transportation focal points that either allow (for fleeing Romans) or deny (for boudica) a crossing of the Thames. So, given their military and logistic importance, any suggestion of what happens, has to explain how the Thames crossings were used. you can't just ignore them, They are far too important for that.


We also see that whether it is at the time, or becomes as a result of this campaign, the use of defensive barriers such as Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall become the way that the military fight in Britain. The Thames-Berkshire downs is clearly such a line of defence and as such is clearly the original line that gives rise to the other Roman walls in Britain.



So, whatever all your books say about "the way Romans fought this or that way", the simple fact as shown by not one, but two, or even more lines of defence, is that the Roman practice at the time was based on using lines of defence. YOU CANNOT DENY IT. So, to put it rather bluntly your books are a load of codswallop flying in the face of the clear and obvious evidence of defensive lines in Britain.

Go back and read my posts on this thread (it will take some effort, I admit, as you evidently have not bothered to do so, so far) and then tell me where I have ever supported the idea of 'the gallop down Watling Street'.  You will have a hard task.

It's just so poetic and silly ... but so too is ignoring the Thames, which everyone seems to be doing except me and Suetonius, and Catus, and all the civilians who desperately crossed the Thames to evade Boudica ... and not forgetting those poor souls who through infirmity  of being a woman ... got to the bridge after it was down, with Suetonius on the other side saying: "oh the gods ... is that Aunt Flora they are stringing up?

[Owein Walker]

Perhaps it's time to add the south bank of the River Thames west of London was also Catuvellauni territory (Just forgot to mention it, sorry). I'm not sure how that will be explained unless SP retreats South east all the way to the River Medway, or even sets up camp in Gaul!,that's even safer, though I don't think SP was looking for safety.

[MonsGraupius]

Perhaps it's time to add the south bank of the River Thames west of London was also Catuvellauni territory (Just forgot to mention it, sorry). I'm not sure how that will be explained unless SP retreats South east all the way to the River Medway, or even sets up camp in Gaul!,that's even safer, though I don't think SP was looking for safety.

That does not fit what Ptolemy tells us:

then the Atrebati and their town Caleva
Next to these, but farther eastward, are the Canti among whom are the towns:Londinium

There is no room for the Catuvellauni south of the Thames.

[Owein Walker]

Perhaps it's time to add the south bank of the River Thames west of London was also Catuvellauni territory (Just forgot to mention it, sorry). I'm not sure how that will be explained unless SP retreats South east all the way to the River Medway, or even sets up camp in Gaul!,that's even safer, though I don't think SP was looking for safety.

That does not fit what Ptolemy tells us:

then the Atrebati and their town Caleva
Next to these, but farther eastward, are the Canti among whom are the towns:Londinium

There is no room for the Catuvellauni south of the Thames.

Looking at the evidence from the distribution of Celtic coins, by 43AD Catuvellauni currency was in use west of London and south of the River Thames. Things changed rapidly after Caesar left.

[Renatus]

So, I hope you will agree, that if you were a rich person from north of the Thames, deciding to take all your valuables over the bridge and head toward Gaul (and Roman-friendly areas of the SE), that you would put whatever pressure you can, to hold or destroy that bridge so that there are no hoards of Iceni flooding over, and so that you can escape.

I will allow you this, it is by no means impossible that someone who had decided not to leave London with Suetonius might have had a change of heart and considered that they might be safer south of the river.  Indeed, there might have been several such persons.  Nevertheless, this is unlikely to have applied to everyone and there will still have been those who stayed put for the reasons enumerated by Alan and stated by Tacitus.  If your rich person had sufficient influence, they might have engineered the destruction of the bridge, leaving those remaining north of the river at the mercy of the rebels.  This, of course, is entirely irrelevant to the movements and actions of Suetonius.

We also see that whether it is at the time, or becomes as a result of this campaign, the use of defensive barriers such as Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall become the way that the military fight in Britain. The Thames-Berkshire downs is clearly such a line of defence and as such is clearly the original line that gives rise to the other Roman walls in Britain.

Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall are products of the 2nd century.  Hadrian's Wall was erected 60 years after Boudica's revolt and the Antonine Wall 20 years after that.  They reflect the thinking of their time and have nothing to do with the AD60s.  Hadrian's Wall was the brainchild of an emperor who considered the Empire to have reached its limits and did not intend to expand it further.  The Historia Augusta states that it was constructed to separate the Romans from the barbarians and it thus demarked the boundary of the province.  Breeze and Dodson and others have argued that it served to regulate traffic into and out of the province.  In so far as it had a defensive purpose, it was to provide a series of bases from which troops, upon the prospect of a threat from the north, could sally forth to confront the enemy in the field.  It was not a defensive structure to hide behind.  The same applies to the shorter-lived Antonine Wall.

