Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

Tacitus writes (open to interpretation):

He chose a position approached by a narrow defile…

I really hoped we'd got to the bottom of the defile after all this time!

This literal translation by Michael clears things up - there was only one 'defile', the Romans were in it, the plain was in front of it and the woods behind it.

I don't know where this 'tongue' idea comes from! I did suggest 'throat' as a simile for defile a while ago. 'Straits' / 'narrows' / 'jaws' might work, but sound less like terrain features.

the difficulties Boudicca must have faced trying to keep her 'army' in the field and united during the campaign... The blood rush of the chasers when they think you are running away to escape them takes over their caution, and they don't realize you are taking them to a place of your choice.

I think you've answered your own point there! I've said before that command and cohesion might have been an issue in the rebel army. The problems would increase with every day they spent on the road. This 'chasing' idea is basically the same thing as the 'parade' that John kept going on about.

The prospect of fighting a battle with a disciplined Roman force - rather than attacking and plundering a tempting target like London or Colchester - is not likely to have the Britons eagerly marching across the countryside for days on end, particularly not with their families in tow...

[Owein Walker]

Tacitus writes (open to interpretation):

He chose a position approached by a narrow defile…

I really hoped we'd got to the bottom of the defile after all this time!

This literal translation by Michael clears things up - there was only one 'defile', the Romans were in it, the plain was in front of it and the woods behind it.

I don't know where this 'tongue' idea comes from! I did suggest 'throat' as a simile for defile a while ago. 'Straits' / 'narrows' / 'jaws' might work, but sound less like terrain features.

the difficulties Boudicca must have faced trying to keep her 'army' in the field and united during the campaign... The blood rush of the chasers when they think you are running away to escape them takes over their caution, and they don't realize you are taking them to a place of your choice.

I think you've answered your own point there! I've said before that command and cohesion might have been an issue in the rebel army. The problems would increase with every day they spent on the road. This 'chasing' idea is basically the same thing as the 'parade' that John kept going on about.

The prospect of fighting a battle with a disciplined Roman force - rather than attacking and plundering a tempting target like London or Colchester - is not likely to have the Britons eagerly marching across the countryside for days on end, particularly not with their families in tow...

Geographically, a river at its source will be created by a series of springs and brooks, then they join to form a river which in turn creates a 'V' shaped valley, these are narrow channels with steep sides. Above the valley at the spring heads, the catchment area is often shallow sloping ground and covers a much wider area.

Now if you put a forest on the catchment area and a camp on the shallow hillside, now you can fight in the V shaped valley, or 'defile', and have your camp safely behind you.

It's not a new geographical feature, a defile is part of a larger feature, that's all.

I'm not familiar with a military parade other than for ceremonies, and I don't see it as a ceremony, more a carefully planned military manoeuvre.

It does bring about the thought that a ceremonial building or a temple would have been built, to commemorate the battle or remember the dead.

Another piece of 'research' is knowledge of land clearances, that's obviously going to affect the site because you can't fight through a thicket.

So is there any supporting archaeology for any of these sites? however, before jumping to conclusions, if there is a Roman villa in the valley then that's probably not the site. I can't imagine the superstitious Romans would want to live there.

You will notice I won't say I think someone is right or wrong, and often I don't reply, for which I am sorry, but I still hope I can add something positive to the discussion.

Still....

After the battle of the River Medway, the River Thames was crossable at Cliffe,6 miles away on the North Kent coast.
The river level was a lot lower then, and there is archaeological evidence that it was in use during the Iron Age.
I don't object to Suetonius going south then wherever, but I do object to the facts being ignored.

[Steven James]

And just like that, it all went quiet.

[Owein Walker]

And just like that, it all went quiet.

Strange, but not for the first time.

I have invited (privately) people to meet before, but received no reply, just silence.

More Silence please...

[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.

[Renatus]

Catching up after a brief illness.

I hope you are fully recovered.

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.

I am not sure that I fully understand this.  Perhaps 'approached' in the translations is getting in the way again.  The Latin seems pretty clear that Suetonius was in the defile, which would seem to lead to something like your second alternative in that Boudica's forces would need to enter the defile to engage with the Romans.  

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 don't know where this translation comes from.  It is not Church & Brodribb or Loeb or Michael Grant.  Anyway, I would not get hung up on the word 'rampart'.  Munimentum can mean 'rampart' in the proper context but it can also mean 'protection, shelter, bulwark', so the configuration of a rampart need not come into it.  As I see it, the defile was probably defined by high ground in either side, possibly forested to add to the the difficulty of trying to outflank the Roman forces. 

The "wives" of Tacitus may be better translated as "camp followers" again in tribal clumps causing bottlenecks and chaos behind the army.

I don't see any reason to go behind Tacitus.  Coniuges means 'wives', pure and simple.  That is not to say that there might not have been camp followers as well but Tacitus does not mention them.  Nathan's point made some time ago that part of the confusion at the end was caused by British warriors trying to get to their families seems eminently sensible.

[Owein Walker]

Catching up after a brief illness.

I hope you are fully recovered.

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.

I am not sure that I fully understand this.  Perhaps 'approached' in the translations is getting in the way again.  The Latin seems pretty clear that Suetonius was in the defile, which would seem to lead to something like your second alternative in that Boudica's forces would need to enter the defile to engage with the Romans.  

