Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

consider the towel thrown in from my end

Hold on there! mile: There are still quite a few points that might mitigate against a western battle site:

1. Boudica's force was a tribal band rather than an army. Did she or her commanders have the political will and control to motivate a further advance into foreign territory? Going after food supplies would be a good reason - but did the Trinovantes not have food? The Catavallauni? There must be some study somewhere of the movement and morale of mass 'native' tribal groups - to what extent will they fall back on their own homeland, even if they know it to be unprovisioned? This is one of the many 'known unknowns'!

2. We assume that the peoples of the southern region were better disposed towards Rome, and would therefore offer a safer base for Paulinus' counter-attack - but can we know this?

3. There is still the consideration that Paulinus would have to ensure that the Britons fought him, rather than hanging about the areas they'd already captured or going home. Again, the supply problem might give the Britons a reason to move west, but the possibility of their returning northwards and leaving the Roman governor apparently skulking on the sidelines might have made this too much of a risk...

4. The destruction of St Albans. If this is indeed Tacitus' third city, the attack warranted mention, and was therefore more than just a mild roughing-up. The Britons could have made a side-trip north after capturing London; the force that defeated Cerialis could have moved west and sacked St Albans (after Paulinus passed by?), or the locals could have risen up against their pro-Roman masters... But the chronology in Tacitus might at least point to a definite sequence of attacks, leading us north...


There's an element of devil's advocacy in this, of course!