Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

I cannot fathom how you would come to that view.

Because that is what the evidence says. Cartimandua was a Roman client ruler, backed by Roman power. The Romans were not obliged to treat all native queens in the same way, and nobody would expect them to do so.

If you want to conjure up a Brigantian revolt to support your theories, you will need more than just bluster!

they were the cavalry, which is what everyone maintains was with Suetonius.

Not around here they don't!

WHERE IS YOUR CAMP? Where is even the slightest evidence of any encampments between London and the army in Wales?

Unless you believe that Paulinus flew down to London in a single day, or that his army - along with every other Roman force from the conquest until the end of Roman power in Britain, including the troops you want to have at Silchester - moved about the country without making camps anywhere, then you must accept that there are temporary marching camp sites - probably a great number of them - all over England and Wales which have left no archaeological trace.

The only Roman fortification in the area known to have been occupied in c.AD60 is the vexilation fortress at Alchester. Which is quite near Tring and St Albans.

Suetonius was safe behind the walls of Calleva

He certainly was not. The walls of Silchester were not built until the early 3rd Century.

Of course not, they would go back and forth with the baggage train...

Extraordinary idea!

In reality, Roman armies moved much faster than five miles a day - sometimes three to five times as fast, and there are accounts of them covering long distances in this way. There are also reliable accounts of medieval and early modern armies, not specially trained for distance marching and often using wheeled transport, covering fifteen to twenty miles a day for several days running.

However, many people trying to promote the debunked 'cavalry dash' theory feel compelled to invent reasons for the Roman army to crawl across country at a snail's pace, while the Iceni and others hare about the place laying ambushes and sacking towns...

The two options from Calleva, is that Boudica crosses ... perhaps around Oxford... or that Suetonius cross the Thames above Goring and then heads toward Boudica... he would have made for some crossing point between Goring and Oxford... probably chose an obscure ford to cross the Thames, of which there are a number... there were other fords every few miles... This places him at the foot of the Chiltern hills ...

This is quite interesting, and not too crazy. However, we would have to ask what Boudica and her army were doing up around Oxford. Where were they going, and what was their objective?

If they just wanted to attack the Romans they could have marched west from London to the Thames and found one of those many fords you mention. The river might have held them up for two or three days while they found a viable crossing point, but not the several weeks that Paulinus would need to concentrate his army around the undefended town of Calleva. Then they would be across and into open country, with the strategic advantage over Paulinus.

Also, if Paulinus himself needed to cross the river to attack Boudica, why would the Iceni not hold the fords against him? They had a vast advantage of numbers, and could have put guards at every crossing and swarmed the Romans when they tried to get across.

[Renatus]

No, I'm saying that Suetonius arrives in London after rushing there. Which means he did not have his baggage train and I suggest that it was only Cavalry

I see.  It is not simply a matter of cavalry outpacing infantry.  Your position is that Suetonius raced down to London with his cavalry (you have used the word 'gallop' elsewhere in this thread).  Otherwise, is my summary an accurate reflection of your position?

[kavan]

kavan Wrote:
Has anyone 'dug' any of the tumuli at Pitstone Hill?


Nathan replied I don't think so - but most of the stuff around there seems to be prehistoric / Bronze Age.

Perhaps one of them might contain the remains of Roman soldiers. There would have been plenty of labour for the task.

[MonsGraupius]

I cannot fathom how you would come to that view.

Because that is what the evidence says. Cartimandua was a Roman client ruler, backed by Roman power. The Romans were not obliged to treat all native queens in the same way, and nobody would expect them to do so.

In Roman society women were lower class citizens who had few rights, and certainly could not rule over men. That is why they had so much problem with Boudica ... in her eyes she had absolutely no rights as queen.

Again, you fail to understand the Roman psychology: "women are not rulers ...and those who pretend to be ... should be treated like Boudica was".

they were the cavalry, which is what everyone maintains was with Suetonius.

Not around here they don't!

Does change anything ... they are still incapable of defending London, they do not go North to use St.Albans as their base for war ... and the Thames-Severn line is exactly the defensive line that the Romans used repeatedly in Britain.

From London the only place that is a seat for war is Calleva ... behind the defences of the Thames-Severn line.

And anyone suggesting that the friends of Romans are in the north so that is where they would head ... must answer for why Catus heads off to Gaul ... which is clearly where the friends of Rome line and where the Roman supply lines will come from.

WHERE IS YOUR CAMP? Where is even the slightest evidence of any encampments between London and the army in Wales?

Unless you believe that Paulinus flew down to London in a single day, or that his army - along with every other Roman force from the conquest until the end of Roman power in Britain, including the troops you want to have at Silchester - moved about the country without making camps anywhere, then you must accept that there are temporary marching camp sites - probably a great number of them - all over England and Wales which have left no archaeological trace.

