RomanArmyTalk
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. (/showthread.php?tid=16575)



Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-08-2012

Robert Vermaat wrote:

I concur with the latter. However, with enough time to prepare, and weeks of victories from Camelodunum to Londinium, there would have been plenty of time for other tribes to decide (as they would already have had plenty of time to discuss their actions before the rebellion had started).
With that said, I still doubt that the unification of all British tribes was an Icenian goal.


I think that this was a classic rebellion with tribes (groups) combining against a common enemy. This is typical even today where different factions will join in the struggle against the oppressor and then fight for the leadership afterwards (examples modern day Egypt, Libya, Syria etc)

We can then expect this to also be pan tribal and even perhaps with a religious bent, so the chances are that a host of people did flock to Boudica's banner.

I think that there probably was time which is why Dio gives an increase of some 100,000 between the early muster and the final battle.

It also explains why much of the country was still under arms after the battle and was not that easily subdued...

Kind Regards - Deryk
.


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Renatus - 10-09-2012

Quote:I feel that your translation shows that SP did have a plan which depended on giving up London as part of that plan. I can however agree with you that he may have had to bring that plan forward or indeed alter it because he was not able to forsee the Brythons actions after London.
I do not think that he had such a plan before reaching London and finding that he was unsupported. It was a course of action forced upon him by circumstances. You have said previously that he planned for all eventualities. I would hazard a guess that the one thing that he did not envisage was that the temporary commander of the Second Legion would disobey his orders.


Quote:I have great respect for Nathan’s work on this, much of which I agree with but I think that there are a couple of assumptions on the timeline which leads me to a different conclusion, which I will try to address here.
With the sources that we have giving such scant information about the timing of the events described, it is possible, with a little ingenuity, to construct a timeline to support almost any theory. Using Nathan’s timeline as a basis but adding a few embellishments and placing the start of the crisis a month later, I offer the following interpretation:

AD61 – April – After questioning the terms of Prasutagus's will, Procurator Catus sends men who flog Boudica and rape her daughters. Boudica vows revenge. Informed of this, Catus dismisses it as a local affair, not worthy of the Governor’s attention.

May 1st – Paulinus begins his campaign against the Ordovices, marching north and west from his campaign headquarters at Wroxeter.

May 1st to 20th – Iceni begin mobilisation, secretly uncovering caches of 'decommissioned' weapons.

May 20th – Boudica holds giant tribal assembly. Paulinus’s army reaches the Mona Strait opposite Anglesey.

May 21st – News of the tribal assembly reaches Colchester. Message sent to Catus informing him of this.

May 23rd – Catus receives the message from Colchester.

May 24th – Catus realises that the situation is serious. He sends 200 men from the Governor’s officium to reinforce Colchester and messages to Paulinus and Cerialis, legate of the Ninth Legion.

May 25th – Paulinus’ army crosses the strait and attacks Anglesey.

May 26th – Catus’ 200 men reach Colchester.

May 27th – Romans destroy the remaining enemy forces on Anglesey. Cerialis receives Catus’ message at the base of the Ninth Legion at Lincoln.


NOTE I am assuming that, at this time, the Ninth was divided between bases at Lincoln and Longthorpe.

May 28th – Romans burn sacred Druidic groves on Anglesey. Cerialis sets off from Lincoln for Longthorpe to be nearer the area of potential trouble. Boudica’s force moves south from Caistor-by-Norwich towards Trinovantian territory.

NOTE Nathan has Boudica setting off on 18th May and attacking Colchester on 3rd June. This period of 16 days seems too long, without explanation, to cover the 60-odd miles between Caistor and Colchester.

May 29th – Paulinus begins the process of establishing garrisons on Anglesey. Catus’ message (unrest amongst Iceni, gathering forces, threat to Colchester) reaches him at his camp on the Mona strait. Cerialis arrives at Longthorpe and awaits orders from Paulinus.

May 30th – Paulinus begins a rapid march back towards Wroxeter with the Fourteenth Legion and the veterans of the Twentieth. (Alternatively, he starts out with the Fourteenth alone and picks up the veterans of the Twentieth en route.) News of Boudica’s advance is received at Colchester and a message sent to Catus.

June 1st – Catus receives the message from Colchester.

June 2nd – Catus sends further messages to Paulinus and Cerialis. Paulinus arrives at Chester.

June 3rd – Iceni attack Colchester. Civilians barricade themselves inside the temple. Cerialis at Longthorpe receives Catus’ message.

June 4th – Paulinus arrives back at Wroxeter, where he receives Catus’ latest message. Cerialis, feeling that he must take action to reinforce Colchester, marches 22 miles from Longthorpe to Godmanchester.

June 5th – Last defenders of the Colchester temple die by fire. Message of destruction despatched to London. Paulinus on the march east down Watling Street. Cerialis marches 15 miles to Cambridge.

June 6th – Iceni looting and burning Colchester. Paulinus arrives at Mancetter. Message reaches the Second Legion base at Gloucester, but their Prefect does not give the order to move. Cerialis marches 20 miles on the Via Devana to Wixoe.

June 7th – Cerialis’s force ambushed and destroyed on the Via Devana between Wixoe and Colchester.

June 8th - Paulinus's advance reaches Towcester. Catus flees for Gaul by ship.

June 9th – Paulinus, still on Watling Street, meets Catus’ messenger coming north with news of the fall of Colchester. Catus arrives in Gaul and sends a message to Rome, reporting the imminent loss of the province. Iceni begin to muster outside Colchester and advance south-west towards London.

June 10th – Paulinus marches into St Albans and meets a second messenger with news of the defeat of Cerialis and flight of Catus.

June 11th – Paulinus marches on from St Albans and enters London. He learns that the Second Legion have not advanced to meet him. Iceni plundering in the area of Chelmsford.

June 12th – Paulinus sends out a unit of gallopers to locate the Second Legion and report back.

June 14th – A galloper returns and reports that the Second Legion is not within 50 miles of London. Paulinus considers that, even if it is on its way, it is unlikely to arrive in time to assist in resisting the Iceni. He orders preparations to be made for the evacuation of London. Iceni plundering in the area of Romford.


NOTE Nathan has the Iceni plundering around Romford 2-3 days after leaving Colchester. This is too short a time to cover the 40-odd miles between Colchester and Romford at a rate of 10 miles per day.

June 15th – A second galloper arrives reporting that the Second Legion has not been found within 75 miles of London. Paulinus orders the immediate evacuation of the town, destroys his supplies and retreats from London.

June 17th – Iceni sack and burn London.




