Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Hanny]

I'm afraid we'll have to differ on this - the text states, I think, that the soldiers carried "seventeen days' provisions... when they marched forward on their expedition". This was apparently prepared using the grain allotted for twenty days' winter provisions. A portion of it was then allocated to the forts, which caused supply problems later.

Perhaps if somebody would like to look at the text in latin they could clear up this difference in interpretation?

A plain reading of the text show that 20 days was prepared from winter stocks, there are no crops to live off the land, later a portion of the 17 days is put into forts, this means there is at that point 17 days still with them, which also means they have marched for 3 days to have 17 left and then after wards they dont have enough to feed themselves, so your example is yes you can put 100lbs on a mans back and march for 3 days and then remove almost all and cannot feed himself from crops that have not grown yet.

Fourteen to seventeen days marching ration was apparently standard for the Roman army, carried by the troops themselves. Besides the quote from Ammianus, we also have the Historia Augusta:

Nope, its not standard, its just some examples.

Vestigius tells us the standard 5 hour march made 3 times a month had no supplies carried on the mens backs.Ammianus quote is an example of logistical failure so hardly helps and involves a 3 days march.

"During his campaigns he [Alexander Sev] made such careful provision for the soldiers that they were furnished with supplies at each halting-place and were never compelled to carry food for the usual period of seventeen days, except in the enemy's country. And even then he lightened their burdens by using mules and camels..." (HA Alex Sev 2.47.1)

(Note that this implies carrying marching provisions on mules would not previously have been standard practice.)

cogeba is compelled, so the key factor is compulsion or non compulsion, a fair reading of that is that when maneuvering in friendly areas, no extra rations were carried by the legions, as supplies were in camps from which they moved, jus like the 3 training marches a month without rations as its waiting for you in the training camp. We know this was not new methods, as that was how the legions got from rome to Cannae by moving onto supplies rather than carry them with them. Quite simply generals knew that carrying loads was unpopular when it was not necessary to do so and prevented doing so as far was practicable.

When in enemy terr, sure they can carry whatever the circumstances dictate are required, there are no standard circumstances, there are examples of 30 days carried, but they dont include any kit, as it the Legion moving 30 days supplies point to point in friendly terr.

Josephus, says that each Roman legionary carried three days' rations. Livy tells Aemilius Paulus sent Legion of 5,000 men in order to seize the passes into Perrhaebia in 168 B.C.with 10 days rations and there are many such examples of how many days rations were issued.

You say P wants to go 120 miles to Angelsey, 6/7 days march away, waits till June to set out, and gets there in two months, is it reasonable to assume he set out with 17 days rations on the mens back to do so?, if he needs this extra ration why not set out earlier and avoid it. Logistically he does not need anything on the mens back to go to Angelsey, and when he sets out thats all he is expecting to happen, to go 120 miles defeat a numerically inferior force and establish a garrison.

Note, your claim that mules not being used pre 200 is absurd as polybios and Livy refer to the legions use of them centuries earlier.

And Cicero:

"how great the labor is of an army on its march... Consider that they carry more than a fortnight's provision, and whatever else they may want; that they carry the burden of the stakes, for as to shield, sword, or helmet, they look on them as no more encumbrance than their own limbs." (Tusc Disp II.17)

Sure why not, there are several instances of 20 days carried, when they expect to need them. Did P, waiting for the crops to be in the fields before setting out, expect to need them when moving through crops on his way to Angelsey, or was he going to live of the land and mule train?

So our ancient sources tell us that troops could carry 14-17 days provisions on the march. You, however, using modern military statistics and calculations, claim that this would be impossible without exhausting and crippling the troops, and therefore Suetonius Paulinus could not have done it.

There is a wide from 2 to 20 days rations mentioned, without understanding the context for each we dont know why that number was chosen, but sure they can carry up to 20 days rations on their backs, at a cost of doing so.

Either your calculations are wrong, or history is wrong. Which should we consider more likely? [Image: wink.png]

The maths is either accurate or inaccurate, you have changed the maths of P with of 15 days carried ( which i used as a high end example but see no reason why he would have seen the need, but used it to show its limitations) to 17 days carried to make your timeline work.

Your time line is wrong, it requires working back from the outcome to get 17 days on mens backs when no such need was present when the campaign started.

Its also wrong at several other places ORBIS* in Sept gives 21.7 days to reach Rome from Boulogne, so a min of 44 days round trip, so Oct 28th at the earliest, legions on the Rhine are 200 odd miles from there, so i see no way for them to cross in late Oct or messages to reach Rome in 12 days.

* https://orbis.stanford.edu/

September 14th . Catus arrives in Gaul and sends a message to Rome, reporting the imminent loss of the province.
October 25th – troops from Rhine garrisons reach the Channel ports and commence a late crossing to Britain.


Again here September 18th – – and to Rome requesting reinforcements.
September 30th – Paulinus’s request for reinforcement reaches Rhine army, and Rome by express courier.