The only Roman fortification in the area known to have been occupied in c.AD60 is the vexilation fortress at Alchester. Which is quite near Tring and St Albans.

A small fast moving detachment is capable of reaching Roman fortifications each night. A large army has to build its own camp. We know when Suetonius gets to London that he considers himself to be at risk .... and so from that point on, he would have retreated behind the defences of a camp or a barrier like the Thames.

Suetonius was safe behind the walls of Calleva

He certainly was not. The walls of Silchester were not built until the early 3rd Century.

The present stone wall is from about 200AD, the previous wooden defences would be earlier.

Of course not, they would go back and forth with the baggage train...

Extraordinary idea!

It was the way things were done when armies moved on campaign. But not through territory where they could get supplies, so it doesn't apply to this discussion and it isn't worth wasting my time on it.

In reality, Roman armies moved much faster than five miles a day

Of course they moved a lot faster because they were constantly going back and forth. But even five miles a day is a bit ambitious on campaign. More like 2-3miles a day. But they aren't on campaign, so let's drop it.

The two options from Calleva, is that Boudica crosses ... perhaps around Oxford... or that Suetonius cross the Thames above Goring and then heads toward Boudica... he would have made for some crossing point between Goring and Oxford... probably chose an obscure ford to cross the Thames, of which there are a number... there were other fords every few miles... This places him at the foot of the Chiltern hills ...

This is quite interesting, and not too crazy. However, we would have to ask what Boudica and her army were doing up around Oxford. Where were they going, and what was their objective?

I don't know. All I've really done is to move Suetonius' starting position to Calleva from London, and given him time to regroup and resupply in his "seat for war".

From let's say "Dorchester" (simply so we have a name in the likely area), the line toward Norfolk runs along a long line of hills. This places the battle in one of the valleys along the scarp of those hills with a plain in front.

Suetonius had the fourteenth legion with the veterans of the twentieth, and auxiliaries from the neighbourhood, to the number of about ten thousand armed men, when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle. He chose a position approached by a narrow defile, closed in at the rear by a forest, having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front, where an open plain extended without any danger from ambuscades.

Based on the marching camps heading toward Mons Graupius, the Romans seem to prefer relatively open ground rather than the mountains. And they liked a hilltop camp each evening. I'm not aware of anything along this line, which given the intense farming relative to NE Scotland does not mean they were not there.

I suppose, the simplest fit to the above text, based on the Agricola campaign, is that Suetonius took his army from "Dorchester" toward Norfolk along the base of the Chilterns ... I would suggest the line is close to modern Aylesbury, Letchworth and by Cambridge the line is almost extinguished.

And based on the above, at some point Suetonius with Boudica coming to him for battle, takes a right turn up some ravine which I bet he fortifies

If we assume Suetonius gets to Dorchester before Boudica hears. And that then the two close on each other at the same speed, then Letchworth is slightly under half way ... so that would possibly be the maximum that Suetonius could advance. Also the hills are not as pronounced here, so based on overall tactics, I think further back. But Suetonius does have to commit himself by advancing in order to lure Boudica out. She's not going to mobilise an army if Suetonius can just make a quick dash back behind the Thames-Severn barrier. So, that suggests somewhere around Aylesbury to Letchworth.

Also, that line runs at a tangent to a circle around London, and at Dunstable, they start moving further away from London. Suetonius would have had an eye on a quick escape back to the fortified fords of the Thames ... and given the odds, I think he would be looking for a battle somewhere like Dunstable, where he had not enemy behind, and could, if required, run across the Thames and like Catus to Gaul. Dunstable to London is 38miles. Dunstable to Dorchester and the Thames that way is 44miles. Fresh horses could make that in one dash. I doubt he's going much beyond Dunstable.

If they just wanted to attack the Romans they could have marched west from London to the Thames and found one of those many fords you mention. The river might have held them up for two or three days while they found a viable crossing point, but not the several weeks that Paulinus would need to concentrate his army around the undefended town of Calleva. Then they would be across and into open country, with the strategic advantage over Paulinus.

Also, if Paulinus himself needed to cross the river to attack Boudica, why would the Iceni not hold the fords against him? They had a vast advantage of numbers, and could have put guards at every crossing and swarmed the Romans when they tried to get across.

From Goring North the Thames is easily crossed. And, unless there has been heavy rain, it would be almost impossible to stop her crossing, even if Suetonius attempted to defend all the fords. However, once across the Thames, there are very few routes south to Calleva. One is through what is poetically called the "Goring gap". A narrow ravine up to 700m wide, with the Thames flowing from side to side. It would be an ideal battle site for Suetonius (equivalent to that battle of the Spartans against the Persians).

