Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

a single crop cycle had already been sown... the spring crop has been sown

However, the sources we have for the period - sources that you yourself have cited - tell us that the main crop was sown in the autumn:

In the sixth period, from the autumnal equinox, the authorities state that sowing should begin and continue up to the ninety-first day. After the winter solstice, unless necessity requires, there should be no sowing. (Varro, De Rustica, 1.34.1)

Most people anticipate the times for sowing, and begin to sow corn at the eleventh day of the autumnal equinox... although the true method is not to sow before the leaves have begun to fall. Some think that this occurs exactly at the setting of the Pleiades on November 10 (Pliny, NH 18.60)

An autumn sowing season makes perfect sense of the notes in Tacitus that the revolt began in late summer (late in the Roman campaign season) and the Britons were away in autumn (planting season). As I've said, if they were away for a spring planting season then the revolt must have either begun or continued throughout the preceding winter.

mules have a forward lift of c2850000 lbs, plus a 15 day Army carried with it, so c3015000 so each day your army is supplied by half (55%) its overall requirements in your timeline... a frontage of 4 cohorts at the rear most line, so 2900 feet... min 1450 front rankers... 100 Romans at Watling, are doing the work of 270 men

The problem with all of these complex calculations of logistics, supply, deployment etc is that they rest on unverifiable assumptions. We do not know how much food or water a Roman soldier was issued per day, we do not know the exact size of the force Paulinus led from Anglesey, we do not know the formation or deployment for the final battle. Even a small error in the estimates can expand into a gross miscalculation.

Instead, I think we should begin with the textual evidence as we have it:

i. Paulinus marched an expeditionary force from Anglesey and reached London before Boudica's forces could advance from Colchester.

ii. He 'saved the province with rapid movement' (Agricola, 16)

So I think we would be better figuring out how this might have happened than trying to calculate how it would have been impossible!

As for logistics: in AD359 Julianus Caesar led a springtime expedition against the Franks with each of his soldiers carrying 17 days rations 'about their necks' (Ammianus Marcellinus 17.9.2); he previous says that this 'this hard-tack (as they commonly call it)' was carried 'on the backs of his willing soldiers,' (ibid 17.8.2) - so no mules needed.

Suetonius Paulinus could easily have drawn 17 days marching rations for his expedition from that allocated to his full campaign force in Wales. (In fact, this might explain why the troops left in Wales were unable to march quickly to reinforce him, i.e. he had taken a portion of their alloted campaign rations with him!)

17 days would get Paulinus down to Godmanchester, or to London, where he could have resupplied from the granaries there. His men could have partially topped up supplies at forts and towns along the route, without having to exhaust them completely. As for water, they could have done what the British army did in South Africa during the Boer War - a two-pint (1.2 litre) canteen issued to every man, for all purposes, to be replenished as and when possible on the march. Water carriers could fetch water from any rivers, wells, streams and springs along the route.

It would be tough, but it would work.

We should remember too that 18 miles per day (20 Roman miles) is the lower figure from Vegetius; at the 'full pace' they could routinely cover 22 miles (24 Roman miles) per day. We have evidence of Roman armies covering even longer distances that that too, when required.

Anyway, I think at this point, Hanny, it might be worth sharing your own estimates for when and how the campaign might have happened - and perhaps even any ideas you might have about the site of the final battle - which is, of course, supposedly the point of this discussion!

he list 2 years and chronicles the events

He only mentions one year: Caesen[n]io Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus gravis clades in Britannia accepta (Annals 14.29): 'In the consulship of Caesonius Paetus and Petronius Turpilianus [AD61], a serious disaster was sustained in Britain.'

He later says (14.40) 'That same year two remarkable crimes were committed at Rome': Eodem anno Romae insignia scelera. Anno is singular, therefore this is a single year he has been discussing.

[edit - we've mentioned the Kevin Carroll paper you linked several times here. You will notice that he says on his first page that "These events must cover parts of two years: at least part of one campaigning season (Suetonius's attack on Mona [Anglesey] and his battle with Boudicca), plus a winter, during which the governor of Britain was changed, and the period when Petronius was governor." - therefore the events we have been discussing, from the Anglesey campaign to the final battle, fall within the same year, prior to winter, according to Carroll.]