Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[John1]

Forcibus Topography = A narrow valley of singular direction with sufficiently steep sides to have a significant impact on how light troops can manoeuvre. I understand the literal meaning to be "throat" but that could be something to pass through or something that dead ends, as in a stomach. Dead end where anything coming in gets mushed up drenched in acid and sent on it's way as fertilizer...... it's an alimentary interpretation that works quite well for a closed valley....

[Renatus]

Forcibus Topography = A narrow valley of singular direction with sufficiently steep sides to have a significant impact on how light troops can manoeuvre. I understand the literal meaning to be "throat" but that could be something to pass through or something that dead ends, as in a stomach. Dead end where anything coming in gets mushed up drenched in acid and sent on it's way as fertilizer...... it's an alimentary interpretation that works quite well for a closed valley....

I certainly agree with the 'narrow valley' part of this and you are right that the literal meaning of fauces is 'throat'.  It can  also mean 'pharynx' or 'gullet'.  However, when applied to topography, it means a 'narrow way', 'defile' or 'pass' and, in nautical terms, a strait.  Tacitus' fauces is 'closed' in the sense of the rear being blocked by a wood but the natural interpretation of his wording is that of a valley that, but for the wood, would have been a through way.  If he had wanted to refer to a closed valley, he could have used a term such as 'vallis clausa'.

Literally, 'forcibus topography' means 'in the defile' topography but I am not sure that that is what you mean.  I have a recollection that you once posted an image of Suetonius' dispositions that was somewhat different.  Could I trouble you to re-post it to save me having to engage in an interminable search of this thread?

[John1]

Either of these?

Ridge features:

   

Force disposition:

   

Source;
https://www.academia.edu/1280170/Battle_..._Stowe_CP1

Others from the thread,  but who knows when.... 

   

   

There's a more strategic image showing the relationship with Hunsbury Hill due to the mass abandonment of IA weapons and quern stones at what appears to be an ideal British rally point:

   

source:

https://www.academia.edu/102948828/Boudi...king_Draft

I hope that helps.... from my point of view a there is enough to instigate a thorough search of the valley and then unpick troop dispositions should there be any appropriate finds... a securely dated battlefield with finds would probably have us re-writing chapters about what we know about how such battles were prosecuted. the position at the top of the ridge, on the face of the slope or the base of the slope will vary subtly between interpreters and the passing of the day. I am comfortable to place the Romans on the ridge top, on the east facing slope at the head of the valley, but equally content if contact were made on the valley floor. I don't think we can have a hard and fast position on that with the material we have to hand.

Thanks for the input on the foricibus, it seems too subtle a point to force any change in this topographic approach but appreciated for future reference....

When you visit site do take the time to check out the view from the field gate marked here with the arrow:

   

[Nathan Ross]

Don't forget how close Church Stowe is to Iceni territory (Thrapston, based on Will Bowden's definition BFT 2023). 25 miles of easy going river valley. This is the point where Watling Street is at it's closest to Iceni territory and probably the easiest route into its heartlands.

I think you said that Will Bowden suggested Iceni territory might have extended some way into Cambridgeshire. Isn't Thrapston in Northants?

In any case, the Iceni heartland was much further east. We might guess Saham Toney, Thetford or Mildenhall to be the centre of it.

Church Stowe to Saham Toney is approx 84 miles, via the difficult marshlands of the Wash and Ely. Dunstable to Saham Toney is approx 77 miles, via the well-travelled route of the Iknield Way. If Paulinus wanted to threaten the Iceni heartlands, he would have based himself around there, not further north-west. And he would have attacked while the Iceni were sacking London, or heading back home again, rather than waiting for them to regroup.

With the Romans remaining essentially static at Church Stowe (even if the Britons had a clear idea of where they were!), why would the Iceni not simply remain in their own territory and wait for their enemy to march east and face them on their own ground? Their sole victory against a Roman force (Cerealis) had been an attack on a column advancing towards them, after all.

They would have a much better chance of success by guerrila warfare than in trekking off across country to face professional disciplined troops in a prepared position. As I've said before, insurgent armies throughout history (however bold and reckless they may have appeared) have been very unwilling to do this unless they have no other choice.

[John1]

Will Bowen presented a map of Iceni-ish territory, placing that territory 1.6 miles from Thrapston, his map, his choice of definition. (BFT 2023)

   

Granted, I wouldn't want the ruler and the Bowden map out either if I were pimping Tring....

   

But the lines don't really matter, the position threatens territory whether it be heartland or not.

84/77 miles, not much to choose between them and if we are to believe Upex the Nene valley was a military feature that must therefore have been well connected.

As for the rest I think you have too many certainties that cannot really be certain, lets get back in our defiles as you had previously assured me you would.....

[Nathan Ross]

Will Bowen presented a map of Iceni-ish territory, placing that territory 1.6 miles from Thrapston, his map, his choice of definition. (BFT 2023)

Hmm, it seems suspicious that the border of 'Iceni territory' exactly matches that of the modern county of Cambridgeshire, established in 1972...

Before that the bit shown on your map was part of Huntingdonshire, I believe. Chatteris seems to be westernmost place that shows signs of Iceni influence. In any case, the Romans would want to attack the heartland, as you say, not the fringes - and it so happens that there is a road going directly there from Dunstable/Tring.

But anyway, yes, I now shall retreat to my defile and keep my head down!

[John1]

War Gaming the final battle as a research methodology looks interesting. This is an old school physical set up but I assume one could do the same simulation digitally with many multiple tests for multiple sites. Great choice of test site too    

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHLldfvzYIM

Interestingly the war game map of Church Stowe and the History Hit video on Boudicca define the battle site with identical contours.... History Hit committing to Church Stowe?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxWucSi2k1k

   

732,944

[Nathan Ross]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHLldfvzYIM

Why does he list Markyate again? As far as I can see he's the only person ever to have mentioned it. Does he ever say why he keeps dropping it in?

[John1]

It's just a synonym for Dunstable, I've seen plenty of support for that over the years....

[kavan]

I have just watched an excellent video by Paul Whitewick on the site of the battle. Amongst others he gives credit to Duncan Mackay and Steve Kaye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxX4XrjuppI

[Robert Vermaat]

I have just watched an excellent video by Paul Whitewick on the site of the battle. Amongst others he gives credit to Duncan Mackay and Steve Kaye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxX4XrjuppI

I like his videos but not his historical knowledge or access to methodology. 
His video about 'the grave of Cerdic' was full of historical gotspes.

[John1]

I've just been reading Scarrow's account of the battle in Rebellion. It struck me that his version of Suetonus did not deploy an abatis either to his front nor to his woodland fringe. Maybe I am being a bit of a chicken, with little trust from woodland as a defence, (but where there was an obviously surfeit of trees) I think my first response to a huge force moving against a thin line would be to deploy abatis (or simply felled trees) all over the defence line, then lob anything I had available over into the corral it created. Google tells me the use of such features was a Roman tactic, can anyone point me at any specific examples of their use?


   

777,423

[Renatus]

 can anyone point me at any specific examples of their use?

Caesar's siege-works at Alesia come to mind, although the situation is very different.  This is a modern reconstruction.  I will see what Caesar himself says about the works.

   

[John1]

thanks. I'm also thinking something less organised and architectural would do an even better job of directing traffic. Although I don't see how these could ever be meaningfully picked up in the archaeological record.

   

   

..and loving this as a greater barrier than a simple "clean" triple ditch such as the Larches at Church Stowe.

   

This one is worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgj2GigDVbA

MacKay's description seems to be that the Brits sacked Verulamium (V) first. Then with the Romans arrayed at Windridge they went south and attacked up a shallow valley (Blue) rather than heading straight west over the flat to contact and envelopment (Green). This theory is based on the characterisation that Roman armies wanted to maintain their maneuverability, this tactical anchor seems entirely at odds to the description of the battle, any thoughts?

   

785,843

[Renatus]

any thoughts?

He tells a good story but is there a defile there to match Tacitus' description?

---

The entire matter hinges on Tacitus's text
 
He chose a position approached by a narrow defile, closed in at the rear by a forest, having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front, where an open plain extended without any danger from ambuscades. His legion where in close array, round them the light armed troops, and the cavalry in dense array on the wings. On the other side, the army of the Britons, with its masses of infantry and cavalry, was confidently exulting, a waster host that ever had assembled and so fierce in spirit that they actually brought with them, to witness the victory, their wives riding in wagons, which they placed they had placed on the extreme border of the plain.
 