The other route is over the ridgeway hills aka Berkshire or Chilton downs. Whilst at the other end, the white horse is on the same hills. More problematic for Boudica, there are defences running along the ridgeway ... e.g. 51.557545, -1.313557 Grim's ditch


There are of course some ways across, and the most obvious is the valley taken by the old Didcot-Compton railway which would locate the battle at this point: Battle Site, and the temple commemorating the battle was built here: Temple. There is also other evidence. However, there is not the key evidence needed: not a single artefact relating to a battle that I can find, so it does not seem boudica came this way.

However, if she had, she'd have had an extremely difficult time getting through these hills.

---

No, I'm saying that Suetonius arrives in London after rushing there. Which means he did not have his baggage train and I suggest that it was only Cavalry

I see.  It is not simply a matter of cavalry outpacing infantry.  Your position is that Suetonius raced down to London with his cavalry (you have used the word 'gallop' elsewhere in this thread).  Otherwise, is my summary an accurate reflection of your position?

Whenever I say "Gallop" ... I'm being intentionally dramatic ... because an army at the time of the Romans, never moved quickly ... so "moving quickly" was still slow and never a gallop (except in battle)
 
I am simply using the text: "Suetonius, however, with wonderful resolution, marched amidst a hostile population to Londinium".

I am interpreting "wonderful resolution" as "rushing" ... which as I've said the Roman army normally moves like a slug on its day off, doesn't really mean "galloping". There is a similar phrase at the battle of Mons Graupius where Tacotis writes: expedito exercitu"  ... translated by Alfred church as "he advanced with a lightly equipped force", which I would suggest means that they ditched all the supply wagons and took only  what each man could carry, thus avoiding the lengthy delay it usually took to move camp. This might allow the normal 15miles between camps (and several days moving supplies from one camp to the next), to be extended to perhaps 30miles between camps, and moving every day. But this could not be kept up for long, unless moving through areas where supplies can be guaranteed.

Bizarrely although horses could do 30-60miles in a day, they cannot sustain that. In contrast, a lightly equipped foot soldier, could probably do 30 miles a day ... until his small pack of food ran out. But, they can only do that on roads ... not across virgin ground.

But, what we know, is whatever the force that arrives in London, it is incapable of building defences against Boudica. As Romans often took material to build their camps with them, that suggests that all the tools and materials to build defences never made it to London. That is what tells us what kind of force got there and what state they were in. They simply were incapable of building the necessary fortifications in the time available to mount a defence of London. Given that the Ninth had reteated into their camp ... they clearly had not only the time, but the means to build their camp, yet Suetonius did not.

[Nathan Ross]

Again, you fail to understand the Roman psychology: "women are not rulers ...and those who pretend to be ... should be treated like Boudica was".

Leaving your view of 'Roman psychology' aside, the limited sources we have on Cartimandua make it clear she was a Roman ally and was not 'treated like Boudica'. Anything beyond that is your own imagination!

And anyone suggesting that the friends of Romans are in the north so that is where they would head ...

St Albans is to the north of London (21 miles north of it) - it is not in the north. It was a municipium, so the people there were certainly 'friends of Romans'.

But even five miles a day is a bit ambitious on campaign. More like 2-3miles a day.

Surely you are joking now? Perhaps you have been all along... Anyway, this merits no further discussion so I will be happy to drop it.

the most obvious is the valley taken by the old Didcot-Compton railway which would locate the battle at this point: Battle Site... she'd have had an extremely difficult time getting through these hills.

It appears to be an interesting site on the map. We might guess that Boudica and co had headed north-west through the Chilterns via High Wycombe or Tring and taken the old Iknield Way south-west to try and outflank the Romans in Silchester, then crossed the river at Wallingford and moved further west, perhaps with Suetonius retreating ahead of them and drawing them south into the 'defile' below Blewbury Down.

That might work, although it does require considerable long distance logistics and strategic planning on the part of the Britons. Why an East-Anglian tribal confederation would trek all that way (60-70 miles from London) just to fight a battle on ground of their enemy's choosing seems a mystery...

Google Maps has a useful drone view of the area, taken from a point just south-west of Churn Farm. It looks to be fairly open gentle country, not the sort of elevation that would daunt Britons who had already crossed the Chilterns and the Thames! This view from ground level on the track of the old railway (I think) does not suggest any more formidible terrain.

[MonsGraupius]

Cartimandua!

I think given the conquest of the Brigantes that occurred after, they'd have to be pretty gullible to trust the Romans. They knew the Romans were a threat and I've no doubt they would have looked for opportunities to get rid of the threat.

And anyone suggesting that the friends of Romans are in the north so that is where they would head ...

St Albans is to the north of London (21 miles north of it) - it is not in the north. It was a municipium, so the people there were certainly 'friends of Romans'.

I missed the new text that must have become available with Catus heading to St.Albans ... or is further North to the Brigantes? Or is the old one still correct, that the first thing a Roman governor does when threatened is to head to safety and friends in Gaul?

the most obvious is the valley taken by the old Didcot-Compton railway which would locate the battle at this point: Battle Site... she'd have had an extremely difficult time getting through these hills.

