Boudica Revisited

[Nathan Ross]

I don't recall seeing the "parade" theory being challenged and use of rivers brought to the fore previously.

True, water transport was indeed the preferred means of moving goods around Britain right into the 19th century and the invention of railways. But it was slow - and involved transferring everything onto boats, of course. Since we know that the Britons were using wheeled transport at the final battle (carts, and apparently chariots), it would seem likely that they'd travelled by road rather than water. Watling Street may not have been a motorway, but we know it was at least a road, and led from London to St Albans (two sites visited by the rebels). The burden of probability would suggest that, if your enemies have made a nice straight road going directly where you want to go, you use it :wink:

that they could have been acting in smaller groups post Colchester, the bulk being in Iceni lands and moving to hit Paulinus from the east along the Ouse and/or Nene.

Paulinus' withdrawal from London suggests, I would say, that a very sizeable enemy was in the vicinity - the same force that had destroyed Colchester, and had not dispersed into smaller groups, which could feasibly have been tackled in detail.

a flying column getting through to London seems plausible

The 'flying column' theory is not attested in Tacitus, or anywhere else. It was invented (by Graham Webster, I think) solely to account for Paulinus' rapidity in reaching London before Boudica got there. As I suggested above, with an earlier warning Paulinus would have had enough time to get his full force down to the London area - there is no need for any cavalry bodyguards or flying columns. Roman commanders moved with their legions.

Btw - I'm aware we're having parallel discussions on virtually the same topic on two threads! My fault - apologies. If any moderator has a problem with this and wants to merge the threads, please do. mile:

- Nathan