Quote:I still doubt that the unification of all British tribes was an Icenian goal.
If by “unification” you mean the creation of a sort of united ‘Kingdom of the Britons’, I agree entirely. Deryk is right to suggest that, after the removal of the Romans, the fragile unity would degenerate into the usual tribal rivalries.


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-10-2012

Renatus wrote:

I do not think that he had such a plan before reaching London and finding that he was unsupported. It was a course of action forced upon him by circumstances. You have said previously that he planned for all eventualities. I would hazard a guess that the one thing that he did not envisage was that the temporary commander of the Second Legion would disobey his orders.

I would agree with you.

What I was trying to say was that giving up London was a strategic move and was a pivotal part of the revised plan once he found that the Second Legion was not joining him.


Renatus wrote:

With the sources that we have giving such scant information about the timing of the events described, it is possible, with a little ingenuity, to construct a timeline to support almost any theory.

I don’t think this is quite correct.

I have used the actions as per your scenario......

There are certain fixed points that are reliant on one another to create a timeline:

1. The beating of Boudica and the confiscation of the wealth of the Iceni aristocracy.
2. The decision to rebel against the Romans.
3. The uncovering of weapons caches etc.

4. Day 1: Tribal Muster
5. Day 2: Message 1 (of muster) arrives at Colchester
6. Day 2: Boudica marches to Colchester (5 days max from Thetford or Caistor)
7. Day 2: Message 1 from Colchester sent to Catus in London
8. Day 3: Message 1 arrives with Catus
9. Day 3: Catus sends message to Cerealis (Lincoln) and Paulinus (Anglesey)
10. Day 3: Catus sends soldiers to Colchester
11. Day 4: Message 1 from Catus arrives with Cerealis at Lincoln
12. Day 5: Cerealis travels to Longthorpe
13. Day 5: 200 Soldiers arrive at Colchester
14. Day 6: Message 1 arrives with Paulinus at Anglesey
15. Day 7: Cerealis arrives at Longthorpe
16. Day 7: Boudica arrives at Colchester
17. Day 7: Message 2 sent to Catus in London from Colchester
18. Day 8: Message 2 sent from Catus to Cerealis (Longthorpe) and to Paulinus
19. Day 8: Boudica’s army attacks Colchester
20. Day 9: Cerealis receives Message 2 from Catus
21. Day 9: Boudica’s army continues to attack Colchester and defeats Romans
22. Day 10: Cerealis marches from Longthorpe to Godmanchester
23. Day 11. Paulinus receives Message 2 from Catus
24. Day 11: Boudica’s army looting Colchester
25. Day 11. Cerealis marches from Godmanchester to Cambridge
26. Day 12: Boudica’s army burns Colchester
27. Day 12: Cerealis marches from Cambridge to Wixoe
28. Day 12: Paulinus leaves Anglesey towards Wroxeter
29. Day 13: Boudica’s army returns home and meets Cerealis coming to Colchester.
30. Day 13: The Ninth are destroyed.......
31. Day 14: The Iceni are back home on their borders.
32. Day 16: Paulinus arrives at Wroxeter.
33. Day 22: Paulinus arrives in London

The above is assuming that Boudica's army is travelling at 12 miles per day. Even at this speed Boudica could have been in London about 4 days before SP could arrive.

If Boudica's forces moved at 20 miles per day:

Muster to Message 1 to SP – 5 days,
Muster to Boudica at Colchester – 3 days
Muster to Message 2 to SP – 9 days
Muster to Colchester Destroyed – 6 days
Muster to Boudica in London – 10 days
Muster to SP in London 20 days

I am therefore still not convinced that the Brythons first objective was London as opposed to the defence of their newly acquired lands.

Kind Regards - Deryk


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Renatus - 10-11-2012

Quote:Renatus wrote:

With the sources that we have giving such scant information about the timing of the events described, it is possible, with a little ingenuity, to construct a timeline to support almost any theory.

I don’t think this is quite correct.
Well, with a change of assumption here and the addition or deduction of an event there, you, Nathan and I have managed to create four different scenarios.



Quote:The above is assuming that Boudica's army is travelling at 12 miles per day. Even at this speed Boudica could have been in London about 4 days before SP could arrive.

If Boudica's forces moved at 20 miles per day . . .
I think that these rates of travel are unrealistic. The British forces were accompanied by families in wagons. A proportion, at least, of these, I would suggest, was ox-drawn. Oxen require eight hours a day to feed and another eight hours to digest. If worked for more than five hours a day, they need several days to recouperate. They are also slow: two miles an hour would be an average speed. On this basis, Nathan's estimate for the British force's rate of progress as being a maximum of ten miles a day is spot-on.

There are, it seems to me, a number of problems inherent in the idea of the British forces returning to their homelands after the fall of Colchester and the defeat of the Ninth Legion. I will set out those that occur to me; others may be able to think of more.

1. The sources give no suggestion of the Iceni and others returning home. They give the impression of a non-stop rampage.

2. Tacitus states that the Iceni, the Trinovantes and other tribes conspired to regain their freedom. This would not have been achieved by simply destroying one town and only two of the tribes, the Iceni and the Trinovantes, recovering their lands. The other tribes would have had something to say, if the rebellion seemed to have ended there.

3. The theory is incompatible with subsequent events. If it were true, there seem to be three possibilities. First, the tribes wait in their homelands for Paulinus to react. In this event, London is not under threat and there is no need to abandon it. Paulinus has simply to sit tight, gather his reinforcements (ensuring that they obey orders this time) and, when he has sufficient forces, counter-attack. Secondly, Paulinus anticipates that the rebels will eventually march on London and decides to abandon it immediately. It might be some days before the rebels realise this and there would be a further several days of march before they reach the town. By this time, Paulinus would have put a good many days of travel between him and the enemy and there would be no prospect of their catching him up. Thirdly, Paulinus remains in London and the rebels lose patience and march on the town. Again, it would take several days for them to get there and Paulinus would have plenty of warning of their approach. He would be able to evacuate the town in good time and, again, put a substantial distance between him and them before they reach London. Once again, the rebels would be unable to catch him up. In none of these cases, therefore, would Paulinus have been forced to give battle before he was adequately reinforced.


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-12-2012

Renatus wrote:

Well, with a change of assumption here and the addition or deduction of an event there, you, Nathan and I have managed to create four different scenarios.

Totally agree but you have to take in cause and effect in all of this. For instance the cause of the message being sent to Colchester in the first place in Nathan’s scenario (not mine) is the Muster. The effect is the message being sent on to Catus etc. So there are certain timescales which follow on:

You have the Iceni having their tribal assembly on May the 20th. If this was the muster then even using oxen to travel the 50 miles to Colchester they would have been there by the 27th.