It appears to be an interesting site on the map. We might guess that Boudica and co had headed north-west through the Chilterns via High Wycombe or Tring and taken the old Iknield Way south-west to try and outflank the Romans in Silchester, then crossed the river at Wallingford and moved further west, perhaps with Suetonius retreating ahead of them and drawing them south into the 'defile' below Blewbury Down.

The scenario I developed is that Boudica might have pursued Suetonius. The Thames was defended as far as Goring ... so Boudica would need to cross, from Wallingford to Oxford (higher up is easy to cross, but ford names disappear suggesting there were other reasons making it difficult).
 
She then needs a way to cross the ridgeway hills. We need a sizeable valley, suitable for 10,000 fitting the description and the site I suggested looks good for a number of reasons, but I think given it is farmed, if there had been a battle, there would be some Roman military artefacts found in the area. I could argue using "Pharsalus" defence: where we know there was a sizeable Roman battle and where, but no artefacts have been.

However, I live at the other end of the country, at my current rate of progress, I'm never going to do anything more with it and there are good sites where artefacts have been found which I think have more credibility.

That might work, although it does require considerable long distance logistics and strategic planning on the part of the Britons. Why an East-Anglian tribal confederation would trek all that way (60-70 miles from London) just to fight a battle on ground of their enemy's choosing seems a mystery...

Yes, I agree. Which is part of the reason I've given up on the site ... it is too far away to be credible.

Google Maps has a useful drone view of the area, taken from a point just south-west of Churn Farm. It looks to be fairly open gentle country, not the sort of elevation that would daunt Britons who had already crossed the Chilterns and the Thames! This view from ground level on the track of the old railway (I think) does not suggest any more formidible terrain.

It's a great location, because the (presumably) iron-age grim's ditch forms a defensive line to either side, meaning boudica could not easily outflank Suetonius.

It's very flat farmland ... a valley ... just what the Romans like. At Churn farm, the valley narrows making that the ideal front line and Churn Hill  would have made a great encampment, meaning that the path to the NW of Churn Hill would have been a fortified bank along the slope. There are several mounds and tumuli, that may present the place where the Roman dead were buried (but hardly unusual in the area). The site is overlooked by the Roman temple (giving thanks to the victory) and if you are very imaginative, there are so many banks and ditches, that you can find numerous potential other "camps" and "Roman defences". There is even name evidence for a battle in the area ... which if nothing else, shows it was an area of repeated fighting.

The railway line is particularly important ... because it demonstrates that a large army with numerous carts, as we are told, could have taken that path across the hills.

There is an obvious flat area to the NW over to Chilton, ... in all I was quite enthusiastic when I first found it, and sure that if I just went there I'd find something or at least someone had found something from the battle. But no!

Without artefacts from a battle, and with other sites having artefacts, unless they turn up, the site is just a lot of incidental conjecture with no substance and if you allow such a distance from the Iceni, then there will undoubtedly be many more sites that are just as good.

However, I am still sure Suetonius initially heads south over the Thames, defends that and we have to develop from that starting position.

[Nathan Ross]

I missed the new text that must have become available with Catus heading to St.Albans ...

Catus Decianus had sent the only troops he had with him to Colchester, where they were wiped out. He had not a single soldier remaining, and so had little choice but to flee to Gaul.

Suetonius Paulinus, on the other hand, had a fully equipped Roman expeditionary force of c.5000 men with him, with cavalry and scouts, when he arrived in London. He was several days ahead of Boudica's advance and had the strategic advantage. His force could move at 16-18 miles a day - 22 at full pace if required - and he knew that additional troops from North Wales and the Welsh frontier would be able to reinforce him provided he maintained his lines of communication along Watling Street and Akeman Street.

That is what he did, and that is why the battle was fought in the vicinity of St Albans, and that is why St Albans is the only place Tacitus mentions besides Colchester and London.

The Thames was defended as far as Goring ...

By whom? Suetonius's 'cavalry bodyguard'? Or his 2-mile-per-day infantry? Hmm.... Not likely!

I could argue using "Pharsalus" defence: where we know there was a sizeable Roman battle and where, but no artefacts have been.

Or Cannae. Or the vast majority of battle sites from the ancient and medieval era, which have turned up not the slightest scrap of surviving evidence.

there are good sites where artefacts have been found which I think have more credibility.

That at least is certainly true!

[MonsGraupius]

I missed the new text that must have become available with Catus heading to St.Albans ...

Catus Decianus had sent the only troops he had with him to Colchester, where they were wiped out. He had not a single soldier remaining, and so had little choice but to flee to Gaul.

Suetonius Paulinus, on the other hand, had a fully equipped Roman expeditionary force of c.5000 men with him, with cavalry and scouts, when he arrived in London. He was several days ahead of Boudica's advance and had the strategic advantage. His force could move at 16-18 miles a day - 22 at full pace if required - and he knew that additional troops from North Wales and the Welsh frontier would be able to reinforce him provided he maintained his lines of communication along Watling Street and Akeman Street.

