Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

Renatus wrote:

I have been thinking about this. There was an element of regaining homelands. Tacitus tells us that the Icenian nobles had been dispossessed and that the Trinovantes had been driven from their farms. He also mentions in the Agricola the castella that were overrun in the initial stages of the revolt. I take these to be small fortified posts or fortlets, which may have been an acceptable feature of the arrangements with Prasutagus but which had then become symbols of oppression. That said, however, the revolt involved much more than the simple recovery of homelands; it was a concerted effort to combine the tribes in driving the Romans from Britain once and for all.

I agree with this but suspect that the “castella” were the forts imposed upon the Iceni after Boudica had been scourged and her possessions taken by the Roman State.  

I had not thought of that but it seems entirely possible.

Renatus wrote:

There was no guarantee that the rebels would have been able achieve their goal within the necessary timeframe. The alternative, therefore, as I see it, is that the rebel army would have had to remain in the field until the Roman forces were finally overcome and that, whatever the hazards, this would have necessitated taking their families with them. Leaving them behind to face possible starvation over the winter was not an option.

This is of course a highly plausible option but where were they going to get their grain for an ongoing campaign with over 150,000 people?

The corn from Colchester is one possibility but this would have only have been enough for around 30,000 people for a limited period and would have required a huge baggage train, London was stripped of supplies by SP and St Albans similarly (even SP was running short of food having had access to the granaries)

The insurgents would never have been able to rely on grain being available to them in other tribe’s lands. (It is said that the mere threat of a Roman army marching through a land and eating its food was enough to cause the surrender before a battle was even needed –no doubt the same devastating effect would be the case with any army living off the land – so the locals were not going to starve themselves).    

We do not know that Suetonius stripped London and St Albans of supplies. That is purely surmise on our part. Depending upon how close to London the rebels were when he arrived there, there simply may not have been time. I have suggested that he may even have left the warehouses intact, relying upon the rebels wasting time in plundering them and buying himself time to link up with his reinforcements. After all, if he could amass a force strong enough to defeat the rebels, it would not matter how much they had seized. Bear in mind also that, even if he did destroy the supplies, the rebels would not have known this in advance and, as Tacitus tells us, had made their plans on the assumption that they would be able to capture sufficient Roman foodstuffs for their needs. Further, if I am right in thinking that they intended to attack tribes perceived to be pro-Roman, they would have pillaged the crops of those tribes without any consideration for the plight that this would create for their victims.

As you say SP’s best option would have been to hold off until the next season and then destroy them with a much larger army.

I do not think that this necessarily was Suetonius' best option. I think that he would have wanted, if possible, to have defeated the rebels that year with the forces available to him. However, if he could not do that, there was the distinct possibility that over the winter other tribes would have seen the advantage of joining the rebellion and he then would have needed reinforcements from the Continent to be sure of crushing a much larger rebellion.

Tacitus states:

"he was naturally inclined to delay, and a man who preferred cautious and well-reasoned plans to chance success."

In fact I think that this is exactly what he was going to do once he was able to assess the situation accurately, which wasn't until he was in London.

This is then supported by Dio:

“However, he was not willing to risk a conflict with the barbarians immediately, as he feared their numbers and their desperation, but was inclined to postpone battle to a more convenient season.”

But then his options change as by taking the Roman citizens from London with him he is slowed down by them and then starts to run out of food and is being chased by the Brythons.  

“But as he grew short of food and the barbarians pressed relentlessly upon him, he was compelled, contrary to his judgment, to engage them.”


This then provides us with a dilemma – if the Brythons were catching him how was this a slow moving horde, made up of families?

Certainly, the situation was fluid and changing day-by-day. However, I do not believe that he was slowed down by the civilians. Tacitus specifically makes the point that he only took those who were able to keep up. Nathan has pointed out that he was not trying to outstrip the rebels. Indeed, he would have wanted to remain sufficiently close to them as to be able to monitor their progress and react accordingly. You yourself have earlier suggested that what Dio is saying is that the rebels were not so much catching up with him as simply inexorably advancing.

Surely the Brython  cavalry would harass the tail end of the Roman troops?  Much in the way they apparently had made life difficult for PS when he was on his way to London.

They could but we are not told that they did. Even so, by the time the final battle took place, the main wagon train had caught up, so Dio is clearly talking about the main rebel army, not isolated groups of cavalry. Similarly, Tacitus does not say that he was attacked on the way to London. He simply says that he resolutely proceeded to London through the midst of the enemy.

He also mentions in the Agricola the castella that were overrun in the initial stages of the revolt. I take these to be small fortified posts or fortlets

the “castella” were the forts imposed upon the Iceni

Agricola and Annals seem to be in contradiction here - the latter claims that the rebels avoided the fortified posts. Perhaps the Iceni captured some forts initially, but later avoided them, or something?

Tacitus uses the same terminology in both cases. However, in the Agricola he speaks of these stations in the early stages of the revolt, whereas in the Annals he mentions them only after the sacking of London and Verulamium. I assume, therefore, that the Iceni attacked the posts in their own territory but, after that, avoided similar posts elsewhere and concentrated on plundering. Presumably, the Trinovantes did the same.

the crop planting is a headtwister. March/April is too early, as you say - they'd have to wait until Paulinus had at least set off on his Anglesey expedition, which was probably a month later, until they 'left for the war'

If they sowed their crops in March/April, but then didn't come back in August/September to harvest that crop or to plant the winter wheat, they would have no supplies for the winter or any winter wheat crop the following year. This might be the only explanation, although it would still mean that failing to harvest would have been more critical than failing to plant... (unless, of course, crops were only planted in Aug/Sept, grown over the winter and harvested the following year?)

I take the failure to plant in the spring as being a positive policy decision, realising that they were unlikely to be back in time for the harvest and not wanting to have unharvested crops rotting in the fields. Instead, should they return in time for winter planting, they relied upon having seized sufficient Roman foodstuffs to see them through.

“the barbarians pressed relentlessly upon him...” – if the Brythons were catching him how was this a slow moving horde, made up of families?

Could somebody provide a literal translation of the Greek Dio uses for the phrase 'pressed relentlessly upon him'?

In English it sounds like the rebels were in hot pursuit, but we've seen before how translations (particularly older ones) can be deceptive! Dio could just mean something like 'advanced continually in his direction' or something, with no implication of speed...

I'll have a go, although I cannot guarantee its accuracy: 'and the hard-pressing barbarians did not then give up'.