Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
(01-14-2021, 03:13 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: While it's considerably more plausible than the debunked 'cavalry dash' theory, we should always keep in mind that we might just have it all wrong!

Of course.  With such a paucity of evidence, we have to pick up hints and draw what inferences we can from them.  It's just that some inferences are more plausible than others.
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
(05-09-2020, 08:17 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Richard Hingley's Boudica: Iron Age Warrior Queen remains the best study of the revolt I've yet read. Hingley does opt in a kind of luke-warm way for Mancetter, but his book covers the background to the events very thoroughly.

I have just got round to reading this (the first part anyway) and I'm not sure that he opts for Mancetter in even a luke-warm way.  He outlines its credentials, such as they are, and goes on:

'The idea of Mancetter as the site of Boudica's final stand is based upon little more than several layers of supposition . . . there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that this was the site of the battle.  In fact, the suggestion for the battle site in the midlands is based on a number of assumptions . . . It is quite possible that Suetonius Paulinus's army was in fact in southern Britain in the vicinity of London and Verulamium when the battle took place, indicating a more southerly location for the site.'

He later says:

'The location of Boudica's final defeat may eventually be found by searching for relevant archaeological remains at likely sites across the south of Britain.'
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
(02-14-2021, 06:00 PM)Renatus Wrote: I'm not sure that he opts for Mancetter in even a luke-warm way.

Ah yes, that's a significantly cooler appraisal than I remembered! But it's been nearly ten years since I read that book, I think... [Image: shocked.png]
Nathan Ross
Reply
I have continued to search for the battle site as I have not been able square exactly the choices of the current main sites locations with the battle itself and the final outcome

This is especially true as the result totally relied on the Brythons not being able to leave the field because of the random placement of their baggage train which would seem to be unlikely and that no site appears to have two separate defiles approaching the battleground.

I include my own preferred site in this.

Have we misinterpreted and not given Seutonius Paulinus the credit a general of his standing deserves?

A general that had three successful campaign seasons in conquering the Ordovices and destroying the Druids on Mona as well as his earlier military successes in North Africa.

The translation of Tacitus has given us the impression that he was in the process of withdrawing and was forced to eventually fight to survive.
On the other hand the phrase “breaking off delay” could imply that he had time to regroup and to pick a location that gave him the opportunity to pull in as many forces as possible from other forts, by also choosing in advance a site that could defend his forces but where he could win decisively.

So this puts a different perspective on the battle plan for Seutonius Paulinus as being proactive rather than reactive because now he knew what he had to do to and what he needed to prepare for, including food and water in desert and mountainous conditions.

It was whilst I was revisiting some of the posts that are here and an explanation of John Pegg’s regarding the difficulty of understanding the translation of “faucibus” as in plurals and explanation of defile/s and gullet that I ran the Latin through a computerised translator and instead of a defile the translation mentions  a narrow isthmus as an access to the site as opposed to the standard translation of a  defile.

The only site that I have come across (and I have investigated a lot) that had that type of access (although it being a land bridge joining Aylesbury Plain to the raised area) was at Pitstone Hill near Ivinghoe Beacon. Whilst I was looking at this I also noticed on closer inspection that there was another defile on the other side of the open space and also that the combined entrances and the space in between was in the shape of a gullet including the stomach and the beginning of the intestines. 

Could this have been the missing piece that caused confusion of course it could be co-incidence

I have come to believe that this is indeed the site as it fits a number of criteria that are mentioned:

1. It has only one an access point that is narrow for wagons.
2. A further defile (800 yards) that can be used as a protection for the Roman Army.
3. Surrounding hills that can be used as a trap.
4. A battlefield that is a third of a mile deep and three quarters of a mile wide
5. Protected by woods and a step sided valley as described.
6. Near two major military road (Watling Street and Akeman Street)
7. Overlooks the Icknield Way
8. Within one day’s march of St Albans
9. Water within 1.8 miles
10. Room for a camp.

I seem to remember that somewhere back in the dim and distant past Nathan asked could this area be a site but it was felt not to be suitable however as time has gone on our knowledge has increased.

This site does not appear to have any roman fortifications but does have a Grimms Ditch associated with the site.


Attached Files
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 6.pdf (Size: 303.49 KB / Downloads: 12)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 5.pdf (Size: 530.05 KB / Downloads: 11)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 4 .pdf (Size: 563.84 KB / Downloads: 8)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 3.pdf (Size: 110.38 KB / Downloads: 7)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 1 .pdf (Size: 613.28 KB / Downloads: 8)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 2.pdf (Size: 93.25 KB / Downloads: 10)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 8.pdf (Size: 58.83 KB / Downloads: 6)
.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 7.pdf (Size: 216.58 KB / Downloads: 7)
Deryk
Reply
(03-06-2021, 01:55 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Pitstone Hill near Ivinghoe Beacon.