Tacitus describes a valley situated on the outskirts of a mountainous region. Beyond the valley lies a large open plain, surrounded by steep mountains that face the open plain.
"Wives riding in wagons, which they had placed on the extreme border of the plain." It is assumed that it was difficult to navigate the terrain with horses and wagons. The wagons appeared to be arranged in a line roughly parallel to Suetonius's battle line. This could suggest that they were positioned on a road. Roads often demarcate boundaries, so a road could be what Tacitus refers to as the border.
"He chose a position approached by a narrow defile." The opening is narrower at the entrance than further into the valley.
"Having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front." The location is a geographical bottleneck into the mountainous area, extremely difficult to access except through the opening.
Suetonius had 10,000 soldiers at his disposal. According to Dio, the Britons numbered 230,000, though these figures are likely exaggerated. Nevertheless, the Britons had a significant numerical advantage. This forced Suetonius to find a perfect defensive position that met the requirements for winning the battle. Suetonius found the perfect spot; otherwise, he would have lost the battle.
Boudicca's last known location was St. Albans. So, what was her next target? Looking back, she had attacked Roman towns or the Roman Ninth Legion, which confronted her. The Second Roman Legion remained in their base in Exeter, posing no threat to her. Suetonius must have been north of Boudicca on Watling Street, marching south to confront her. This threat Boudicca had to face.
After Boudicca's successes in capturing Colchester, more tribes sided with her. Suetonius must have been aware of this, which compelled him to confront Boudicca as quickly as possible. The nearest Roman towns from St. Albans were Alchester or Towchester, which could have been her next possible targets. Tacitus does not mention Boudicca destroying these towns, which could imply that the battlefield might be somewhere between Alchester, Towchester, and St. Albans.
A search using lidar finder reveals no suitable defensive positions south of Towchester or south of Alchester. However, in the northern Chiltern Hills, there are valleys that penetrate the mountains and seem interesting.
Chiltern Hills might have been a large impenetrable forested area 2,000 years ago. If we study the valleys in detail, one fits well with the criteria mentioned.
The valley that enters Northern Chiltern near the town of Wendover aligns well with all these assumptions. The Roman Road Akeman Street approximately corresponds to modern-day A41. The distance between Wendover and A41 is about 6 km. Boudicca could have moved from St. Albans to the open field outside Wendover, formed her army on Akeman Street, roughly opposite Suetonius, who had already taken a position at the opening.
The opening at Wendover is approximately 1400 meters wide. If Suetonius had lined up his 10,000 soldiers with a 2-meter width between each, the column would be 7 men deep. A more reasonable assumption is that cavalry stood on the flanks behind the infantry, making the column shorter in depth. The cavalry would likely have been used to sweep out to the flanks to prevent encirclement.
A search for archaeological finds on the proposed battlefield reveals no evidence of a battle taking place here.
The opening at Wendover is a location that should have appealed to Suetonius as a suitable battlefield.
Many details align well, and if the reasoning is correct, the answers lie in the ground. If someone finds this reasoning plausible and has the time, knowledge, and resources, they could investigate the ground at the suggested location. It would be incredibly exciting if someone could solve this historical mystery.

I am repeating this post in full because I only came upon it a day or two ago and do not recall having seen it when it was originally posted on 3 October 2023.  I did not receive the usual e-mail notification and do not remember it coming up on 'Unread posts', which I invariably referred to at the time (I am blocked from doing so now for some reason).  There was no comment upon it from any of our usual players, so perhaps others missed it too.  Maybe there was a technical issue.  The chap had evidently put some thought and effort into it and must have felt pretty disillusioned at the lack of response.  It was his first and only post and he last visited the site on 22 October 2023.

He suggests another valley in the Chilterns, at Wendover, as the site of the battle.  We may not agree with all his assumptions (he has evidently been misled by the 'approached by a narrow defile' trope, which may disqualify it) but it is probably worth consideration.  There are two attachments that you will have to go back to the original post to see.