Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Owein Walker]

Tacitus writes (open to interpretation):

He chose a position approached by a narrow defile…

I really hoped we'd got to the bottom of the defile after all this time!

This literal translation by Michael clears things up - there was only one 'defile', the Romans were in it, the plain was in front of it and the woods behind it.

I don't know where this 'tongue' idea comes from! I did suggest 'throat' as a simile for defile a while ago. 'Straits' / 'narrows' / 'jaws' might work, but sound less like terrain features.

the difficulties Boudicca must have faced trying to keep her 'army' in the field and united during the campaign... 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.

I think you've answered your own point there! I've said before that command and cohesion might have been an issue in the rebel army. The problems would increase with every day they spent on the road. This 'chasing' idea is basically the same thing as the 'parade' that John kept going on about.

The prospect of fighting a battle with a disciplined Roman force - rather than attacking and plundering a tempting target like London or Colchester - is not likely to have the Britons eagerly marching across the countryside for days on end, particularly not with their families in tow...

Geographically, a river at its source will be created by a series of springs and brooks, then they join to form a river which in turn creates a 'V' shaped valley, these are narrow channels with steep sides. Above the valley at the spring heads, the catchment area is often shallow sloping ground and covers a much wider area.

Now if you put a forest on the catchment area and a camp on the shallow hillside, now you can fight in the V shaped valley, or 'defile', and have your camp safely behind you.

It's not a new geographical feature, a defile is part of a larger feature, that's all.

I'm not familiar with a military parade other than for ceremonies, and I don't see it as a ceremony, more a carefully planned military manoeuvre.

It does bring about the thought that a ceremonial building or a temple would have been built, to commemorate the battle or remember the dead.

Another piece of 'research' is knowledge of land clearances, that's obviously going to affect the site because you can't fight through a thicket.

So is there any supporting archaeology for any of these sites? however, before jumping to conclusions, if there is a Roman villa in the valley then that's probably not the site. I can't imagine the superstitious Romans would want to live there.

You will notice I won't say I think someone is right or wrong, and often I don't reply, for which I am sorry, but I still hope I can add something positive to the discussion.

Still....

After the battle of the River Medway, the River Thames was crossable at Cliffe,6 miles away on the North Kent coast.
The river level was a lot lower then, and there is archaeological evidence that it was in use during the Iron Age.
I don't object to Suetonius going south then wherever, but I do object to the facts being ignored.