12-11-2017, 11:50 AM
(11-26-2017, 03:17 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(11-26-2017, 01:02 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: whilst it would be pretty easy to say "I think it's such and such a site" ... that would inevitably require me to explain my reasoning which would then require me to go into a detailed explanation of those other subjects
Many of the regular contributors to this thread have been discussing aspects of the battle and the campaign, together with detailed debate about Roman military movements and logistics, strategy, battlefield archaeology, interpretations of the texts and chronology for over seven years now.
Perhaps you don't need to explain quite so much? Most of us have explained our own reasoning for the sites we've put forward - identify yours and we can debate it!
You don't win a battle by responding to taunts from the enemy to engage in battle. Instead you win by good research of the terrain and the enemy's position, careful preparation and selection the battle site, secure logistics and supply ensuring high morale and fitness for battle by the troops, and only when you are ready for battle - you start to lure the enemy in.
That just about sums up my position.
Oh the grand oh Duke Suetonius, he had a Roman legion, he galloped rushed down to (a minor settlement called) Londinium then he galloped rushed back again. Londinium Bridge is falling down, falling down ... HOLD IT ... change of plans, we're leaving the bridge for Boudica and galloping rushing north.