So, whatever all your books say about "the way Romans fought this or that way", the simple fact as shown by not one, but two, or even more lines of defence, is that the Roman practice at the time was based on using lines of defence. YOU CANNOT DENY IT. So, to put it rather bluntly your books are a load of codswallop flying in the face of the clear and obvious evidence of defensive lines in Britain.

I can deny it and I do.  All we have for the period we are discussing is your unsubstantiated theorizing.  To dismiss the findings of scholars who have researched these matters and have the sources to support them as codswallop is just plain arrogance and, frankly, not worthy of further discussion.

[Nathan Ross]

This, of course, is entirely irrelevant to the movements and actions of Suetonius.

Yes.

I suspect that Suetonius deliberately left the bridge intact - his intention in deserting London was to leave a tempting 'soft target' for the rebels, buying himself time to regroup and gather reinforcements elsewhere. Allowing the enemy to cross the bridge and ravage the southern riverbank settlements as well would have furthered his purpose.

In any case, they seem to have done just that - most of Roman Southwark was destroyed by fire at the same time as the main city. So the rebels did cross south of the river, either by bridge or by ford, and the Thames was not an impassable barrier or a moat, and anyone hoping for safety on the southern bank would have been sorely disappointed!

[MonsGraupius]

So, I hope you will agree, that if you were a rich person from north of the Thames, deciding to take all your valuables over the bridge and head toward Gaul (and Roman-friendly areas of the SE), that you would put whatever pressure you can, to hold or destroy that bridge so that there are no hoards of Iceni flooding over, and so that you can escape.

I will allow you this, ... If your rich person had sufficient influence, they might have engineered the destruction of the bridge, leaving those remaining north of the river at the mercy of the rebels.  This, of course, is entirely irrelevant to the movements and actions of Suetonius.

And this does fit the narrative which is of people being "overwhelmed" in London ... where the bridge is really a draw bridge ...that can be "taken up".

And, I do hope, on reflection, that you will change the "is entirely irrelevant to the movements and actions of Suetonius." because you've already admitted that he would be under political pressure from those escaping south.

We also see, that whether by design or default, the Romans need to hold the area south of the Thames ... because Suetonius will be under political pressure, and it doesn't take an enormous force to hold the Thames defensive line so it is a no brainer that they would. And, with this very small defensive force, Suetonius controls the whole SE of England ... meaning a very small force can secure his supply lines up to the Thames.

And, from that position ... it doesn't matter which way you envisage Suetonius moving ... his obvious supply line is from South of the Thames, so yet again, from a military as well as political viewpoint, Suetonius needs to hold the area south of the Thames.

as a result of this campaign, the use of defensive barriers such as Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall become the way that the military fight in Britain.

Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall are products of the 2nd century.  Hadrian's Wall was erected 60 years after Boudica's revolt and the Antonine Wall 20 years after that.  They reflect the thinking of their time and have nothing to do with the AD60s.  ld.  It was not a defensive structure to hide behind.  The same applies to the shorter-lived Antonine Wall.

The Antonine wall starts as a line of defensive forts during the Agricolan campaign of 83AD ... which undoubtedly included many who could remember the Boudican campaign. However, it is claimed that the Gask ridge is even earlier (sometime between 70 and 80 AD). Hadrian's Wall was started 40 years after the Agricolan forts. Again within living memory.

From the time of the Thames-Berkshire hill defensive line used by Suetonius, these defensive lines from sea to sea become the normal military thinking in Britain.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DEFENSIVE LINE IN BRITAIN
Having suggested it was the "normal thinking", does it then fit available evidence? There are two obvious narrowings of Britain at the Wash-Dee line and at the Humber-Ribble line.

If we look at the Wash-Dee line, which would have been the "front line" before Boudica (~50AD), we see that Lincoln is the main fort, toward the east where it is easy to supply from Gaul, but there is no obvious development of a line.

The next narrowing of Britain with a major river is the Humber (If I remember corrected, derives from old English for border). This would have been the "frontline" some time after the Boudican revolt. The major fort here is at York (~71AD), on a major river tributary of the Humber, this is also the most southerly Brigantes settlement as listed by Ptolemy. West of here is a line of forts heading to the river Ribble (Preston).

All later expansion in Britain uses some form of defensive line (Antonine wall, Hadrian's wall, Gask ridge)

I think we can safely say quite conclusively that there is a change toward the defensive line that occurs at the Boudica revolt. As, such, and given the Thames at London, it is undeniable that Suetonius would have used the Thames as a defensive line, and his success with this strategy during the boudican revolt is what changed the thinking toward the use of defensive lines in Britain.