I am not convinced however that the Iceni would have their families with them at Colchester with the wagons even in this scenario. If they travelled as an army they could have easily carried a few days supplies and have been there in 3 days even with oxen in attendance.

For argument’s sake let’s say that they did take their families and oxen; it took 7 days (27th May) add 2 days (29th May) for the destruction of Colchester. If they plundered Colchester for 2 days (31st May) then travelled to Chelmsford 2 days (2nd June) plundered the Chelmsford area 1 day (3rd June) then travelled the last 30 miles to London in 3 days they would have entered London on the 6th of June. Five days before SP arrived on your figures.

So even with the most extreme timescales which includes the families and oxen and looting etc. They would have beaten Paulinus to London.

If London was a key objective to them I beleive that they would have bypassed Colchester and attacked an undefended London much earlier.

I have a completely different theory as you know and am only trying to show that the Brython’s main target was not London.

Renatus wrote:

I think that these rates of travel are unrealistic. The British forces were accompanied by families in wagons. A proportion, at least, of these, I would suggest, was ox-drawn. Oxen require eight hours a day to feed and another eight hours to digest. If worked for more than five hours a day, they need several days to recouperate. They are also slow: two miles an hour would be an average speed. On this basis, Nathan's estimate for the British force's rate of progress as being a maximum of ten miles a day is spot-on.

Totally agree with you.

However Nathan’s estimate that it would take 16 days from the “borders” of the Iceni Homeland to Colchester is not correct, this would have taken at most 3 days to do the 15 or so miles.

Renatus wrote:

There are, it seems to me, a number of problems inherent in the idea of the British forces returning to their homelands after the fall of Colchester and the defeat of the Ninth Legion. I will set out those that occur to me; others may be able to think of more.

1. The sources give no suggestion of the Iceni and others returning home. They give the impression of a non-stop rampage.

I agree that they did not go back either but in that case why did they turn back to face Cerealis? Or did Cerealis come across them outside Colchester and attack them anyway knowing that he was out numbered 10 to 1?

I am not sure that it was a non stop rampage of land but the destruction of cities. It would seem as they were fighting in their own homelands that it was the destruction of the Roman population and stealing of their riches and the regaining of their homesteads.

Renatus wrote:

2. Tacitus states that the Iceni, the Trinovantes and other tribes conspired to regain their freedom. This would not have been achieved by simply destroying one town and only two of the tribes, the Iceni and the Trinovantes, recovering their lands. The other tribes would have had something to say, if the rebellion seemed to have ended there.


This seems to imply that you think that the Iceni and Trinovantes were joined by other tribes at Colchester or London or both. Am I understanding you correctly?

Renatus wrote:

3. The theory is incompatible with subsequent events. If it were true, there seem to be three possibilities. First, the tribes wait in their homelands for Paulinus to react. In this event, London is not under threat and there is no need to abandon it. Paulinus has simply to sit tight, gather his reinforcements (ensuring that they obey orders this time) and, when he has sufficient forces, counter-attack. Secondly, Paulinus anticipates that the rebels will eventually march on London and decides to abandon it immediately. It might be some days before the rebels realise this and there would be a further several days of march before they reach the town. By this time, Paulinus would have put a good many days of travel between him and the enemy and there would be no prospect of their catching him up. Thirdly, Paulinus remains in London and the rebels lose patience and march on the town. Again, it would take several days for them to get there and Paulinus would have plenty of warning of their approach. He would be able to evacuate the town in good time and, again, put a substantial distance between him and them before they reach London. Once again, the rebels would be unable to catch him up. In none of these cases, therefore, would Paulinus have been forced to give battle before he was adequately reinforced.

I am not quite sure that I have got the gist of this..... but I will have a go....

3a. If the Iceni and Trinovantes are waiting for Paulinus in their homelands you are correct in stating that London is not under threat but how long can Paulinus stay in one place from a food point of view? He has a small army and Londoners to feed. If he waits for re-inforcements where are they coming from?

If the Second will not come how can he force them? So he is constantly exposed. I surmise that the Roman Army is severely stretched with some of the Second in Exeter, some of the Second in the Lentwardine area the Ninth partially destroyed or on the Brigantian Border, some of the Fourteenth on the Welsh Border at Wroxeter and the Twentieth at Usk and Gloucester holding down rebellious tribes. The Veterans of the Twentieth are in Cirencester or Bath.

His small army comprises of part of the Fourteenth Battle Group after Anglesey of some 7,000 men. But this small army would require some feeding......

3b. If he decides that he cannot advance against them and feels that they will advance against him he has a strategic withdrawal. – Totally agree – he regains the advantage.

3c. Paulinus remains in London – the rebels advance – he withdraws as before and re-gains the advantage

You are right he is only under threat if the rebels are on their way to London already but I expect that food is the main immediate problem here.

Kind Regards - Deryk


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 10-12-2012

Quote:I am therefore still not convinced that the Brythons first objective was London as opposed to the defence of their newly acquired lands.

I still don't understand how their lands were 'newly acquired'... Rome was in the process of annexing the Iceni homeland, but there was no colonisation, no forts, no garrisons that we know of - as yet. Aside from kicking out a few parties of surveyors or rapacious tax assessors, Icenia would not require much 'reconquest'.

Anyway, Tacitus clearly states that the Iceni had neglected to plant crops in the spring, intending instead to seize Rome supplies - so they were certainly leaving their homeland, and certainly attacking Roman supply depots; London being the principal depot in the south-east, with archaeological evidence of military grain supplies brought from the continent.


Quote:British force's rate of progress as being a maximum of ten miles a day is spot-on.

Ten miles per day as an absolute maximum, I'd say - and not on consecutive days either! The Britons were not a trained and disciplined army, capable of regular marches - their progress would have been slow, halting and rather haphazard. Five miles every other day might not be too unlikely...


Quote:I am not convinced however that the Iceni would have their families with them at Colchester with the wagons even in this scenario

I assume the Iceni warriors would have taken their families with them if they were leaving home - who would defend them otherwise?


Quote:the Twentieth at Usk and Gloucester holding down rebellious tribes. The Veterans of the Twentieth are in Cirencester or Bath.

Unless there's good evidence of the Twentieth being elsewhere, I think we have to assume that they were with Paulinus and his campaign army. He was the governor of Britain, and would have used the largest force available to him - we know that a single legion with auxiliaries was considered 'scanty', so he would hardly have led such a force into the homelands of the Ordovices. Surely his Anglesey campaign involved the Fourteenth and Twentieth, and he left the main force of the latter to hold his position while he marched south with the veteran vexillation and the Fourteenth...


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-12-2012

Hi Nathan

Nice to hear from you again.

