Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[John1]

Jones and Mattingley is still my go to, this one is based on coin distribution;
   

---

This is their more general tribal map     

---

ooo look the Red dot looks like a great place to engage the Iceni      

[MonsGraupius]

Jones and Mattingley is still my go to, this one is based on coin distribution;

---

This is their more general tribal map 

---

ooo look the Red dot looks like a great place to engage the Iceni  

In the key area it doesn't look that different. St.Albans was a Catuvellauni town, so I was thinking what it would mean if the attack by Boudica were one tribe against another. This would paint the events as one in which Boudica took over Catuvellauni territory. I see you have the border along the Thames ... which looks better than my position.

I think I would interpret Paulinus' "when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle". As a move (from Atrebates land) into (former) Catuvellauni territory now held by Boudica. 

So, there is a area within the roads going from Cirencestor, to Silchester, to London to St.Albans and then back to Cirencester. I think it is reasonable to say the battle is likely to be in the eastern half of that area.

[Owein Walker]

Jones and Mattingley is still my go to, this one is based on coin distribution;

---

This is their more general tribal map 

---

ooo look the Red dot looks like a great place to engage the Iceni  

Thank you John.
While we are discussing tribal boundaries, I think it's important to question the perception that the Catuvellauni  were pro Roman. It is thought the Trinovantes requested the help of Rome in their struggle against an ever expanding neighbour, the Catuvellauni led by Caractacus, who resisted Rome until he was betrayed by Cartimandua.
Tacitus says St Albans was destroyed along with Colchester and London but that does not necessarily mean these  tribal areas supported Rome.We don't assume just because Colchester was destroyed then all the people nearby supported Rome, so why would we expect all the Catuvellauni outside of St Albans too.Quite the opposite,they had been the most powerful tribe and many of them wouldn't mind seeing the end to Roman rule. The idea the Iceni and the Trinovantes would risk fighting the Catuvellauni and Suetonius in enemy territory seems fanciful at the least.This is not to say they led the rebellion but I'm sure Suetonius knew how close rebellion was when he marched through disaffected territory ,the territory of the Catuvellauni .

[John1]

your triangle is a little too far south. Once over the Jurassic Ridge (Watford Gap) any Roman force is open to attack from the East between the Watford gap and the Ouse headwater seems the most sane location... My position at the moment is that the Iceni were supported by the Catuvalauni and Trinovantes even if it was just the lads going out to give the latins a kicking..... That would carve off the whole SE region which seems like a sound reading of the description.

[Owein Walker]

Jones and Mattingley is still my go to, this one is based on coin distribution;

---

This is their more general tribal map 

---

ooo look the Red dot looks like a great place to engage the Iceni  

In a strategic position stopping the rebellion spreading North while being reinforced by the Ninth, seems like a simple plan.

[MonsGraupius]

Jones and Mattingley is still my go to, this one is based on coin distribution;

---

This is their more general tribal map 

---

ooo look the Red dot looks like a great place to engage the Iceni  

In a strategic position stopping the rebellion spreading North while being reinforced by the Ninth, seems like a simple plan.

It's in the middle of the country ... with no secure supply line. Catus goes to Gaul ... that is the way Romans feel safe, that is where they have security of supply, and so any "seat of war" needs to be positioned to maintain supplies to Gaul.

[Owein Walker]

Jones and Mattingley is still my go to, this one is based on coin distribution;

---

This is their more general tribal map 

---

ooo look the Red dot looks like a great place to engage the Iceni  

In a strategic position stopping the rebellion spreading North while being reinforced by the Ninth, seems like a simple plan.

It's in the middle of the country ... with no secure supply line. Catus goes to Gaul ... that is the way Romans feel safe, that is where they have security of supply, and so any "seat of war" needs to be positioned to maintain supplies to Gaul.

Suetonius is not hiding,he marched from Anglesey to fight Boudica and end the rebellion ,not run off to Gaul.He can be supplied from the north and the West and feels the south is probably safe.If you want the Catuvellauni to rebel and join up with the Brigantes then by all means run away, go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.He does NOT need a seat of war, he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies, I'm not sure that he can depend on the Catuvellauni for long LOL.

[John1]

"being reinforced by the Ninth" along the Nene (Upex Line) and from the II to the South West along the line of the Fosse Way almost straight to the site. Then 14 km directly east from Chesterton on the Fosse. Each line in advance of or completely avoiding threats from the East.....

"Gaul resupply" nice to have but not worth the trek through the enemy territory.... you can have that as a defining criteria if you want, I don't.

648,040

[MonsGraupius]

[quote pid="352806" dateline="1662230663"]
Suetonius is not hiding,he marched from Anglesey to fight Boudica and end the rebellion ,not run off to Gaul.He can be supplied from the north and the West and feels the south is probably safe.If you want the Catuvellauni to rebel and join up with the Brigantes then by all means run away, go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.He does NOT need a seat of war, he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies, I'm not sure that he can depend on the Catuvellauni for long LOL.
[/quote]

Suetonius needs to eat. Once a rebellion starts it spreads and none of the north is safe because it is either recently taken or knows it is under threat of being taken. They would all love to chew up the Romans and spit them out.