Ah yes, that's the same general area as the site at Aldbury that I suggested back in 2015 (I suppose that counts as the 'dim and distant past'!), but with a reversed direction of attack...

If the area of tree growth was the way I think (woods on the north-west slopes of the Chilterns) then the Britons would be advancing through the woods to get to the Romans. And they'd need to have already circled around behind Paulinus in some way to attack from the opposite direction to their advance (presumably) from St Albans. But all these things are possible.

I don't think we really know any more about the battle now than we did back in 2015 though!
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan Wrote:

If the area of tree growth was the way I think (woods on the north-west slopes of the Chilterns) then the Britons would be advancing through the woods to get to the Romans. And they'd need to have already circled around behind Paulinus in some way to attack from the opposite direction to their advance (presumably) from St Albans. But all these things are possible

I think that SP would have gone up the Gade Valley as it is the shortest route from St Albans. In which case the Brythons would have followed him and not have taken the longer route from St Albans up Akeman Street.  

In that case they wouldn't have come from the Aldbury end of the valley.

From pictures of the early 1900s it would appear that trees grew all through the valley around Aldbury so at least the conditions for tree growth were there.

According to the Viatores there were Roman roads along the Gade Valley to Ivinghoe Beacon and beyond but not necessarily military ones, and they may not have been there at that time but built later. 

As you say anything is possible but I certainly like this as a site as it doesn't rely on the random siting of the wagons to create a blockage to allow the slaughter, which was just an unexpected bonus as far as the Romans were concerned.
Deryk
Reply
(03-06-2021, 03:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: I think that SP would have gone up the Gade Valley as it is the shortest route from St Albans.

The only Roman roads that we know existed at the time were Akeman and Watling, both leading to major troop concentrations - Akeman to Alcester and Cirencester/Gloucester, and Watling to Wroxeter. Paulinus would surely have taken one or other of these roads, I would think, rather than chancing a minor track or valley route in between. He would have needed to stay on the main military roads if he wanted to be reinforced, or to fall back on a fortified position.


(03-06-2021, 03:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: From pictures of the early 1900s it would appear that trees grew all through the valley around Aldbury

Could you share the pictures? They sound useful. The only reference I could find was this elderly archaeological paper, mainly concerning prehistoric earthworks.

It does contain this plan though, which is quite interesting, showing woodland around Aldbury Nowers, the Stocks (where the golf course is now) and the Coombe. I would imagine the Britons advancing from the lower left, through Barley End, to a battle site between Pitstone Hill and Clipper Down - the Roman position being just southwest of the place called (evocatively, although sadly not originally!) 'The Citadel'.

   

The end result would look a bit like this, maybe:

   
Nathan Ross
Reply
(03-06-2021, 01:55 PM)Theoderic Wrote: no site appears to have two separate defiles approaching the battleground.

So what?  Why do we need two  defiles?
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
(03-06-2021, 04:08 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(03-06-2021, 03:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: I think that SP would have gone up the Gade Valley as it is the shortest route from St Albans.

The only Roman roads that we know existed at the time were Akeman and Watling, both leading to major troop concentrations - Akeman to Alcester and Cirencester/Gloucester, and Watling to Wroxeter. Paulinus would surely have taken one or other of these roads, I would think, rather than chancing a minor track or valley route in between. He would have needed to stay on the main military roads if he wanted to be reinforced, or to fall back on a fortified position.


(03-06-2021, 03:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: From pictures of the early 1900s it would appear that trees grew all through the valley around Aldbury

Could you share the pictures? They sound useful. The only reference I could find was this elderly archaeological paper, mainly concerning prehistoric earthworks.

It does contain this plan though, which is quite interesting, showing woodland around Aldbury Nowers, the Stocks (where the golf course is now) and the Coombe. I would imagine the Britons advancing from the lower left, through Barley End, to a battle site between Pitstone Hill and Clipper Down - the Roman position being just southwest of the place called (evocatively, although sadly not originally!) 'The Citadel'.



The end result would look a bit like this, maybe:

Nathan wrote:

Could you share the pictures? They sound useful. The only reference I could find was this elderly archaeological paper, mainly concerning prehistoric earthworks.