Nathan Ross wrote:

I still don't understand how their lands were 'newly acquired'... Rome was in the process of annexing the Iceni homeland, but there was no colonisation, no forts, no garrisons that we know of - as yet. Aside from kicking out a few parties of surveyors or rapacious tax assessors, Icenia would not require much 'reconquest'.

Tacitus states:

His dominions were ravaged by the centurions; the slaves pillaged his house, and his effects were seized as lawful plunder. His wife, Boudicca,was disgraced with cruel stripes; her daughters were ravished, and the most illustrious of the Icenians were, by force, deprived of the positions which had been transmitted to them by their ancestors. The whole country was considered as a legacy bequeathed to the plunderers. The relations of the deceased king were reduced to slavery

To me this seems that the situation had progressed far worse than you indicate. It would appear that there were forts around the Iceni lands; Great Chesterford, Saham Toney and Wixoe and perhaps others built after the earlier rebellion.

Nathan Ross wrote:

Anyway, Tacitus clearly states that the Iceni had neglected to plant crops in the spring, intending instead to seize Rome supplies - so they were certainly leaving their homeland, and certainly attacking Roman supply depots; London being the principal depot in the south-east, with archaeological evidence of military grain supplies brought from the continent.

Although I agree that London contained grain as you say, so would have Colchester and St Albans.

Tacitus does not state that the Iceni neglected to plant crops in the spring.

He states:

Nothing however distressed the enemy so much as famine, for they had been careless about sowing corn, people of every age having gone to the war, while they reckoned on our supplies as their own.


This can be interpreted that the corn crop was not planted in the autumn for winter wheat because everyone had gone to war. If they were planting Spring wheat this would have been before they went to war.

Nathan Ross wrote:

Ten miles per day as an absolute maximum, I'd say - and not on consecutive days either! The Britons were not a trained and disciplined army, capable of regular marches - their progress would have been slow, halting and rather haphazard. Five miles every other day might not be too unlikely...

At that rate it would have taken them two months to get from Thetford to London if you include all the destruction and pillaging and a further 4 weeks to get to Dunstable if you include London and then St Albans being plundered. A total of 3 months in the field. I just cannot see this as being feasible.

Nathan Ross wrote:

I assume the Iceni warriors would have taken their families with them if they were leaving home - who would defend them otherwise?


Are you saying that in effect the whole of the Iceni nation went to war?


Nathan Ross wrote:

Unless there's good evidence of the Twentieth being elsewhere, I think we have to assume that they were with Paulinus and his campaign army. He was the governor of Britain, and would have used the largest force available to him - we know that a single legion with auxiliaries was considered 'scanty', so he would hardly have led such a force into the homelands of the Ordovices. Surely his Anglesey campaign involved the Fourteenth and Twentieth, and he left the main force of the latter to hold his position while he marched south with the veteran vexillation and the Fourteenth...


It has always been assumed that the Second was in Exeter although there is obvious interest in the fact that the commanders were not with them. If the Twentieth were removed from Usk, Monmouth and Gloucester to be with Paulinus to confront the Deceangli who was keeping an eye on the Silures or the Ordovices both who had not been brought to terms?

I am afraid that I am going to have to differ with nearly everyone on this point about the Twentieth being in Anglesey.

Kind Regards - Deryk


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Renatus - 10-16-2012

Quote:Renatus wrote:

Well, with a change of assumption here and the addition or deduction of an event there, you, Nathan and I have managed to create four different scenarios.

Totally agree but you have to take in cause and effect in all of this. For instance the cause of the message being sent to Colchester in the first place in Nathan’s scenario (not mine) is the Muster. The effect is the message being sent on to Catus etc. So there are certain timescales which follow on
It goes without saying that certain actions will have consequences and that these may affect the timescale. All I have done is suggest a series of timings that would allow Paulinus to arrive in London with time to spare. However, given that the sources give us no more than a sequence of events with only one specific time (that the colonists in Colchester held out in the Temple of Claudius for two days and even that is open to interpretation), there are so many imponderables that any timescale that we may come up with is pure speculation. The best that we can do is to suggest a narrative that fits the information that we have.


Quote:You have the Iceni having their tribal assembly on May the 20th. If this was the muster then even using oxen to travel the 50 miles to Colchester they would have been there by the 27th.
The tribal assembly was a suggestion of Nathan’s and I do not know precisely what he had in mind for it. However, such a meeting seems plausible. For my part, I do not see it as the muster attested in the sources but as an earlier meeting of tribal leaders and their nobles, after which those agreeing to join the revolt would have dispersed to their homelands to gather their forces. This could have delayed the departure for Colchester quite considerably and, perhaps, for longer than I allowed for in my timescale.


Quote:I am not convinced however that the Iceni would have their families with them at Colchester with the wagons even in this scenario.
This is dependent upon how we see the intentions of the rebels. If they intended to return home after sacking Colchester, they might well not have taken their families; if they intended to proceed on to London and elsewhere, the families would have been with them from the outset.


Quote:If London was a key objective to them I beleive that they would have bypassed Colchester and attacked an undefended London much earlier.

I have a completely different theory as you know and am only trying to show that the Brython’s main target was not London.
I don’t think that anyone has claimed that London was the main target of the Britons but it would almost certainly have been a target. Colchester would have been of great symbolic importance, being the ancient tribal capital of the Trinovantes, the first Roman colonia and the site of the Temple of Claudius, as well as being the home of the arrogant and hated veterans. As I have argued before, the Britons were aiming for centres of Romanisation, of which Colchester may well have been the primary objective for its symbolism and London the second for its wealth.


Quote:Renatus wrote:

1. The sources give no suggestion of the Iceni and others returning home. They give the impression of a non-stop rampage.

I agree that they did not go back either but in that case why did they turn back to face Cerealis?
I thought that you were arguing that the rebels had returned to their homelands in anticipation of Roman retaliation and that they only advanced on London when they realised that it was not coming. Have you changed your mind? As to the attack on Cerialis, I think that, in a sense, you answered this question yourself earlier when you spoke of parts of the rebel army “turning” to face Cerialis. I would suggest that, fired up after the destruction of Colchester, when they heard of the approach of a Roman army, it would have been only natural for the Britons to turn to confront it, especially if they could take it by surprise and ambush it on the march (this is something else that Tacitus does not actually say).


Quote:This seems to imply that you think that the Iceni and Trinovantes were joined by other tribes at Colchester or London or both. Am I understanding you correctly?
Yes. Although the tribes appear to have agreed to act in concert, tribal suspicions probably persisted and those other than the Iceni and Trinovantes would have been anxious to secure their fair share of the spoils. I, therefore, see at least some of them as being present at both Colchester and London.