He has already lost the ninth, he is incapable of holding London, the other Legions are refusing to join him. That is not an offensive position. That is an extremely week position. He has lost territory and needs to move to a defensible position to consolidate, resupply and regroup, so that he is ready to go on the offensive.

That is why Suetonius is seeking a "seat for war" ... that means a defensible position with good supply lines. Was Agricola "hiding" when he built the forts along the Antonine wall? No!! He was preparing to go to war with the Caledonians. Was he ignoring his supply lines ... no!! He was in regular contact with the fleet, indeed it is mentioned that the army and Navy often ... I think it is ate together. An army without secure supply lines under threat from the enemy, as was Suetonius, is very soon a dead army.

go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.

But you have just described what we are told happened:

The only direction we are told the Romans went was "to Gaul" when speaking of Catus. We are explicitly told that Suetonius could not hold London, he was in a weak position, that is what the texts tell us. St.Albans burnt because he had to sacrifice it by moving to a defensible position south of the Thames ... the "Suetonius Wall", as we might call it.

He does NOT need a seat of war

We are told he did: "Uncertain whether he should choose it as a seat of war".

he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies

But we are told explicitly that Suetonius did go straight to battle: "when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle"

And, Boudica has no need to go to war with Suetonius. We are told the Iceni did not attack the fortifications ... they had no need, when they controlled all the country around. Like the Ninth, she can keep the Romans stuck within their camps and forts, cut off from supplies and wait for them to starve to death.

Suetonius cannot hold land (London), he, like Catus are on the run and need to find a place to regroup, resupply, etc.

I think that's every point you made well and truly squashed ... LOL

[Owein Walker]

[quote pid="352806" dateline="1662230663"]
Suetonius is not hiding,he marched from Anglesey to fight Boudica and end the rebellion ,not run off to Gaul.He can be supplied from the north and the West and feels the south is probably safe.If you want the Catuvellauni to rebel and join up with the Brigantes then by all means run away, go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.He does NOT need a seat of war, he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies, I'm not sure that he can depend on the Catuvellauni for long LOL.

Suetonius needs to eat. Once a rebellion starts it spreads and none of the north is safe because it is either recently taken or knows it is under threat of being taken. They would all love to chew up the Romans and spit them out.

He has already lost the ninth, he is incapable of holding London, the other Legions are refusing to join him. That is not an offensive position. That is an extremely week position. He has lost territory and needs to move to a defensible position to consolidate, resupply and regroup, so that he is ready to go on the offensive.

That is why Suetonius is seeking a "seat for war" ... that means a defensible position with good supply lines. Was Agricola "hiding" when he built the forts along the Antonine wall? No!! He was preparing to go to war with the Caledonians. Was he ignoring his supply lines ... no!! He was in regular contact with the fleet, indeed it is mentioned that the army and Navy often ... I think it is ate together. An army without secure supply lines under threat from the enemy, as was Suetonius, is very soon a dead army.

go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.

But you have just described what we are told happened:

The only direction we are told the Romans went was "to Gaul" when speaking of Catus. We are explicitly told that Suetonius could not hold London, he was in a weak position, that is what the texts tell us. St.Albans burnt because he had to sacrifice it by moving to a defensible position south of the Thames ... the "Suetonius Wall", as we might call it.

He does NOT need a seat of war

We are told he did: "Uncertain whether he should choose it as a seat of war".

he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies

But we are told explicitly that Suetonius did go straight to battle: "when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle"

And, Boudica has no need to go to war with Suetonius. We are told the Iceni did not attack the fortifications ... they had no need, when they controlled all the country around. Like the Ninth, she can keep the Romans stuck within their camps and forts, cut off from supplies and wait for them to starve to death.

Suetonius cannot hold land (London), he, like Catus are on the run and need to find a place to regroup, resupply, etc.

I think that's every point you made well and truly squashed ... LOL
[/quote]

---

Suetonius didn't feel the need for a seat of war and the evidence born out by his overwhelming victory proves he was right.He is Not on the run though you think he is ,but he is in a precarious position.

Anyway,I'm happy to disagree.

Something of interest is how the Roman potters based in St Albans moved North west to Mancetter after 60AD,They didnt settle south of the Thames or further west.These potters would have been wealthy traders.Now How did that happen in times of war? I suggest they escaped under the protection of Suetonius.

[Nathan Ross]

"Uncertain whether he should choose it as a seat of war".

ibi ambiguus, an illam sedem bello deligeret... (Annals 14.33)

It might be worth thinking about what sedem bello actually refers to here.

'Seat of war' can have two meanings. In the general sense it can just mean a place where the war happens, a 'theatre of operations' or 'scene of action'. Tacitus uses it this way in Histories (3.32), when he has the people of Cremona complain that their "town had twice been the seat of war" - meaning it had been attacked twice.

