Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

to around Chester from Wroxeter, c120miles... across N wales rugged hills for 60/70 miles... tell me if 5 days is enough

Wroxeter to Chester is 38 miles. Wroxeter to the Menai Strait is less than 100 miles.

Nothing in the timeline I suggested mentioned how long it took to build boats - July/August was all I specified.

you directly contadict the author pliny, who wrote "There is another rotation again—when the ground has been cropped with spelt,383 it should lie fallow the four winter months"* spelt has a 4 month fallow period.

This is the quote in full: "There is another rotation again - when the ground has been cropped with spelt, it should lie fallow the four winter months; after which, spring beans should be put in, to keep it occupied till the time comes for cropping it with winter beans." (Pliny NH 18.52)

Pliny is discussing crop rotation here; specifically growing beans after grain crops. Elsewhere he covers the regular sowing season more directly:

"The winter grains are those which are put in the ground about the setting of the Vergiliae, for they receive their nutriment throughout the winter, for instance, wheat, spelt, and barley." (NH 18.10)

"...they sow beans and winter- wheat in the month of Novembor, and spelt at the end of September, up to the ides of October; others, however, sow this last after the ides of October, as late as the calends of November." (NH 18.56 - 'The Proper Times for Sowing')

The last quote accords with the one I gave previously from Varro.

Applebaum, whose work from 1958 you quote in your post, argues for a continuity of 'Celtic' agriculture into Romano-British times, and describes the change in Iron Age agriculture in Britain:

"A few years ago, working from Helbaek's analysis of prehistoric grain-finds in this country, I endeavoured to demonstrate that in the last 500 years B.C. a shift of emphasis began to take place in Britain from the cultivation of summer to that of winter grains, partly under the impact of climatic deterioration… The known crops of the British Early Iron Age were eincorn, emmer, spelt, breadwheat, naked and hulled barley, and (uncultivated) oats, barley being the preponderating cereal… The introduction of spelt was associated with the technique of drying the grain in ovens before threshing." (Agriculture in Roman Britain, Agr. Hist. Rev. VI, 1958, p.68)

So the change to winter cereals (i.e. planted in the autumn) happened in Britain (or the southern areas at least) in the centuries BC, long before the Roman conquest, and would have been the norm by the 1st C AD.

And that is pretty conclusive, I think, although I realise that trying to persuade you of this fact is virtually pointless.

Caesar’s letter carriers reached Rome from the coast of Britain in 27 days

Pretty good going, across partially-conquered Gaul, with no established road network or posting system!

In the very next paragraph the author mentions a courier travelling 110 miles per day for four days. And we have the message from Mainz to Rome via Reims in winter AD69, taking less than 9 days - a speed of approx 150-160 miles a day, depending on route.

However, if you wish to consider this unbelieveable, I can see that you will not be convinced otherwise.

The ones that you claimed were not needed when you started, and now you need them have re appeared, yes i noticed that.

I was referring to the passage in the Historia Augusta, about the 'usual seventeen days ration' carried by the soldiers, and how Alexander Severus allowed them to carry part of it on mules. I never suggested that Paulinus's men would not be using mules. I raised it only to counter your ideas about mass relays of mules being needed to support troops marching at any distance from their home base.

I think you know all that, of course!

There are 7 principle*  recent Uk works on the subject only one has the whole Army with P go to London...

You left out Nicholas Fuentes, who also argued very persuasively for the march to London (Graham Webster's reply to Fuentes could offer little real objection). 

With no disrespect to (some of) the authors you mention, I believe this idea of Paulinus going on reconnaissance down to London is faulty, and our ten years of discussion on this thread have conclusively demonstrated that. Your suggestions would rule out even his supposed reconnaissance mission - which would be pointless if his army stood no chance of reaching London.

The historical record (Tacitus, Dio) is virtually all we have for determining the chronology of these events. Once you start adjusting it or amending it to suit the requirements of your theories, we depart from history and enter fantasy. As I've said, if modern theories cannot account for historical evidence, then it is the theories that are at fault, not the evidence.

However, I recognise that you will not be persuaded, and so as we have reached a point of irreconcilable difference I will end our discussion here. Others may wish to continue debating these points with you, but I will do so no further.