"Still one of the better overall campaign hypotheses" Hmmm...
Much as I deeply respect your views on these matters Prof Ross, this probably says more about the weaknesses of a number of the campaign hypotheses than Fuentes' work. It seems weak hypothesis and thin paper regarding the battle site to me.
The whole debate really rests on the quality of the ground (terrain and features) of the nominated battle site so once the credibility/anchor of that is lost, or not built in the first place, reverse engineering the campaign that leads to that site is entirely futile. It could be Fuentes' enthusiasm for London created bias and if VW is the best he could find to feed that need to bring London deeper into the story, then that probably kills the campaign narrative whatever the merits you read into it.
That's a 3km front line with a 20m elevation gain over 1.5km on each side so no meaningful valley side topography (1:75), flanks entirely exposed with even a road to the North to outflank any Roman line..
My own view is that Fuentes' poor cartographic skills and the evidently lacking critical cartographic review skills of his editors and critics have allowed this site speculation too much credibility for too long. It is more of a plain than a foricbus and his dramatically named and rendered hills are inconsequential to the manoeuvring of troops... Wellington Avenue seems to be the focus of the action with some dangerously steep river cliffs immediately behind the Roman line and a honking great river valley bisecting their lines with nice even fields on either side of the river....
Sorry VW isn't even in the game, it never should have been.
https://digginglondon.org.uk/images/Imag...s/Nick.pdf
714,972
Much as I deeply respect your views on these matters Prof Ross, this probably says more about the weaknesses of a number of the campaign hypotheses than Fuentes' work. It seems weak hypothesis and thin paper regarding the battle site to me.
The whole debate really rests on the quality of the ground (terrain and features) of the nominated battle site so once the credibility/anchor of that is lost, or not built in the first place, reverse engineering the campaign that leads to that site is entirely futile. It could be Fuentes' enthusiasm for London created bias and if VW is the best he could find to feed that need to bring London deeper into the story, then that probably kills the campaign narrative whatever the merits you read into it.
That's a 3km front line with a 20m elevation gain over 1.5km on each side so no meaningful valley side topography (1:75), flanks entirely exposed with even a road to the North to outflank any Roman line..
My own view is that Fuentes' poor cartographic skills and the evidently lacking critical cartographic review skills of his editors and critics have allowed this site speculation too much credibility for too long. It is more of a plain than a foricbus and his dramatically named and rendered hills are inconsequential to the manoeuvring of troops... Wellington Avenue seems to be the focus of the action with some dangerously steep river cliffs immediately behind the Roman line and a honking great river valley bisecting their lines with nice even fields on either side of the river....
Sorry VW isn't even in the game, it never should have been.
https://digginglondon.org.uk/images/Imag...s/Nick.pdf
714,972