Lucan, in Pharsalia Book 2, provides a more developed explanation: "Capua was chosen as the seat of war; [Pompeius] resolved to make Capua the base of his chief campaign, and from there to extend and disperse his forces in order to meet the enemy..."

So Suetonius Paulinus could either have thought simply that he would fight a battle in London, or near London (the first meaning), or that he would make London his campaign base, and gather his troops there before sending them out against the rebels, wherever they might be.

Either way, he was not originally intending to evacuate the place immediately, or (I would say) to fortify it as a redoubt, but rather to base himself there and oversee ongoing field operations. It seems likely that he was surprised by the speed of the enemy's advance and the size of their army, and rapidly decided that he would have to seek a better location for his operational headquarters.

[Renatus]

This thread is moving so fast that, whenever I feel that I want to make a point, it is superseded by something else.  However, there are a couple of things I would like to say, if they are still relevant.

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".

Tacitus tells us that London, although not designated a colony, was a major mercantile centre, crowded with merchants and stores.  It was also the administrative centre of the province, where the procurator was based.  It was, therefore, much more important than Verulamium which, although a municipium, was in essence simply a tribal capital.  As the rebels, not having planted crops, were relying on Roman stocks for their provisions, the warehouses of London would have been a prime target for them.

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".

You have been misled by the translation.  The Latin text reads 'ab hoste oppressi sunt'.  'Oppressus' derives from the verb 'opprimo', the principal meaning of which is 'to press against, press down'.  Other meanings include 'to strike down', 'to overcome', 'to overthrow, overwhelm, overthrow', 'to fall upon', 'to terminate abruptly'.  'To cut off' is not one of its meanings.  So, 'cut down' - possibly; 'cut off' - no.

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

By accident or design, 'seat for war' is a literal translation of 'sedem bello' in the text and thus more literally accurate than 'seat of war' in the Church & Brodribb translation - but what does it actually mean?  The Loeb translation has 'base of operations', which may be more intelligible.  Michael Grant's Penguin translation, which is often more a paraphrase than a literal translation but nevertheless captures the sense, has 'he hesitated whether to stand and fight there'.  'Sedes' means literally 'a seat, bench, chair or throne', so obviously we are looking for a figurative meaning.  Some alternatives, such as 'dwelling-place, residence, habitation, abode, temple', are wholly inapplicable but amongst them there is 'place or spot'.  So 'sedem bello' may mean no more than 'a place to fight'.  To be clear, there is nothing in the text to say that Suetonius was seeking a 'seat for war', only that he decided that London was not one, but the notion that he might be looking for a 'place to fight' Boudica would be entirely compatible with the aggressive Roman approach to dealing with rebellions.

EDIT: Sorry, Nathan. You were posting as I was preparing mine.

[Nathan Ross]

'seat for war' is a literal translation of 'sedem bello' in the text and thus more literally accurate than 'seat of war' in the Church & Brodribb translation - but what does it actually mean?

It's an interesting phrase. It actually became very popular in 19th century military writing, when people were always off to 'the seat of war in the east' (ie the Crimea), for example. In these cases it's just a classicizing figure of speech for what we might call the 'warzone' or 'theatre of operations'.

I think that Tacitus in Annals is using the phrase more in the way that Lucan uses it in the passage I quoted above, to mean a campaigning base - the two translations you mention, the Loeb one and Michael Grant's, actually encapsulate the two slightly differing readings very well!

[Renatus]

I think that Tacitus in Annals is using the phrase more in the way that Lucan uses it in the passage I quoted above, to mean a campaigning base - the two translations you mention, the Loeb one and Michael Grant's, actually encapsulate the two slightly differing readings very well!

I favour the Michael Grant approach.  The reasons given for Suetonius not making London his sedes bello were the paucity of the troops around him and the example of what had happened to Cerialis.  Those would be the considerations to bear in mind if he were thinking of engaging the enemy then and there.

[Nathan Ross]

The reasons given for Suetonius not making London his sedes bello were the paucity of the troops around him and the example of what had happened to Cerialis.

Yes, I suppose so. The reference to 'the rashness of Cerialis' (temeritatem Petilli) suggests that he realised that taking on the enemy directly with only a reduced force was a bad idea, and he should play a longer game, falling back to assemble more men on better terrain.

St Albans would perhaps make a rather better 'base of operations' anyway, as it was at the junction of two supply roads, marginally closer to his approaching reinforcements from Wroxeter, and closer to the high ground of the Chilterns.

Your note about the importance of London is a good one - Suetonius would have guessed that the rebels would go there as it was the procurator's headquarters, and held large stores of grain. But it was also the main entrepot for the Gallic trade, and presumably ships came right up the river to unload at the wharfs - like the Blackfriars I ship, of a later date. Catus Decianus, then, fleeing London for Gaul, would not need to head for a Channel port, but could just step directly aboard the next ship going downriver.

And while it might have appeared obvious for Suetonius to send the refugees from London across the Thames and destroy the bridge behind them, he would not have followed them himself - unless he was going to Dover, or to Chichester. However, it looks like he did not destroy the bridge at all, considering the evidence for destruction in Southwark dated to the revolt.