That is what he did, and that is why the battle was fought in the vicinity of St Albans, and that is why St Albans is the only place Tacitus mentions besides Colchester and London.

So, St.Albans wasn't ransacked? So, the Ninth weren't confined to their camps. So Suetonius had no problem building a camp to hold London. The simple fact is Suetonius retreats from London ... and as Catus shows, the way to retreat is over the Thames and toward Gaul. Anything else just flies in the face of military logic and denies the simple plain fact that Boudica was overrunning everything north of the Thames.

I'm sick to death of people who read the text, know that the area North of London is being ransacked, know the Romans are heading south, and then claim that Suetonius heads north to St.Albans which they know, rather than holding the only major place north of the Thames, it was abandoned ... leaving the army totally cut off from any port, and about as stupid a position as it is conceivable to be.

When all Suetonius had to do, was walk 100m across the Thames, and he was almost immune from any attack. Why would any sane general give up the strongest defensible position, arguably in the whole South of England?

The Thames was defended as far as Goring ...

By whom? Suetonius's 'cavalry bodyguard'? Or his 2-mile-per-day infantry? Hmm.... Not likely!

The history books have numerous accounts of armies attempting to cross fords, and they are one of the most problematic things for an army to attempt. That is because a ford can easily be held, must in the same way as a gate in a wall or a bridge. Having wrecked the ford and made it impossible to cross, all you need is a couple of old men to watch over it, and enough troops nearby to stop the enemy if they send people to try to repair the ford. It's basically the same force as you get at a mile castle. And, if it's a tidal ford, as most of the lower fords on the Thames are ... they only have a couple of hours a day to do the repair and take down the defences, so you don't even need the old men most of the day.

[quote="MonsGraupius" pid="352787" dateline="1662119864"]
there are good sites where artefacts have been found which I think have more credibility.

That at least is certainly true!

My only reason for posting, is to stop all this nonsense that the Thames, one of the best defensive walls in Britain ... was ignored by Suetonius, one of the best Roman Generals in Britain. It defies all military logic and it is time to ditch the nonsense that started with the insane Gallop down Watling Street altogether. It was stupid at the time, and it is still stupid. Suetonius did not head north after he decided he could not hold London. He went south, and sacrificed both London and St.Albans for the strategic advantage of his secure defence south of the Thames.

[MonsGraupius]

That is what he did, and that is why the battle was fought in the vicinity of St Albans, and that is why St Albans is the only place Tacitus mentions besides Colchester and London.

Tacitus mentions St.Albans, because it was destroyed at the same time as London and was a more important place than London. Being more important, if Suetonius had gone to St.Albans, Tacitus would have said all he said about London but for St.Albans, because London would then be "just another place ransacked".

Suetonius goes south over the Thames. There is no doubt about that. However, what I should have included is the possibility that Suetonius, having regrouped at Calleva, or there may be a closer site, he could have chosen to cross his fortified wall of the Thames-Severn at London. This would be a repeat of Caesar's crossing of the Thames. It would be at the few sites between Chertsey and London Bridge.

At this point, Suetonius is back "at London" ... I was going to say "no change ... the same starting point if he just headed north without waiting". But this time has regrouped and resupplied and there is no army "up north" to draw him along Watling Street. This time he is moving from London forward to draw Boudica into battle and Watling Street looks a strange way to do that.

However, I had thought it would be the same. I now realise writing this that Suetonius, like Agricola, is going to want to take a coastal route so that he can be resupplied by boat. It seems the logical route is now to Colchester and up the coast to Norfolk. I'm not aware of any hills that could fit the "Ravine" topology with a coastal route to Norfolk.

WHY THE MAD DASH?
I am starting to understand why this ridiculous mad dash up Watling street was invented when it defies all logic. Between London and Norfolk the terrain is very flat. It's only to the NW of London that we get the hills which produce the Ravines necessary to fit the battle site description. So, people needed to find an excuse for Suetonius to head NW ... hence the narrative about Suetonius not being with his army and having to go back up Watling street to get to the Chilterns ... having accepted this ridiculous narrative ... we then get the standard: "why can't it be in this valley" texts, all of which enforce the stupidity of the first narrative of a dash down Watling street. The same thing happened to the battle of Mons Graupius ... every Tom Dick and Harry saw a hill, wondered if it was the battle site, and then set about distorting and shoehorning the facts to fit.

[Nathan Ross]

So, St.Albans wasn't ransacked?

Of course it was - after London. As Tacitus tells us: 'a similar disaster befell the town of Verulamium'.

So Suetonius had no problem building a camp to hold London.

Whyever would he do a thing like that? The last thing he'd want to do was build a fort so the enemy could besiege him with their overwhelming numbers.

