Irrational Boudicca

[tommy303]

Basically, and this is more an opinion than a fact, the deciding difference between the Icenii queen and her army and Paullinus and his, is that the Roman general and his troops were professional soldiers with years of experience behind them. Organized and fighting as a team, their strongest asset was the ability to maintain a prolonged defence to break the initial enemy charge and exhaust the leading ranks of the Britons before taking the counter offensive.

Deployed in a narrow defile, with woods to the flanks and rear, the Romans were fairly safe from being out flanked. I doubt that Boudicca had the necessary means of command and control to send part of her forces around through the woods or the rear to launch a coordinated attack while her main force fought a spoiling action against the Roman front, and even if she did, such a manouver can go badly wrong. Paullinus probably stationed some light troops in the woods to guard against just such a move. As the IX Hispana found out earlier, a suprise attack in the woods can be deadly. I seem to recall that there was also difficult terrain, such as marshes beyond the woods which would have hampered an out flanking manouever.

In other areas, the difference in tactics and fighting techniques gave the Romans a decided edge as long as they fought on ground of their own choosing. The Briton's main battle tactic seems to have been a furious massed attack designed to scatter one's foes before the battle broke down into individual combats, and if that attack failed there was a good likelihood that the battle would be lost once the leading elements began to tire, for they lacked the practiced technique of the Romans of rotating the men in front out of combat and replacing them with fresh relays. The legionary infantry, on the other hand could do that and in so doing took the edge off the enemy front and began to wear them down until Paullinus felt the time was right to take the offensive.

I am not so sure precisely how decisive the presence of the Britons wagons would have been. As was pointed out, one could probably have moved them out of the way as the Briton's were forced back. It would be the logical thing to do. What I think was decisive was the presence of the families as spectators. Once it became evident that the offensive had shifted to the Romans, I think a good many warriors might have deserted the ranks to try and look after their loved ones, a quite natural response when all appears lost. Once that happens, cohesion, which would have been minimal in the Briton ranks to begin with, is completely lost and organized resistance is for all intent and purposes at an end.