Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

There is nothing whatsoever in the sources to suggest that the events described were anything other than a continuous course of action.

That's the way it reads, yes. But, as we've seen, most reconstructions of what happened have an interval of winter at some point. So there must have been at least one break in the action. Neither Tactitus nor Dio actually tell us how long all of the events they describe took, or whether there were gaps between them, so there may have been several such intervals.

I have suggested in this post a reconstructed timeline that fits all the events into one year, mostly August-October. So it's feasible at a push, but very hurried and not very likely, I would say.

If we accept, as I think we must, that the revolt began in midsummer (Roman campaign season), and either during or after the harvest (which is otherwise unmentioned) then there are two options as I see it:

A. The revolt began in late August. The fall of Colchester, defeat of Cerialis and Paulinus's march to London happened in September, and the final battle in early October. Reinforcements arrived at the very end of the sailing season in late October*. The saga of Classicianus, Polyclitus and the arrival of Turpilianus happened over the spring and summer of the following year.

B. The revolt began in late September. Colchester fell in October and London in November. There was then a winter lull before the final battle the following March and a punitive campaign over the summer. Classicianus, Polyclitus and the reinforcements all turned up before the end of summer. Turpilianus took over in September or so.

On the face of it, I don't see either of these as being inherently less likely than the other. In the second option, I would not imagine Boudica 'swanning about idly' over the winter, but in effect ruling most of southeastern Britain, gathering the much larger army that Dio reports at the final battle, and keeping her people fed.

Nor was Paulinus 'fiddling around', I imagine, but rather organising troops and supplies, scouting the enemy positions, and perhaps engaging in the kind of low level skirmish warfare suggested by Dio's note that 'the enemy pressed relentlessly upon him'. I think the registering of delays and postponements at this point in the accounts of both Tacitus and Dio could indeed connote more than a few days or weeks of hiatus.

Currently, I slightly prefer the second option as it situates both the final battle and the replacement of the governor securely in AD61, whereas in the first version they would fall in different years.

(*Paulinus's report to the emperor from London might arrive in the first days of October. However, Rome would already know of the revolt from Catus Decianus - the procurator was the emperor's man in the province, and part of his job was to send regular reports on all matters, including military ones (as we later find Classicianus reporting unfavourably on Paulinus's ongoing campaign, and the loss of his ships); Decianus would certainly have sent an urgent report as soon as he crossed to Gaul, explaining why he had fled his province and trying to exonerate himself.

A message sent from Boulogne would cover the 1048 miles to Rome (measured accurately, via the Col de Montgenèvre, which is open in September) in 14 days at an average speed of 75 miles per day. The emperor would have received this report some time before hearing from Paulinus, and could already have ordered troops from the Rhine to reinforce Britain.

These reinforcements could cover the 236 miles (measured by the Roman road from Cologne to Boulogne via Maastricht, Tienen and Courtrai) in 13 days at 18 miles a day. With a couple of rests stops on the way they could reach the Channel before the sailing season ends.)

Why would they be unconcerned? There must have been a reason for an officially recognised gathering.

This would be your suggestion of a gathering for the Consualia? August 21st, or 18th if we follow Plutarch. Sounds feasible - although we'd have to assume that the Romans compelled the Britons to honour one of their own agricultural dieties, which is probably acceptable.

I've mentioned before somewhere that there are examples from other periods of people failing to react to the threats of local uprisings until the very last moment, particularly if there are those among them determined (for whatever reason) to minimise the danger, or prevent outbreaks of terror and confusion.

We might imagine one of the duumvirs appearing on the steps of the temple to assure everyone that it's a beautiful day, the markets are open, and people are having a wonderful time...