Roman commanders only fought from behind fortifications when they had no other options - and Suetonius, as all this discussion proves, had several other options.

stop all this nonsense that the Thames, one of the best defensive walls in Britain ... was ignored by Suetonius

It was also ignored by Tacitus and by Dio, who mention nothing about rivers, fords, or defensive walls.

the nonsense that started with the insane Gallop down Watling Street... this ridiculous mad dash up Watling street... the stupidity of the first narrative of a dash down Watling street...

Hang on now - is it a dash up Watling Street or down Watling Street that you find so insane, ridiculous, stupid and nonsensical - or both, perhaps?

As far as I can see, you are the only person here saying anything about 'mad dashes' in either direction!

It's only to the NW of London that we get the hills which produce the Ravines necessary to fit the battle site description. So, people needed to find an excuse for Suetonius to head NW ...

Take a moment to think about the logic of that statement...

[Nathan Ross]

Meanwhile, in the interests of broad-minded creativity (and rampant procrastination), I've been thinking a bit more about the idea of the campaign shifting west towards the Berkshire Downs area, and how that might have happened.

This does involve granting the Iceni / rebel alliiance a lot more long-distance strategic, intelligence-gathering and logistical ability, besides military cohesion, than I suspect they really possessed, but for the sake of argument let's assume they could do this.

Suetonius Paulinus pulls out of London west with his expeditionary force and the refugees, heading for Silchester (Calleva). He destroys the bridge over the Thames at Staines (Pontes) to slow down the enemy pursuit. The Iceni and Co then sack London, with a side group heading off to attack St Albans. Paulinus remains at Calleva, awaiting reinforcements.

At some point, these reinforcements are going to start approaching down Watling Street from the campaign bases in North Wales and Wroxeter. They could either head straight for London, or divert via the fortress at Alchester to meet Suetonius at Calleva.

The Iceni, hearing of this, know that they are likely to be caught between the two forces, and that once Suetonius is reinforced his army will be too strong for them. So they decide (somehow!) to march north-west, either following the Thames or cutting through the Chilterns, to the fords at Goring or Wallingford and outflank Suetonius, hoping to destroy his smaller force before the larger army from Wroxeter can join him.

Suetonius Paulinus, alerted to the enemy movement and perhaps hoping to meet up with his relief force before they arrive, marches north from Calleva to around Pangbourne and then, finding that the enemy have already crossed the Thames, feints left onto the Berkshire Downs. He draws the Britons up onto the downs, into a suitable 'defile' (thought decent defiles are short supply around there!) and fights his battle.

So - what do people think? I still believe the Chilterns north of St Albans provide much better terrain options, and a less convoluted strategic situation. I do quite like this idea, somewhat far-fetched as it might be, mainly just as it's a bit different!

   

(map from https://imperium.ahlfeldt.se/)

[MonsGraupius]

So, St.Albans wasn't ransacked?

Of course it was - after London. As Tacitus tells us: 'a similar disaster befell the town of Verulamium'.

If Suetonius had been in St.Albans, then being the more important town, that would have been the focus of the narrative and London would have been mentioned only in passing: "a place called London was also ransacked". Instead it is St.Albans that gets the incidental: "and St.Albans was also ransacked". That shows St.Albans was not part of the main narrative and Suetonius never went there.

So Suetonius had no problem building a camp to hold London.

Whyever would he do a thing like that? The last thing he'd want to do was build a fort so the enemy could besiege him with their overwhelming numbers.

Roman commanders only fought from behind fortifications when they had no other options - and Suetonius, as all this discussion proves, had several other options.

Suetonius specifically says that he decided London was not a "seat for war" ... we are told in very explicit terms he was NOT in a position to fight. So to argue on the basis he was wanting to fight is totally erroneous.

Moreover, it is ridiculous comment to say Romans did not build forts to fight from when Agricola built a line of forts across the Clyde-Forth line before advancing to meet the Caledonians. Likewise, when the Ninth were attacked on the way to Mons Graupius ... yet again they retreat behind the fort. Likewise the Ninth when attacked by Boudica, they again retreat to a defensible position. Likewise, when Agricola advances on the Caledonians ... every 15miles he builds encampment. When Romans go to battle ... they build forts, you cannot deny that, because that is the historical fact.

For you to make the assertion, that Roman commanders, never used fortifications ... because in Suetonius defensive position unable to hold ground, that is what you are saying ... is totally utterly bizarre. The reverse is the truth: THEY ALWAYS TRIED TO HAVE A DEFENSIVE POSITION WITH STRONG WALLS. As such Suetonius clearly crossed the Thames as that was an obvious defensive "wall" which fits the normal Roman tactics in every campaign from Agricola to Severus.

stop all this nonsense that the Thames, one of the best defensive walls in Britain ... was ignored by Suetonius

It was also ignored by Tacitus and by Dio, who mention nothing about rivers, fords, or defensive walls. You can invent your own imaginary version of this campaign if you like, but it might be better to stick to the evidence we do have.