Quote:3a. If the Iceni and Trinovantes are waiting for Paulinus in their homelands you are correct in stating that London is not under threat but how long can Paulinus stay in one place from a food point of view? He has a small army and Londoners to feed.
London was a major entrepôt, so I don’t think food would be a problem. There would be stocks there and more could be shipped in, if required. If he did find himself running short, Paulinus would do what he would if besieged, retain the able-bodied and turf out those who could not contribute. It may seem harsh but that is how the ancient world worked. He did something analogous when he left the town; he took those who could keep up and left the others to their fate.


Quote:If he waits for re-inforcements where are they coming from?

If the Second will not come how can he force them?
Ultimately, he could draw troops from the West Country and South Wales. His immediate source of reinforcement, however, would be the Second Legion and, if Postumus would not march, he would replace him with someone who would.


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-19-2012

Renatus wrote:

The best that we can do is to suggest a narrative that fits the information that we have.

I agree….but….there are many options……

Renatus wrote:

For my part, I do not see it as the muster attested in the sources but as an earlier meeting of tribal leaders and their nobles, after which those agreeing to join the revolt would have dispersed to their homelands to gather their forces

It seems that you are perhaps talking about something that we are assuming took place BEFORE the muster and that this was what was reported up the line to Catus and then on to Cerealis and then on to Paulinus. I feel that if this was the case the 200 troops would have arrived a while before they were attacked and would have organised a proper defence of Colchester. This does not seem to have been the case from the texts which states Colchester was unprepared.

Renatus wrote:

If they intended to return home after sacking Colchester, they might well not have taken their families; if they intended to proceed on to London and elsewhere, the families would have been with them from the outset.

Interesting this. Without the families they would have travelled much faster…… If the Iceni were marching they would have been in Colchester in 3 days, 2 days for the battle, 2 days for pillage and back home in 4 days. All over in less than a fortnight! Waiting for the Romans to attack. Perhaps………..

Renatus wrote:

As I have argued before, the Britons were aiming for centres of Romanisation, of which Colchester may well have been the primary objective for its symbolism and London the second for its wealth.

I think you are correct about Colchester being the primary objective not only for its symbolism but because it was the seat of power for Rome, effectively the largest city by far in Britannia and would have had much wealth. It was also where the people who had cheated the Trinovantes out of their land were based. London in comparison was according to many including Webster a comparatively small frontier town with few stone buildings at all. It was not the capital at this time and possibly contained some 4000 people before people had left. Yes there would have been trading goods and some wealth but much of it would have been removed by Catus and Paulinus.


Renatus wrote:

I thought that you were arguing that the rebels had returned to their homelands in anticipation of Roman retaliation and that they only advanced on London when they realised that it was not coming. Have you changed your mind?

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I believe that the Iceni waited in their homelands for the Roman attack. I think that in the early stages of the revolt the Iceni and the Trinovantes combined in that the Iceni attacked the forts mentioned in the Agricola “They fell upon our troops, which were scattered on garrison duty, stormed the forts," and protected the borders whilst the Trinovantes attacked Colchester.

Renatus wrote:

Yes. Although the tribes appear to have agreed to act in concert, tribal suspicions probably persisted and those other than the Iceni and Trinovantes would have been anxious to secure their fair share of the spoils. I, therefore, see at least some of them as being present at both Colchester and London.

As you can see from the previous posts I feel that it was the Trinovantes who attacked Colchester.
When Paulinus left London I think that the Iceni warbands hit St Albans and the Trinovantes went for London. Both of them hoping to catch up with Paulinus on the march. This keeps bringing me back to the point that he only had a small army with him.

Renatus wrote:

London was a major entrepôt, so I don’t think food would be a problem. There would be stocks there and more could be shipped in, if required. If he did find himself running short, Paulinus would do what he would if besieged, retain the able-bodied and turf out those who could not contribute. It may seem harsh but that is how the ancient world worked. He did something analogous when he left the town; he took those who could keep up and left the others to their fate.

Paulinus obviously had a plan in mind that included leaving London and knowing that it would be completely destroyed so he took people with him. Yet under any circumstance they would have slowed him down. So why did he take them? As you said it was harsh time and these were not the rich and powerful so why?

Renatus wrote:

Ultimately, he could draw troops from the West Country and South Wales. His immediate source of reinforcement, however, would be the Second Legion and, if Postumus would not march, he would replace him with someone who would.

I think that Paulinus’ problem was that he couldn’t get re-inforcements from the Second – fullstop. It sems to me that the Legions were their own masters and if they didn’t want to go somewhere they wouldn’t. An example would be the Legions embarking to invade Britain in AD43. It took some persuasion before they would go.....

Kind Regards - Deryk


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Renatus - 10-20-2012

Quote:It seems that you are perhaps talking about something that we are assuming took place BEFORE the muster and that this was what was reported up the line to Catus and then on to Cerealis and then on to Paulinus. I feel that if this was the case the 200 troops would have arrived a while before they were attacked and would have organised a proper defence of Colchester. This does not seem to have been the case from the texts which states Colchester was unprepared.
In my suggested timeline, I proposed that the 200 troops reached Colchester about a week after the tribal assembly and the attack upon the town began about a week after that. One might have thought that the fact that there was already a small military force there and that the town was a community of former soldiers would have meant that someone would already have had the nous to put in hand the construction of defences. However, Tacitus tells us that the defenders’ plans were frustrated by a fifth column in the town sympathetic to the revolt. The precise meaning of this is not explained but one may surmise that some of the native population (perhaps the local aristocracy), who were believed to be loyal and trustworthy, persuaded the colonists that the threat of attack was illusory and that there was nothing to worry about. The result was that no defences were constructed and the elderly and the womenfolk were not sent away. It was not that the 200 troops did not arrive in time to organise the defences but that no one realised that it was necessary to do so until it was too late.



Quote:I think you are correct about Colchester being the primary objective not only for its symbolism but because it was the seat of power for Rome, effectively the largest city by far in Britannia and would have had much wealth. It was also where the people who had cheated the Trinovantes out of their land were based. London in comparison was according to many including Webster a comparatively small frontier town with few stone buildings at all. It was not the capital at this time and possibly contained some 4000 people before people had left. Yes there would have been trading goods and some wealth but much of it would have been removed by Catus and Paulinus.
I doubt that London was the one-horse town that some apparently have thought it to be. Tacitus says that, although not dignified with the title of colonia, it was “crowded to the highest degree with an abundance of traders and stores” (copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre). Moreover, it was, presumably, where the procurator and the governor were based. We do not know that Catus took any of the wealth with him when he fled and it is unlikely that Paulinus took anything but provisions and that only what his forces could carry. Besides, as I have already observed, the rebels were not to know if anything had been taken.