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 don't know where this translation comes from.  It is not Church & Brodribb or Loeb or Michael Grant.  Anyway, I would not get hung up on the word 'rampart'.  Munimentum can mean 'rampart' in the proper context but it can also mean 'protection, shelter, bulwark', so the configuration of a rampart need not come into it.  As I see it, the defile was probably defined by high ground in either side, possibly forested to add to the the difficulty of trying to outflank the Roman forces. 

The "wives" of Tacitus may be better translated as "camp followers" again in tribal clumps causing bottlenecks and chaos behind the army.

I don't see any reason to go behind Tacitus.  Coniuges means 'wives', pure and simple.  That is not to say that there might not have been camp followers as well but Tacitus does not mention them.  Nathan's point made some time ago that part of the confusion at the end was caused by British warriors trying to get to their families seems eminently sensible.

Well, I think dadlamassu is absolutely right so far, and I'm interested to hear what he, as a  military man, has to say.

[dadlamassu]

I see that I was not clear enough, sorry. If my commander told me to "choose a position approached by a narrow defile…" against a numerically superior enemy force I would try to select a position at or near the narrowest section of the defile so that my flanks rested on the terrain features that make the defile thus forcing the enemy to advance to contact on a frontage equal to my own. Ideally the defile should be wider at the enemy end so that the enemy has to reduce frontage as the force progresses down the defile in the hope that they become a disorganised massed target. So I agree that the best position is in the defile.

The other translations for "rampart" make more sense and I take the point about "wives".

[Renatus]

I see that I was not clear enough, sorry.  If my commander told me to "choose a position approached by a narrow defile…" against a numerically superior enemy force  I would try to select a position at or near the narrowest section of the defile so that my flanks rested on the terrain features that make the defile thus forcing the enemy to advance to contact on a frontage equal to my own.  Ideally the defile should be wider at the enemy end  so that the enemy has to reduce frontage as the force progresses down the defile in the hope that they become a disorganised massed target.  So I agree that the best position is in the defile. 

The other translations for "rampart" make more sense and I take the point about "wives".

I agree entirely.

[Owein Walker]

You say I wouldn't get hung up on the word Rampart(while getting hung up on the word) ,then say munimentum can mean rampart.
So Rampart it is then. What is so difficult about accepting a rampart existed unless you place your army at the bottom of a slope?. If you want to learn anything,like I do, then please let dadlamassu give us a military translation, thank you.

[John1]

"This 'chasing' idea is basically the same thing as the 'parade' that John kept going on about." 

That's not how I see it. The parade/paradista comments were directed at those who based their search for the site on a model where a single host moved around the South East and their movement, direction and speed was predictable enough to geographically anchor a search area for the battlefield (Appleby and Marix-Evans). I am still of the view that the Iceni + forces moved in far smaller bands, in less predicable routes at less predictable speeds. My reading of Ian's comments is that they pertain to the mentality of both sides, not an issue which I take any view on. 

"kept going on about" the cheek of the man !!!!
  

650,882

[Renatus]

You say I wouldn't get hung up on the word Rampart(while getting hung up on the word) ,then say munimentum can mean rampart.
So Rampart it is then. What is so difficult about accepting a rampart existed unless you place your army at the bottom of a slope?. If you want to learn anything,like I do, then please let dadlamassu  give us a military translation, thank you.

Read my post.  I said that munimentum can mean 'rampart' 'in the proper context', i.e., in relation to a fort or camp.  The translators that I mentioned avoid the word: Church & Brodribb - 'a defence'; Loeb - 'a natural protection'; Michael Grant - 'a natural defence'.  I myself used 'protection'.  So, forget ramparts; they just mislead.

[John1]

I've taken the "ramparts" to be figurative, probably due to advice on here. But even as such they make plain the significance of the topographic character. Hence I lead with topography.

[Owein Walker]

You say I wouldn't get hung up on the word Rampart(while getting hung up on the word) ,then say munimentum can mean rampart.
So Rampart it is then. What is so difficult about accepting a rampart existed unless you place your army at the bottom of a slope?. If you want to learn anything,like I do, then please let dadlamassu  give us a military translation, thank you.

Read my post.  I said that munimentum can mean 'rampart' 'in the proper context', i.e., in relation to a fort or camp.  The translators that I mentioned avoid the word: Church & Brodribb - 'a defence'; Loeb - 'a natural protection'; Michael Grant - 'a natural defence'.  I myself used 'protection'.  So, forget ramparts; they just mislead.

I dont have a problem with a camp either, nor a natural defence with a rampart on top to protect the troops and civilians, this could be something quite simple and needn't be huge walls. It would actually be negligent not to build some type of defences if SP had time, and that's something he could have some control over, time.
I struggle to see why SP is portrayed as in a hurry, or caught out by unforeseen changes in light of the victory he achieved (He plans in advance for changes). If he felt a defensive line would be to his benefit then I'm sure he would have built one, and if he is at the top of a slope(natural protection) then all the better.
I'm keeping defile, rampart and camp, because SP would want them, and I can't think of a better reason than that.

[Renatus]

I'm keeping defile, rampart and camp, because SP would want them, and I can't think of a better reason than that.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.  If you're saying that Suetonius built a camp, of course he did; that is what the Romans did.  On the other hand, if you're saying that some translator's use of 'rampart' (which, as John says, is figurative) means that he constructed an artificial barrier on top of an existing feature, you are indulging in supposition that goes far beyond the evidence.  Tacitus is clear; it is the narrowness of the place that provides the protection.  It was narrow enough for Suetonius to be able to block it with his troops and thus leave no space for the enemy to outflank him.  John is right; it is the topography that counts.