But we are told about the Thames in that it cuts off those who failed to cross it:

Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off by the enemy.

If they were just "fleeing before" they are not "cut off". That they were cut off, requires that they are prevented from all means of escaping. That, within the environs of London, only fits with crossing the Thames where the few fords and that defensive line means that they are "cut off".

And let's be clear: it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticise the crossing of the Thames, when there is absolutely nothing at all about heading north!! The only direction we are told the Romans are heading is toward Gaul ... no one heads north!

But, why would we expect more detail? It's a few sentences and even if it were not, on the way to Mons Graupius they cross at least a dozen major rivers, numerous mountains, the Forth-clyde line, ... and almost nothing of them is mentioned, and that is in a much much longer text.

Numerous pieces of detail are missing: Tacitus and Dio don't mention the road they took, they don't mention which towns they stopped in, they don't mention what food they had for breakfast, they don't tell us how many men are in the army going to London, they don't mention the time of day of the battle, they don't tell us the route Suetonius took to London ...

Are you saying they didn't have breakfast because it isn't in the text. Yet they were cut off when the crossings over the Thames were taken, so it is there in all but name.

the nonsense that started with the insane Gallop down Watling Street... this ridiculous mad dash up Watling street... the stupidity of the first narrative of a dash down Watling street...

Hang on now - is it a dash up Watling Street or down Watling Street that you find so insane, ridiculous, stupid and nonsensical - or both, perhaps?

As far as I can see, you are the only person here saying anything about 'mad dashes' in either direction!

It's only to the NW of London that we get the hills which produce the Ravines necessary to fit the battle site description. So, people needed to find an excuse for Suetonius to head NW ...

Take a moment to think about the logic of that statement. Something may dawn on you...

What dawns on me, is that you are not looking at the situation that Suetonius finds himself in London, but instead looking for a way to justify a move North which is not in any way supported by the text.

It is not the gallop that is daft ... it is the idea that Suetonius heads out along Watling street, seeking a "seat for war".

Yet according to your narrative, not only does he ignore the most defensive barrier in the whole south of England of the Thames-ridgeway-Seven, but he also totally ignored St.Albans.
Even if you suppose that the present stone wall wasn't there, it was a tribal capital with its own defences, so why didn't he make use of the Iron age earthworks at Beach Bottom Dyke and Devil's ditch or those at Prae Wood?

In contrast, I am not trying to shoe horn the narrative to fit an ancient and false idea of heading north developed from this infamous gallop. Instead, I have looked at the text not just of this battle but of numerous others. I look at the situation in which Suetonius finds himself, and, based on what Romans did in other campaigns as described in the texts and through archaeology, I know where Suetonius will go, because he clearly did not make St.Albans his seat for war. And, we are told that that is what he is looking for, so the only alternative, was to use the area south of the Thames as his defensible seat for war.

[Theoderic]

[attachment=15673][attachment=15674]

[attachment=15674]Nathan Ross pid='352769' dateline='1661967828']

Having spent some time analysing the Tring area and having visited, I have moved my preferred site to Pitstone Hill

Meanwhile, on the subject of Pitstone Hill, I came across this sketch map I'd drawn a couple of years ago when we were discussing this before. It shows my suggested 'reversed' position, with the 'defile closed by a wood at the rear' being actually opposite the Roman lines... (which is probably far too convoluted, really!).

I've tried to add the woodland areas that seem to have been there in the past. Your idea, Deryk, I think swaps the two sides around in about the same area.

Hi Nathan

Re Pitstone:

You are correct we have the same site but have reversed positions, see the attached for my positionings..

It is difficult, because where you have the roman line is the most propitious for SP but doesn't really support the writings of Tacitus (or at least my interpretation).

[MonsGraupius]

Meanwhile, in the interests of broad-minded creativity (and rampant procrastination), I've been thinking a bit more about the idea of the campaign shifting west towards the Berkshire Downs area, and how that might have happened.

This does involve granting the Iceni / rebel alliiance a lot more long-distance strategic, intelligence-gathering and logistical ability, besides military cohesion, than I suspect they really possessed, but for the sake of argument let's assume they could do this.

Suetonius Paulinus pulls out of London west with his expeditionary force and the refugees, heading for Silchester (Calleva). He destroys the bridge over the Thames at Staines (Pontes) to slow down the enemy pursuit. The Iceni and Co then sack London, with a side group heading off to attack St Albans. Paulinus remains at Calleva, awaiting reinforcements.

At some point, these reinforcements are going to start approaching down Watling Street from the campaign bases in North Wales and Wroxeter. They could either head straight for London, or divert via the fortress at Alchester to meet Suetonius at Calleva.