Quote:I believe that the Iceni waited in their homelands for the Roman attack. I think that in the early stages of the revolt the Iceni and the Trinovantes combined in that the Iceni attacked the forts mentioned in the Agricola “They fell upon our troops, which were scattered on garrison duty, stormed the forts," and protected the borders whilst the Trinovantes attacked Colchester.

Quote:As you can see from the previous posts I feel that it was the Trinovantes who attacked Colchester.
When Paulinus left London I think that the Iceni warbands hit St Albans and the Trinovantes went for London.
Tacitus contradicts himself; in the Annals, he states that the rebels by-passed forts and military stations (omissis castellis praesidiisque militare). Nevertheless, in the Agricola, the attacks upon the troops and the storming of the praesidia appear as precursors to the invasion of the colony, not as separate acts by a different tribe. This aside, I do not see the Iceni letting the Trinovantes get away with grabbing the spoils of the sack of Colchester and London, while they contented themselves with what they could get in Verulamium which, although a municipium, receives only a passing reference from Tacitus and is not mentioned by Dio at all. More significantly, though, is the fact that the sources make it absolutely clear that Boudica was the prime mover and leader of the revolt. She would not have had that status if she had remained in her homelands, even if she did raid a few forts, while the Trinovantes did the bulk of the fighting and carried the war to the centres of Roman influence.



Quote:This keeps bringing me back to the point that he only had a small army with him.
I don’t think that anyone is denying that Paulinus was short of soldiers or that he was vastly outnumbered by the rebel forces.



Quote:Paulinus obviously had a plan in mind that included leaving London and knowing that it would be completely destroyed so he took people with him. Yet under any circumstance they would have slowed him down. So why did he take them? As you said it was harsh time and these were not the rich and powerful so why?
We do not know that anyone apart from Catus had left London before Paulinus arrived there. It may be precisely because they were the rich and powerful that he allowed some of the Londoners to accompany him.



Quote:I think that Paulinus’ problem was that he couldn’t get re-inforcements from the Second – fullstop. It sems to me that the Legions were their own masters and if they didn’t want to go somewhere they wouldn’t. An example would be the Legions embarking to invade Britain in AD43. It took some persuasion before they would go.....
Nothing in the sources suggests that the legion itself was reluctant to march. Postumus fell on his sword because he disobeyed his commander’s orders and thereby denied his legion its share of the glory of saving the province. The situation in AD43 was entirely different. Then, the invasion force was unwilling to embark because it considered that it was being required to campaign outside the limits of the known world. Refusal to fight against the rebels in AD61 would have been regarded as cowardice and would have brought condign punishment down upon the legion. Nothing of the sort occurred.


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 10-20-2012

Quote:Tacitus states: "His dominions were ravaged by the centurions; the slaves pillaged his house, and his effects were seized as lawful plunder... The whole country was considered as a legacy bequeathed to the plunderers. The relations of the deceased king were reduced to slavery." To me this seems that the situation had progressed far worse than you indicate.

Possibly - but the quote could relate to the actions of small parties of men sent by the procurator against the royal household and certain of the nobility, rather than a wide-ranging loot and pillage. By treating those at the top of the social tree like this, Catus was demonstrating what the rest of the Iceni could expect if they resisted. So maybe no need to assume large numbers of Romans operating in Icenia...


Quote:I proposed that the 200 troops reached Colchester about a week after the tribal assembly and the attack upon the town began about a week after that... It was not that the 200 troops did not arrive in time to organise the defences but that no one realised that it was necessary to do so until it was too late.

About this 'tribal muster' - I've assumed that something of the sort would have been necessary. Boudica herself was not, it seems, the queen of the Iceni, just the widow of the king - Dio calls her a 'queen' but Tacitus, tellingly, does not. So negotiation would have been required to persuade the Iceni and others to act under her command (or with her as a figurehead, perhaps). This negotiation would have required meetings, assemblies, consensus among potentially rival claimants to Prasutagus' throne... probably a lot of feasting, drinking, speechifying and gathering of troops and arms. Not something that could be accomplished quickly!

As for Colchester - yes, there may have been any number of reasons why their defences were inadequate. Political divisions, treachery by vacillating locals, military pride (not wanting to appear cowed by riotous natives), or simple panic. I'm reminded of the many British garrisons and communities in India in 1857, who failed to take any steps in defence against the rebels for weeks on end, often until it was too late... We have the benefit of hindsight. They did not.


Quote:I doubt that London was the one-horse town that some apparently have thought it to be... it was, presumably, where the procurator and the governor were based.

Colchester was supposedly still the capital of Britain at the time - so the governor would be officially based there (although Paulinus clearly spent most of his time away with the army!). London may already have been the capital of the procurator though: Catus' successor Classicianus died there in office, and his tomb was built there.



Quote:Nothing in the sources suggests that the legion itself was reluctant to march.

Not the Second perhaps - but there is the scene in Tacitus where the soldiers hang back from the assault on Anglesey. Fuentes, I think, cites this as maybe suggesting poor morale or a mutinous spirit in Paulinus' force. It may just be Tacitean rhetoric though - the Druids were so fearsome that even veteran legionaries were scared, but Paulinus prevailed...


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-20-2012

Renatus wrote:

However, Tacitus tells us that the defenders’ plans were frustrated by a fifth column in the town sympathetic to the revolt. The precise meaning of this is not explained but one may surmise that some of the native population (perhaps the local aristocracy), who were believed to be loyal and trustworthy, persuaded the colonists that the threat of attack was illusory and that there was nothing to worry about. The result was that no defences were constructed and the elderly and the womenfolk were not sent away. It was not that the 200 troops did not arrive in time to organise the defences but that no one realised that it was necessary to do so until it was too late.

The “fifth column” remarks are indeed interesting and there seems to be a conflict here. If the residents of Colchester thought that there was no imminent attack why send to Catus in the first place for troops?

On reflection on your remarks my suspicion is possibly a combination of both theories where the Colchester residents sent for the troops, were then lulled into a false sense of security and did nothing regarding the defences and that when the 200 soldiers arrived from London any defence being put in place was too late before the Brythons arrived.


Renatus wrote:

I doubt that London was the one-horse town that some apparently have thought it to be. Tacitus says that, although not dignified with the title of colonia, it was “crowded to the highest degree with an abundance of traders and stores” (copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre). Moreover, it was, presumably, where the procurator and the governor were based. We do not know that Catus took any of the wealth with him when he fled and it is unlikely that Paulinus took anything but provisions and that only what his forces could carry. Besides, as I have already observed, the rebels were not to know if anything had been taken.

