Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
(12-06-2015, 06:37 PM)Theoderic Wrote: unless the Roman Towns were supplied from abroad

They were, apparently; or at least London was. The remains of burnt grain from the 'Boudican' destruction layer shows traces of a parasite only known on the continent at that time (at least, according to Hingley's Iron Age Warrior Queen...)
Nathan Ross
Reply
Renatus wrote:

After the fall of Colchester, the rebels proceeded to London. London was a major trading centre and its warehouses would have been full of supplies. Tacitus tells us that it was 'copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre ', literally translated, 'filled to the highest degree with an abundance of merchants and provisions'. It was, therefore, the natural target of the rebels after Colchester and where, no doubt, they expected to seize the bulk of the supplies that they relied upon to sustain them until they were able to resume normal husbandry.

If this was the case the Brythons could have been under no illusion that if the Roman Army reached London before them that those supplies would have been removed or destroyed. 

So it would have been essential to capture London and its supplies. 

Yet somehow when they were only 70 miles from London which at 10 miles a day marching would have taken them a week or if they used their chariots or cavalry 3 days, Paulinus managed to get to travel some 250 miles to London before them with his army which would at maximum have only travelled at 30 miles per day some 9 days. 

Nathan Ross wrote:

They were, apparently; or at least London was. The remains of burnt grain from the 'Boudican' destruction layer shows traces of a parasite only known on the continent at that time (at least, according to Hingley's Iron Age Warrior Queen...)

You are of course correct, which of course throws out any definitive timeline.

It also might indicate that a previous harvest in Britannia had failed?
   
Deryk
Reply
(12-07-2015, 10:48 PM)Theoderic Wrote: If this was the case the Brythons could have been under no illusion that if the Roman Army reached London before them that those supplies would have been removed or destroyed. 

So it would have been essential to capture London and its supplies. 

Yet somehow when they were only 70 miles from London which at 10 miles a day marching would have taken them a week or if they used their chariots or cavalry 3 days, Paulinus managed to get to travel some 250 miles to London before them with his army which would at maximum have only travelled at 30 miles per day some 9 days.

If I accept your opening premise, there are two possible responses:

1.  The rebels miscalculated how far away Paulinus was and thought that they had plenty of time.

2.  We do not know ourselves where Paulinus was when he heard of the fall of Colchester. If, as has been suggested above, he was in the area of Godmanchester, he was less than three days' march away from London at a rate of 20 miles per day.

However, what we do know is that the rebels did go to London and that Paulinus did get there before them. What we do not know is how far ahead of them he was. There is evidence of burning in London at about the time of the revolt which is usually attributed to it but we do not know who was responsible.
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
(12-07-2015, 11:34 PM)Renatus Wrote:
(12-07-2015, 10:48 PM)Theoderic Wrote: they were only 70 miles from London which at 10 miles a day marching would have taken them a week...Paulinus managed to get to travel some 250 miles to London before them

...he was less than three days' march away from London at a rate of 20 miles per day.

I make it 50 miles from Colchester to London - at a reasonable wagon pace of 8 miles a day, that would take them around 6 days. Allowing a couple of days at least to plunder Colchester itself and the surrounding Roman-settled lands, we have around 8 days.

Assuming (as I think we must) that Paulinus learned of the revolt before the attack on Colchester and was already on the road when the city fell, I would agree that he could have been only a few days march from London at the time. Advanced groups of British cavalry might have caught up with him as he moved south, but probably not in sufficient strength to threaten a large force of legionaries.
Nathan Ross
Reply
"at a reasonable wagon pace of 8 miles a day, that would take them around 6 days"

This doesn't seem very likely, a rebellion wouldn't be travelling 8 miles a day, they would be steaming it.... If they needed waggons they would nick them at the point they needed them. I would suggest that it would not be unreasonable for the guys doing the damage to be travelling at 30-40 miles a day and not waiting for their Mums to bring a packed lunch for them. 
Reply
Has anyone looked into the Earthworks on Aston Hill, Tring. The 2m LIDAR looks like this;

   

   


and there is a tantalising ditch boundary to the North West corner of Upper Stowe, could be a playing card shape, same size and alignment as Castle Yard?

   
Reply
A nice thread watcher has up graded the Upper Stowe LIDAR for me to 1m with some tinkering;
   

71500
Reply
(12-20-2015, 03:46 PM)John1 Wrote: up graded the Upper Stowe LIDAR

Nice! Certainly some kind of settlement there, of uncertain date.

I don't think it's Roman though! Certainly not a marching camp anyway, I'd say, if that's what you're after...
Nathan Ross
Reply
The jury is completely out on the Upper Stowe boundary. It is very close to Watling Street (red line top right), commands excellent views north and south up the road and has a water supply Steve Kaye would be proud of. The tantalising boundary would put any enclosure down the front of quite a steep north facing slope, so that militates against it for me;
   

However there seem to be other examples of the encampments with an equally significant cross slope and water, so it remains just a tantalising "maybe" something. 
   


I wonder if you might pass judgement on these plans (a Motte and Bailey and Univallate Hill Fort respectively) could you write off a Roman origin for all parts of these?
   