The Iceni, hearing of this, know that they are likely to be caught between the two forces, and that once Suetonius is reinforced his army will be too strong for them. So they decide (somehow!) to march north-west, either following the Thames or cutting through the Chilterns, to the fords at Goring or Wallingford and outflank Suetonius, hoping to destroy his smaller force before the larger army from Wroxeter can join him.

Suetonius Paulinus, alerted to the enemy movement and perhaps hoping to meet up with his relief force before they arrive, marches north from Calleva to around Pangbourne and then, finding that the enemy have already crossed the Thames, feints left onto the Berkshire Downs. He draws the Britons up onto the downs, into a suitable 'defile' (thought decent defiles are short supply around there!) and fights his battle.

So - what do people think? I still believe the Chilterns north of St Albans provide much better terrain options, and a less convoluted strategic situation. I do quite like this idea, somewhat far-fetched as it might be, mainly just as it's a bit different!

(map from https://imperium.ahlfeldt.se/)

I would not underestimate the complexity of Iron-age society ... they really were not that different from Romans. They also had a great deal of understanding of the wider world, and boudica knew what was happening in Rome and made some pretty insulting remarks about the emperor's wife. Likewise Calgacus was schooled in the politics of Europe.

But to your map: I looked at the map and thought: "No he first went south of the Thames". However, so long as he is leaving enough forces to secure the crossings as a "barrier", and so long as he is well in advance of Boudica, it does make more sense to go north of the river. I'd still have the Romans crossing the Thames and using it as an encampment. But I admit, if Boudica was still some way off, they could have used the Road to the west north of the Thames.

What I should add, is that I think the Thames itself was in some sense a "Roman road". As such there would be a number of Roman river boats capable of hauling supplies and people up the Thames.

If the force were split, I think Suetonius would be getting to London as the slower part got out of Wales. Now Suetonius has to send a messenger back, if this is done immediately and avoiding St.Albans, then my guess is that the messenger might meet the slower section somewhere after Birmingham. So, they could move south to meet Suetonius at Lutterworth or Towcester. I don't think that differs substantially from what you have drawn.

After sacking London and driving out Suetonius from the Catuvellani lands, Boudica attacks the Catuvellauni town of St.Albans. From this we can assume the Catuvellauni are pro-Roman, and disliked by the Iceni. Being next door neighbours, I can guess there were some ancient animosities.

As a substantial town, my gut feeling, is that the Iceni would have taken everything they could, loaded it onto carts and carried it off home. And, indeed, it was often a tactic of Romans to leave undefended towns to lure undisciplined armies to loot them as that created chaos in the enemy and many of the enemy, having got their ill-gotten gains, would return home. That would giveSuetonius the time to regroup.

At this time I'm trying to think like an iron-age leader. The remaining Gauli c"Belgae" tribes are in the SE and so likely to have been the Atrebates, Cantiaci, Regni, Belgae and just perhaps Dobunni. In Boudica's place I will probably be thinking that the Romans and their Belgae allies can be kept out of the Iceni lands, and I suspect all the other tribes in Britain are also wanting to keep the Romans and their allies out. Boudica is probably also thinking of the Thames as a general boundary.

I'd suggest she spent some time subduing her new conquest of the Catuvellauni and as the text says ... bypassing all forts to grab what can be secured from all the undefended "foreign" properties that have grown up. That's a lot of goods to haul back.

I'm going to guess there's an ancient tribal boundary to the SW of Watling Street going to the Chilterns either roughly where the M40 runs. (Oxfordshire - Buckingham border) ... or at the Thames, and that Boudica might be seeing this as the new boundary with what to her is the "Roman tribe".

So, I would have both Suetonius and Boudica sitting for a while. Suetonius building up resources and hoping to lure Boudica toward the Belgae tribes, so that would provoke them to support him. Boudica would be hoping that she can negotiate the the Romans to stay south of the Thames and SW of the "tribal boundary".

In order to provoke Boudica to battle, Suetonius then needs to advance, either across the Thames at London, or around Dorchester and perhaps to the M40 (not built at the time Trying to enforce this new boundary, Boudica would have sent envoys saying "if you cross this boundary we will wipe you from the face of the earth", etc.

Might I suggest a possible place for Suetonius is to make for St.Albans of the Catuvellauni? Because if he retakes St.Albans, that would be a great humiliation to Boudica, and would suggest that she is going to lose control over Catuvellauni tribal lands. She can't afford that, so she has to fight.

... and you know what ... I'm as near as makes no difference, back at Watling street.

[MonsGraupius]

I started thinking about where the boundaries between tribes were in Roman Britain, particularly along the Chilterns.

Eventually I found a map of Anglo Saxon Britain which I superimposed on a Roman Road map and then added some tribal names hopefully roughly in the right place. I suggest the area held by Suetonius after London fell in large part corresponds to Wessex (highlighted in blue stripe)

I've suggested (very loosely) area held by Boudica (not sure of the West and NW boundary)