People have not changed that much in two thousand years and refugees always flee away from the fighting not towards it. Rich refugees go first and take their portable wealth. You can look at any reports of refugees over hundreds of years and even to the recent wars in our times or more recent troubles in the Near and Far East.

From what we can gather Catus was a rapacious and cowardly man who fled once the troubles that he was partly responsible for came to light. For him not to have taken wealth with him in the ships would have been against character.

You are correct about the rebels not knowing whether there was anything there but obviously were not overly concerned as it was not as we have both agreed their prime target.


Renatus wrote:

Tacitus contradicts himself; in the Annals, he states that the rebels by-passed forts and military stations (omissis castellis praesidiisque militare). Nevertheless, in the Agricola, the attacks upon the troops and the storming of the praesidia appear as precursors to the invasion of the colony, not as separate acts by a different tribe.

It would seem that this attacking of forts etc. would have been the spark that started the chain of messages to Colchester, Catus, Cerealis and Paulinus. I agree that it was the precursor to the destruction of Colchester and was the Iceni recapturing their homeland.


Renatus wrote:

More significantly, though, is the fact that the sources make it absolutely clear that Boudica was the prime mover and leader of the revolt. She would not have had that status if she had remained in her homelands, even if she did raid a few forts, while the Trinovantes did the bulk of the fighting and carried the war to the centres of Roman influence.

I have to agree with Webster when he states that the Brythonic Army was split into two, one for the attack on a virtually undefended town and one that defeated the Ninth Legion.

I think that the Iceni regained their homeland, destroyed the Ninth whilst the Trinovantes destroyed Colchester and regained their farms and homes which Tacitus states had been taken from them.

The kudos would have gone to Boudica for the destruction of the Ninth.

Then once Paulinus left London they would have advanced under the tribal leader who had taken the forts and beaten a Legion.


Renatus wrote:

We do not know that anyone apart from Catus had left London before Paulinus arrived there. It may be precisely because they were the rich and powerful that he allowed some of the Londoners to accompany him.

As I have stated before human nature dictates that when Catus (the Procurator and therefore high government official) left so would the rest of the rich and powerful.


Renatus wrote:

Nothing in the sources suggests that the legion itself was reluctant to march. Postumus fell on his sword because he disobeyed his commander’s orders and thereby denied his legion its share of the glory of saving the province. The situation in AD43 was entirely different. Then, the invasion force was unwilling to embark because it considered that it was being required to campaign outside the limits of the known world. Refusal to fight against the rebels in AD61 would have been regarded as cowardice and would have brought condign punishment down upon the legion. Nothing of the sort occurred.

I don’t think that we can be so certain of that.

There are many instances where the Legions rebelled against their commanders but in this case Postumus fell on his sword perhaps even to save the Legion who obviously agreed with him.

The fact remains that after no doubt a number of messengers were sent that the Second did not come. If Paulinus could have got more troops easily (the rest of the Twentieth, the rest of the Ninth) no doubt he would have done. After all they were all nearer than the Second in Exeter.

My feeling is that he could not withdraw them without leaving the rest of the Province open to attack.

Kind Regards - Deryk


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-20-2012

Nathan Ross wrote:

Possibly - but the quote could relate to the actions of small parties of men sent by the procurator against the royal household and certain of the nobility, rather than a wide-ranging loot and pillage. By treating those at the top of the social tree like this, Catus was demonstrating what the rest of the Iceni could expect if they resisted. So maybe no need to assume large numbers of Romans operating in Icenia...

Debateable but not unreasonable.

Nathan Ross wrote:


About this 'tribal muster' - I've assumed that something of the sort would have been necessary. Boudica herself was not, it seems, the queen of the Iceni, just the widow of the king - Dio calls her a 'queen' but Tacitus, tellingly, does not. So negotiation would have been required to persuade the Iceni and others to act under her command (or with her as a figurehead, perhaps). This negotiation would have required meetings, assemblies, consensus among potentially rival claimants to Prasutagus' throne... probably a lot of feasting, drinking, speechifying and gathering of troops and arms. Not something that could be accomplished quickly!


For me this again affects the timeline. I agree that it would have taken a lot of organising and again I agree that Boudica may well have been the “figure head” rather than the military genius behind the uprising.

Nathan Ross wrote:

Colchester was supposedly still the capital of Britain at the time - so the governor would be officially based there (although Paulinus clearly spent most of his time away with the army!). London may already have been the capital of the procurator though: Catus' successor Classicianus died there in office, and his tomb was built there.

When “order” was restored the political map had changed and the Romans knew who was loyal and who was not. London was a more central point to control the Province and London became both the Trading and Administrative centre for the Province until York seems to have superseded it later.

Kind Regards- Deryk


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Renatus - 10-21-2012

Quote:People have not changed that much in two thousand years and refugees always flee away from the fighting not towards it. Rich refugees go first and take their portable wealth. You can look at any reports of refugees over hundreds of years and even to the recent wars in our times or more recent troubles in the Near and Far East.

Quote:As I have stated before human nature dictates that when Catus (the Procurator and therefore high government official) left so would the rest of the rich and powerful.
Even so, there will always be some who will stick it out for one reason or another. Perhaps they believe that the danger is not as great as has been made out or they think that help will come or they are reluctant to leave their homes for fear of looters or they simply refuse to leave. Logic does not always come into it and it is often those who feel that they have the most to lose who are the last to leave. Among the reasons given by Tacitus for people not leaving London with Paulinus was “the attractiveness of the place” (loci dulcedo)!


Quote:From what we can gather Catus was a rapacious and cowardly man who fled once the troubles that he was partly responsible for came to light. For him not to have taken wealth with him in the ships would have been against character.
Nevertheless, there is only so much that he could have taken with him.


Quote:You are correct about the rebels not knowing whether there was anything there but obviously were not overly concerned as it was not as we have both agreed their prime target.
I have emphasized the symbolic nature of Colchester and, geographically, it was the first Roman centre that the rebels would reach but I maintain that London was still a major target.


Quote:It would seem that this attacking of forts etc. would have been the spark that started the chain of messages to Colchester, Catus, Cerealis and Paulinus. I agree that it was the precursor to the destruction of Colchester and was the Iceni recapturing their homeland.


Quote:I have to agree with Webster when he states that the Brythonic Army was split into two, one for the attack on a virtually undefended town and one that defeated the Ninth Legion.

I think that the Iceni regained their homeland, destroyed the Ninth whilst the Trinovantes destroyed Colchester and regained their farms and homes which Tacitus states had been taken from them.
I doubt that we will ever agree about this but let me make two points. First, the Acricola carries the clear inference, it seems to me, that the force that attacked the troops and stormed the forts was the same as invaded the colony. Secondly, the attack upon the Ninth appears in the Annals immediately after the description of the storming of the Temple and was carried out by the “victorious Britons”. It is evident that both events involved the same rebel force or elements of it. Your previous suggestion that part of the rebel army “turned” to meet the Ninth seems to be entirely plausible.


Quote:There are many instances where the Legions rebelled against their commanders but in this case Postumus fell on his sword perhaps even to save the Legion who obviously agreed with him.
There is a danger here of re-writing history. Tacitus states unequivocally that Postumus committed suicide because he had disobeyed orders and denied his legion a share in the glory. It seems evident from this that, if he had obeyed Paulinus’ command to join him, the legion would have marched and would have taken part in the final battle.


Quote:The fact remains that after no doubt a number of messengers were sent that the Second did not come. If Paulinus could have got more troops easily (the rest of the Twentieth, the rest of the Ninth) no doubt he would have done. After all they were all nearer than the Second in Exeter.
I think that we are both of the opinion that Paulinus withdrew to the west. This would bring him nearer to the Second and further away from the other legions (unlike you, I believe that the Twentieth was in North Wales). Events moved too quickly for Paulinus to link with any of the legions that might have reinforced him but, if the rebels had not, in effect, followed him, I can envisage him establishing a base somewhere on the Fosse Way and commanding the Second, Twentieth and, if it could make it through enemy-held territory, the remnants of the Ninth to proceed along the Fosse to join him. Alternatively, he might have withdrawn as far as Gloucester or Usk.


Quote: Nathan Ross wrote:

Colchester was supposedly still the capital of Britain at the time - so the governor would be officially based there (although Paulinus clearly spent most of his time away with the army!). London may already have been the capital of the procurator though: Catus' successor Classicianus died there in office, and his tomb was built there.

When “order” was restored the political map had changed and the Romans knew who was loyal and who was not. London was a more central point to control the Province and London became both the Trading and Administrative centre for the Province until York seems to have superseded it later.
It is evident that Catus was not based in Colchester at the time of the revolt.


Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - Theoderic - 10-22-2012

Renatus wrote:

Even so, there will always be some who will stick it out for one reason or another. Perhaps they believe that the danger is not as great as has been made out or they think that help will come or they are reluctant to leave their homes for fear of looters or they simply refuse to leave. Logic does not always come into it and it is often those who feel that they have the most to lose who are the last to leave. Among the reasons given by Tacitus for people not leaving London with Paulinus was “the attractiveness of the place” (loci dulcedo)!


I am not disputing that there were refugees still there when Paulinus arrived but typically the rich can and do leave. Some others went with Paulinus and some stayed but there would not have been that many.

It is interesting that if they knew the huge numbers that were supposed to be on their way that they stayed. So perhaps they did not know at the time how large the host was coming their way.

Of course the really interesting part of this is why Paulinus took any refugees with him. He does not seem the compassionate type – certainly not against the Brythons either at Anglesey, at the Battle or afterwards.

Renatus wrote:

Nevertheless, there is only so much that he could have taken with him.

I agree but he is likely to have taken everything he could.

Renatus wrote:

I have emphasized the symbolic nature of Colchester and, geographically, it was the first Roman centre that the rebels would reach but I maintain that London was still a major target.

Although I can agree that the Temple of Claudius was a major Roman symbol and that Colchester was the capital of the province at the time.

On the other hand the Trinovantes although Roman allies for over a century had their riches and lands taken away from them and treated as second class citizens. A lot of this was about revenge and recapturing what they thought was theirs.

Renatus wrote:

I doubt that we will ever agree about this but let me make two points. First, the Acricola carries the clear inference, it seems to me, that the force that attacked the troops and stormed the forts was the same as invaded the colony.

Secondly, the attack upon the Ninth appears in the Annals immediately after the description of the storming of the Temple and was carried out by the “victorious Britons”. It is evident that both events involved the same rebel force or elements of it. Your previous suggestion that part of the rebel army “turned” to meet the Ninth seems to be entirely plausible.


I am of a mind where I see that each tribe would need to strive to retake their own properties and re-establish the aristocratic structure. There would have been no requirement for a combined force to take Colchester which was virtually undefended.

I still maintain that for the Iceni and the Trinovantes to have vacated their own homelands would have been suicide if the Ninth, Fourteenth and the Second had invaded from the North, East and South East.

Renatus wrote:

There is a danger here of re-writing history. Tacitus states unequivocally that Postumus committed suicide because he had disobeyed orders and denied his legion a share in the glory.

It seems evident from this that, if he had obeyed Paulinus’ command to join him, the legion would have marched and would have taken part in the final battle.


You have an excellent point. Far from trying to re-write history I am trying to understand it. Postumus would have been one of the bravest and experienced and trusted men in his Legion so there must have been very good reasons for him not have obeyed the summons from Paulinus.

There are many reasons postulated, a split Legion, being attacked by an uprising, ordered by his superiors to stay put, reports of a countrywide uprising etc.

It may have even been that Postumus like Cerealis had an overriding duty to defend against local uprisings and in fact was doing just that. The difference between him and Cerealis was that Cerealis was well connected.

My point is that the other officers must have supported his actions in such an important summons otherwise he would have been replaced.

As Nathan Ross states even the men under Paulinus on Anglesey nearly didn’t obey him and this is by no means the only type of this action.

So whatever the reason for the Second not going to Paulinus’ aid just replacing the commander may well not have got the Legion to join him.

Your point was that if Paulinus stayed in London the Second would have eventually joined him. I am not so certain which is one of the main reasons that Paulinus left London.


Renatus wrote:

I think that we are both of the opinion that Paulinus withdrew to the west. This would bring him nearer to the Second and further away from the other legions (unlike you, I believe that the Twentieth was in North Wales). Events moved too quickly for Paulinus to link with any of the legions that might have reinforced him but, if the rebels had not, in effect, followed him, I can envisage him establishing a base somewhere on the Fosse Way and commanding the Second, Twentieth and, if it could make it through enemy-held territory, the remnants of the Ninth to proceed along the Fosse to join him. Alternatively, he might have withdrawn as far as Gloucester or Usk.


I certainly agree with you. I think that is exactly what he would have done and in fact may have been in the process of doing. Abandoning London must have seemed to the Brythons that the Romans were actually retreating and perhaps they took the decision to follow him once they had pillaged London.

Of course SP may well have taken into account both options.

Renatus wrote:

It is evident that Catus was not based in Colchester at the time of the revolt.

You are patently correct which is where you would expect a person who was in charge of taxes and commerce to be, which re-inforces the importance and convenience of London for taxation purposes.

Kind Regards - Deryk