Of course - please see attached


.pdf   ALDBURY 3.pdf (Size: 443.95 KB / Downloads: 4)


.pdf   ALDBURY 2.pdf (Size: 365.2 KB / Downloads: 4)


.pdf   ALDBURY 1.pdf (Size: 475.12 KB / Downloads: 4)


Nathan wrote:

I would imagine the Britons advancing from the lower left, through Barley End, to a battle site between Pitstone Hill and Clipper Down - the Roman position being just southwest of the place called (evocatively, although sadly not originally!) 'The Citadel'.

In many ways I can see exactly why you think that and although it ticks some of the boxes I have concerns with being exposed with the backs of the Roman position to the North.


.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 8.pdf (Size: 58.83 KB / Downloads: 3)

.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 7.pdf (Size: 216.58 KB / Downloads: 3)

.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 6.pdf (Size: 303.49 KB / Downloads: 2)

.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 5.pdf (Size: 530.05 KB / Downloads: 2)

.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 4 .pdf (Size: 563.84 KB / Downloads: 2)

.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 3.pdf (Size: 110.38 KB / Downloads: 2)

.pdf   PITSTONE HILL 1 .pdf (Size: 613.28 KB / Downloads: 4)

(03-06-2021, 04:40 PM)Renatus Wrote:
(03-06-2021, 01:55 PM)Theoderic Wrote: no site appears to have two separate defiles approaching the battleground.

So what?  Why do we need two  defiles?

Hi Michael

The text state that the Roman line shelters in a defile at the beginning of the battle but also that the opposing army came through a defile or narrow access to get to the battle site.


Attached Files
.pdf   ALDBURY 3.pdf (Size: 443.95 KB / Downloads: 1)
.pdf   ALDBURY 2.pdf (Size: 365.2 KB / Downloads: 1)
.pdf   ALDBURY 1.pdf (Size: 475.12 KB / Downloads: 4)
Deryk
Reply
(03-06-2021, 05:40 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Of course - please see attached

Thanks! Certainly a very leafy spot.


(03-06-2021, 05:40 PM)Theoderic Wrote: I have concerns with being exposed with the backs of the Roman position to the North.

But surely if the Britons are originally approaching from the south-east (London/St Albans) then the Romans would be more exposed with their backs to that direction? It all depends on the strategic movements prior to the battle, of course, but it would seem to make more sense if the directions of approach are relatively simple.

Besides, by facing north-east like this the Romans have surrendered the high ground to the enemy. If the Britons were up in the north-west, the Romans could occupy the saddle of land and force them to attack uphill, rather than pulling back into the depression.


(03-06-2021, 05:40 PM)Theoderic Wrote: The text state that the Roman line shelters in a defile at the beginning of the battle but also that the opposing army came through a defile or narrow access to get to the battle site.

I think this is the tricky 'faucibus' causing problems again! The text either says that the position was in a defile or approached by a defile, depending on the translation, but does not say both. Faucibus is the ablative or dative of the plural fauces, which we know can mean a passageway (in a house, for example), so is something we would express in English with a singular word - except in cases like 'narrows', for example.

So there is only one 'defile', I think, and the Romans are in it!
Nathan Ross
Reply
(03-06-2021, 05:40 PM)Theoderic Wrote: The text state that the Roman line shelters in a defile at the beginning of the battle but also that the opposing army came through a defile or narrow access to get to the battle site.

Not that I can see.  Where do you get this from?
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
Nathan wrote:

Besides, by facing north-east like this the Romans have surrendered the high ground to the enemy. If the Britons were up in the north-west, the Romans could occupy the saddle of land and force them to attack uphill, rather than pulling back into the depression.

If the Roman line is where I placed it at the bottom of the slope from Pitstone Hill, the Brythons have what appears to be the advantage and can charge easily downhill. I think this is what SP wanted.

The trick was to ensure that the Brythons didn’t feel that they were enclosed or trapped and were totally in command of the situation in order that they would come onto the battlefield and attack.

In other words Seutonius Paulinus’ challenge was to turn what was normally a disadvantage into an advantage.

The clue may be in the speech that SP gives to his men prior to the battle “Only close up the ranks, and having discharged your javelins, then with shields and swords continue the work of bloodshed and destruction, without a thought of plunder. When once the victory has been won, everything will be in your power."

I believe that his intention was to attack so ferociously that the Brythons would turn back on themselves to withdraw swiftly as normal but because they were trying to retreat uphill and they were hemmed in by the terrain they were slaughtered as they turned to flee. The siting of the wagons causing a blockage at the entrance was a bonus for the Roman army. 

Nathan wrote:

I think this is the tricky 'faucibus' causing problems again! The text either says that the position was in a defile or approached by a defile, depending on the translation, but does not say both.

