Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[dadlamassu]

Catching up after a brief illness.  A few things strike me from the literal translation which, with my lack of Latin, I found helpful.

In military terms "position" does not mean "battlefield" but the location of a unit or force on the battlefield.  So depending upon who is "approaching" the defile is either behind SP's position as he is approaching it.  If Tacitus is referring to Boudicca then the defile is in front of the Roman army.  

A "defile" may be between two constraining features: rivers, ravines, swamps, marshes, thick forests not just hills (though in this case hills are likely).  From the translation The narrow defile gave them the shelter of a rampart.  This is an interesting phrase as a rampart is a defensive wall with a walkway and parapet along the top.  I think this may be a literary allusion to the reason for choosing the site as it had terrain features protecting the flanks. Or it may mean that the configuration allows some of his force to be hidden and so make  it look smaller and even more tempting to attack.

So the position chosen by SP has terrain features to protect his flanks  which implies that the Britons have extreme difficulty crossing or occupying them, an open plain in front allowing observation but which allows the Britons to see how small his forces are and encourage a frontal attack.  

Now turning to Boudicca's army.  From my reading so far her army is a collection of disaffected tribal leaders, their followings and other groups that see revenge, profit or return to the old ways as a likely outcome.  However, there does not seem a unified command or real objective other than cause maximum damage to the "Roman Way".  

The fighting style of the Britons was probably influenced by experience gained by warriors and chiefs fighting on behalf of the Gauls and in Britain against the Romans.  They would have seen the Roman war machine in action on the formal pitched battle where they are most effective.  They will also have seen that hit and run, ambush and surprise attacks are their best hope of victory.  So why did they abandon their old methods?

I think it may be that the rapid successes in Colchester, London, St Albans and the virtual destruction of the vexillation on Legio XIIII as well as the loot gained may have encouraged over confidence.  Perhaps the defeat of Legio XIIII "showed" that they could defeat the Romans in the open.  Also many warriors from the initial actions may have gone home with their booty, perhaps to return, perhaps to defend their homes from the expected Roman backlash.  Their places may have been taken by other warriors with loyalties to their leader rather than Boudicca.  At any council of war perhaps the male chiefs were under pressure from their followers to deal with the Romans once and for all.  I am not saying Boudicca felt any different for many reasons she wanted the Romans dead or out of the (her) country.  She was also very aware that if SP was left alone for any length of time he would lead a devastating campaign with a reinforced field army.  Her army then draws up in tribal contingents.  The "wives" of Tacitus may be better translated as "camp followers" again in tribal clumps causing bottlenecks and chaos behind the army.

I am still reading and preparing what might be called a "Staff Operational Brief" for Suetonius Paulinus as if I was on his G3 staff.  I will place it here or maybe in separate thread once it is ready.