71809
Reply
(12-21-2015, 10:34 AM)John1 Wrote: could you write off a Roman origin for all parts of these?

I think so, yes. The motte and bailey doesn't appear to be Roman at all. The hillfort, being a bit more rectilinear, might have been tempting if we didn't already know it was a hillfort!

However, the 200+ people who have supposedly looked at this thread since your last post might have other ideas! No doubt they're all pondering the question right now... [Image: wink.png]
Nathan Ross
Reply
"I think so, yes. "

Well that's putting your neck unnecessarily on the line . You feel comfortable writing off a potential Roman origin for any of the earthworks in the Church Stowe complex, your brave but dangerous call. 

This thread is in the business of questioning some long held (and still held) theories by some pretty heavy hitting academics from Webster to the current Mancetter champions. But you seem to be unquestioningly standing by the definitions of less rigorously researched conclusions by historians of lesser reputation by accepting the "Motte and Bailey" and "Hillfort" definitions as they stand. Such meak acceptance doesn't sit well with your/our robust questioning of other theories (Mancetter)


"The motte and bailey doesn't appear to be Roman at all. "
nor does the Motte and Bailey appear to be much like a Motte and Bailey, having no raised motte and surrounded by three enclosures all within and existing ditch. I'm happy to look at any similar Motte and Baileys, but I haven't seen any yet where the motte is the same level or lower than the supposed three baileys. On site the protagonists for two of the other sites and the local landscape archaeology group representative all concurred that the character was closer to Iron Age than anything else they had seen.  I am no expert, but on the basis of reports of Roman finds and the view of others that the earthworks are in part potentially Iron Age in origin I wouldn't feel comfortable writing off any Roman association of the basis of an emphatic statement from EH/HE that it is of Medieval origin, but you may...... Wink
   
http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=341511

"The hillfort, being a bit more rectilinear, might have been tempting if we didn't already know it was a hillfort!"
Well again do we really "already know" it is a hillfort? Sure EH/HE tells us it's a hillfort, but they even quote Bakers' assumption it was Roman due to form and finds;

http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=341517

So let me run the 2005 aerial by you one more time to make sure you really, really, really want to stick with your assertion there is no possibliity of a Roman origin for any of the earthworks....
   

HAPPY NEW YEAR 

75,418
Reply
there are certainly lots of rectiliniars in there. i'm liking that.
wayne oldfield
Reply
(12-31-2015, 04:10 PM)John1 Wrote: you seem to be unquestioningly standing by the definitions of less rigorously researched conclusions by historians of lesser reputation by accepting the "Motte and Bailey" and "Hillfort" definitions as they stand.

Those was actually the definitions you provided, from your post above ("a Motte and Bailey and Univallate Hill Fort respectively")... I've never read anything more about them.


(12-31-2015, 04:10 PM)John1 Wrote: nor does the Motte and Bailey appear to be much like a Motte and Bailey

Well, perhaps not. Hut settlement complex? Brick kiln? I don't know enough about either iron age or medieval settlement morphology to judge either way. But it doesn't look like any Roman military construction I've seen before. I could well be wrong... [Image: wink.png]

But I still don't see any reason to think either of these features is Roman just by looking at the plan. If there's some serious evidence to suggest otherwise then of course I'd reconsider.

I'm not sure where you're going with this idea though - if you're after Paulinus's marching camp then you'd need a very much bigger enclosure, I'd say.
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-08-2015, 06:06 PM)John1 Wrote: a rebellion wouldn't be travelling 8 miles a day, they would be steaming it.... I would suggest that it would not be unreasonable for the guys doing the damage to be travelling at 30-40 miles a day

Just wanted to pick up on a point about the movement speed of the rebels. I don't think we should overestimate this. Roman legions marching on good roads could cover 18-20 modern miles per day, according to Vegetius, because they were trained to do so. Untrained civilians, tribespeople and warbands would not be able to keep up anything like that pace.

Most Roman posting stations seem to have been at intervals of 9-11 miles along the major roads, indicating that this was a usual day's travel distance.

We may think that rebels would travel faster. But as a possible comparison, during the German Peasant's Revolt of 1525, a rebel force apparently travelled 42 miles from Gundelsheim to Amorbach in about five days, suggesting an average speed of around 8.4 miles per day. Another rebel group during the same conflict took 2-3 days to travel the 17.5 miles from Grunbuhl to Heilbronn, which again suggests a similar sort of speed. These rebels would have been moving on foot or by wagon, perhaps plundering along the way, similar (I think) to Boudica's people many centuries before. Mounted men could have travelled faster, although not over great distance, and probably not in sufficient numbers to pose a significant threat to the Romans.

In other words, Paulinus's men could well have been moving at least twice the speed of the Britons!
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-08-2015, 06:06 PM)John1 Wrote: I would suggest that it would not be unreasonable for the guys doing the damage to be travelling at 30-40 miles a day ... 

If I did not know you better I would suspect you of "trolling" with this remark, so, in a way it has worked as I have been provoked into responding but perhaps not in a positive way you could have expected.

Give me ANY evidence of ANY pedestrian force travelling at this speed. Even the Zulus would struggle to do this.

I am sorry to say that as far as I am concerned that is as reckless a statement as defining research by the amount of water a 21st Century person assumes a 1st Century person requires to fight a battle.

If you want this thread to retain any credibility, I think remarks like this ought to be strongly discouraged.
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 2,751 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: