09-17-2012, 04:26 PM
A route up the Fosse Way would have the IInd actually moving away from the place where Paulinus would need them...
not if he needs them at CS massing all his assets, a move directly east means sooner or later an unplanned head on with the enemy. Fosse way is the best way to make a discrete, secure move to a stable RV that doesn't risk compromise in the course of unplanned enemy movements over a few days, ie decision on RV made, courier travels, II prepares to march, II marches.
Good point about the IInd moving towards P, not vice versa, though.
Pretty fundamental and one I think Tacitus is clear-ish on.
Imagine you're the leader of a vast tribal horde intent on destroying the Romans.
I hit Colchester and the IX with my professional/committed troops, hard core stays together others return loot and semi hard core farmers home. But with a message that the Romans are on the run, everyone, I mean everyone, is to to get their kit together and join us at location X where we're all going to have the mother of all battles !!!!!
Do you:
a) take your force off to the nearest river network, load them and all your wagons into boats and barges and set off slowly upriver, then unload again and head west along winding tracks hoping to bump into the Romans? :x everybody YOMP however you can to the RV at X, for god's sake no parades and try to avoid those horrible roads they don't lead where we want them to go anyway....ie Norfolk to armageddon
OR
b) follow this massive dead-straight paved road that will take you and your army directly to where the Romans are? :x scouts follow that legion and harry it where possible, let me know where they go, rest of you lot stay in touch move up to the RV in bands of no more than 1000 so you can stay flexible and provisioned. Try and stay East so you can link up with/recruit more Iceni.
Ultimately I cannot use the roman roads as an absolute anchor for the campaign, yes for the Romans but NO for the Brits, I fear Nathan and I won't being seeing eye to eye anytime soon with this very different model for movement. Does Dunstable work if you detach Iceni movement from Watling Street? Does the western theory stand up, if the main body of Britons never went to London? two fundamental questions.
May have been... but where's the evidence?
In the ground, got a trowel? The core of Castle Dykes is a whacking great Iron Age structure so a feature already on site. Where is there any evidence of any camps in that area? they must have been there as the conquest moved north over the years.At the moment there is no Roman occupation of significance at Church Stowe, it's Iron Age and medieval so for this to work there is some major muck shifting to be done. I recognise the whole CS thing is out on a limb because of this and really the debate needs to move onto the ground to start writing off some of these sites as appears to have happened at Paulerspury.
Could be... But Tacitus says that P had originally intended to fight a battle at London. We'd need good reasons to suspect he didn't.
Well he didn't so his intentions are pretty un-provable, but it would look pretty bad to future London traders if the Governor appeared to be uncommitted to their assets, maybe post event confidence in London as a trade center generated that line.
Have you noticed this month we've jumped from 11 pages of this stuff to 22? !!!! :-o
not if he needs them at CS massing all his assets, a move directly east means sooner or later an unplanned head on with the enemy. Fosse way is the best way to make a discrete, secure move to a stable RV that doesn't risk compromise in the course of unplanned enemy movements over a few days, ie decision on RV made, courier travels, II prepares to march, II marches.
Good point about the IInd moving towards P, not vice versa, though.
Pretty fundamental and one I think Tacitus is clear-ish on.
Imagine you're the leader of a vast tribal horde intent on destroying the Romans.
I hit Colchester and the IX with my professional/committed troops, hard core stays together others return loot and semi hard core farmers home. But with a message that the Romans are on the run, everyone, I mean everyone, is to to get their kit together and join us at location X where we're all going to have the mother of all battles !!!!!
Do you:
a) take your force off to the nearest river network, load them and all your wagons into boats and barges and set off slowly upriver, then unload again and head west along winding tracks hoping to bump into the Romans? :x everybody YOMP however you can to the RV at X, for god's sake no parades and try to avoid those horrible roads they don't lead where we want them to go anyway....ie Norfolk to armageddon
OR
b) follow this massive dead-straight paved road that will take you and your army directly to where the Romans are? :x scouts follow that legion and harry it where possible, let me know where they go, rest of you lot stay in touch move up to the RV in bands of no more than 1000 so you can stay flexible and provisioned. Try and stay East so you can link up with/recruit more Iceni.
Ultimately I cannot use the roman roads as an absolute anchor for the campaign, yes for the Romans but NO for the Brits, I fear Nathan and I won't being seeing eye to eye anytime soon with this very different model for movement. Does Dunstable work if you detach Iceni movement from Watling Street? Does the western theory stand up, if the main body of Britons never went to London? two fundamental questions.
May have been... but where's the evidence?
In the ground, got a trowel? The core of Castle Dykes is a whacking great Iron Age structure so a feature already on site. Where is there any evidence of any camps in that area? they must have been there as the conquest moved north over the years.At the moment there is no Roman occupation of significance at Church Stowe, it's Iron Age and medieval so for this to work there is some major muck shifting to be done. I recognise the whole CS thing is out on a limb because of this and really the debate needs to move onto the ground to start writing off some of these sites as appears to have happened at Paulerspury.
Could be... But Tacitus says that P had originally intended to fight a battle at London. We'd need good reasons to suspect he didn't.
Well he didn't so his intentions are pretty un-provable, but it would look pretty bad to future London traders if the Governor appeared to be uncommitted to their assets, maybe post event confidence in London as a trade center generated that line.
Have you noticed this month we've jumped from 11 pages of this stuff to 22? !!!! :-o