Faucibus appears to translate variously, “passes, throats, dock, isthmus”.

So it could be that the site is approached by an isthmus. Now typically we would think of an isthmus as being a land bridge between two bodies of water but it could (as I believe the case is here) that it is a link between two levels from the Aylesbury plain up to the site of the battle.

I agree that later (after the site has been accessed) the Roman army is in a defile (question: why does Tacitus not use “faucibus” to describe this defile?) but then the army “clings to the defile” before charging out of the defile onto the battle field. 

My point is that they cannot be in two places at once. Therefore there must be an access point into a plain(the battle  site) through a form of narrow entrance but also a defile off that same plain that the roman army can use as giving the protection of a rampart.
Deryk
Reply
Renatus wrote:

Not that I can see.  Where do you get this from?

This appears to be a fairly standard translation of the text:

"He chose a position approached by a narrow defile, closed in at the rear by a forest, having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front, where an open plain extended ."

If either army had to approach the position through a narrow pass / defile / isthmus / throat, they must have been approaching somewhere which was terminated by a forest. 

If this was the case the first army would have had to stop and then face the way they had come, which Tacitus says was an open plain. Effectively the Roman army would be in the defile facing the open plain.  

Perhaps the question we should be asking is, what is the definition of “position”? Is it the defile or the plain?

My contention is that the position is the plain itself where the battle is to be fought. 

Tacitus goes on to define the plain by writing “their wives riding in waggons, which they had placed on the extreme border of the plain”.

The plain had then to be defined by something (perhaps hills or woodland) and therefore had to be accessed from outside these limits through an entrance, which brings me onto the second point of the separate defile that the Roman army is in.

"At first, the legion kept its position, clinging to the narrow defile as a defence; when they had exhausted their missiles, which they discharged with unerring aim on the closely approaching foe, they rushed out in a wedge-like column." 

Where did they rush out into? 

Not the defile because they were already in it, so it has to be the plain. 

They managed to turn the enemy who were following their normal tactics of swiftly retreating to fight another day but “flight proved difficult, because the surrounding waggons had blocked retreat.

My point is that the wagons were blocking the exits from the battlefield but that the wagons were not the only cause, it was because the plain was already defined and chosen by Seutonius Paulinus because of the topography.

He would not have chosen a place to fight a battle that was defined by the random placing of the wagons that he had no control over, the wagons were incidental and just added to the original intent.
Deryk
Reply
That's the trouble with dodgy translations; they can lead you astray.  Tacitus is perfectly clear.  Suetonius chose a position in a narrow defile (artis faucibus), making sure that there was a forest behind him, so that he could not be attacked from the rear, and an open plain in front with nowhere for the enemy to hide and spring an ambush when he emerged from the defile.  After the pre-battle speeches, he maintained that position, using the narrowness of the location as a protection, i.e., so that he could not be outflanked, and awaited the enemy's charge.  When it came, it was smashed by a concentrated barrage of pila and the Romans launched their counter-attack.  The demoralised Britons turned tail and ran and the slaughter began, any pockets of resistance being ridden down.  The Britons could not simply flee the battlefield because of the physical obstruction of the wagons and the draught animals but also, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, although not specifically mentioned by Tacitus, because they would naturally try to rescue their individual families and would dash about trying to find them, obstructing each other and adding to the chaos.  Dio's description is of a more stereotypical battle but may contain a kernel of truth in that it was probably not as easy as Tacitus makes it appear.  Nevertheless, the resulting bloodbath was the same.
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
Renatus wrote:

The demoralised Britons turned tail and ran and the slaughter began, any pockets of resistance being ridden down.  The Britons could not simply flee the battlefield because of the physical obstruction of the wagons and the draught animals but also, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, although not specifically mentioned by Tacitus, because they would naturally try to rescue their individual families and would dash about trying to find them, obstructing each other and adding to the chaos.

I certainly do not dispute any thing you have written here and remember the posts re rescuing their families but it does not explain what topographically defined the plain where the wagons were on the edge of.

So there has to be access points onto the plain for the wagons to get to.

It is a point that is ignored. 

As we all have acknowledged SP was a cautious general and hugely experienced and successful. 

If the plain was undefined he could not know that the wagons would be parked there and in that case the Brythons would have just retreated and he would not have inflicted the huge defeat on them that he needed to. 

He obviously believed that he could defeat this huge host and would have planned accordingly and chosen a place not just a defile for the battle.

Unless this whole battle was just a glorious piece of luck and I would rather think that was not the case....but who knows.  Undecided
Deryk
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,481 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: