Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

if Wheeler had known anything about the hydrology of the Thames, he would not have made such silly mistake.

Sadly I do not know enough about either your methodology or his to determine whose the silly mistake(s) might be.

It's not "my methodology" it is standard hydrology which if you had read any standard hydrology text book, or indeed thought about it, you would understand it pretty obvious. A River in the glacial period when the sea is lower, cuts down creating a valley. In Rome that valley is about 50m deep. Along the Thames, that valley is cutting into previous gravels, which due to a longer term uplift in the area creates the world famous series of gravel terraces which were so important in developing geology as a subject.

As the sea level rises, the river ... and this is not going to surprise anyone ... brings down sediments in the form of gravels and they keep filling up the valley until there is a standard river valley, with a standard river and a standard depth, leading all the way to the sea. That is taught as O-level geography ... it is available all over the internet for anyone who wants to look at river formation. It is hardly difficult to find!

The Pool of London is a well known feature, and it is so called, because this is the highest point to which large ocean going boats have been able to make their way up the Thames, because the shallow water at London Bridge, prevented large boats from going further. That geography has not changed for centuries. That means that the Thames from London Bridge down has not been crossable. Given we know that the Thames has been infilling since the interglacial from an initial extremely deep valley perhaps 50m below the current one, it is extremely unlikely that the Thames below London bridge was shallower in the past.

Suffice to say that the Museum of London Archaeology has a 2020 article on its website stating that "around AD100, high tide [in the Thames] was around three metres lower than it is today", which suggests at least some contrary views may exist. And the historical accounts of people fording the lower Thames at various points suggests that these views may well be correct.

You clearly did not read my reply. Where I explained that the sea level was three meters lower, but that the river bed was also three meters lower.

With what ... with the army that was already outnumbered massively by the Iceni?

No, with the remainder of his army in North Wales. Unless you believe that he brought his entire army south to London with him?

Given your faillure to grasp even the simple fact that the river bed changes was the sea level changes, I've no idea whether you are reading any of what I write. I've no idea what you are trying to say above.

So, you are saying that... somehow when they come to Cartimandua they are going to do what? Treat her with respect, abide by agreements with her, not rape her children?

That is apparently exactly what happened, as far as we know, yes.

So, you agree that the Brigantes Queen, seeing what the Romans did to Boudica, is going to see that she cannot trust the Romans and must resist them. So you agree the Brigantes, are likely to have seen the defeat of the ninth as an opportunity to push the Romans out of Britain.

I am TOTALLY dumbfounded that you ask such a question... Asking why the Romans would go behind a defensive line, at a time when they are under attack is not a sensible question.

It's really not so dumbfounding. I only asked why he would waste time withdrawing south of the river and trying to guard and hold various fords, bridges etc when he is intending to march to Calleva. There is, after all, a very good straight road that would take him directly there from London, and it leads west via Staines, not south across the Thames.

Why did the ninth "withdraw to the encampment". Why would Suetonius who is in London, about to be overrun by the Iceni, with no defences around London, withdraw behind the natural defence provided by the Thames?

We are talking about the same Romans, who built walls everywhere and particularly across the country from river to river, not just once, but numerous times?

It takes 2 to 3 days to move a camp... using horse drawn carts...

You are suggesting that it took the Roman army 2-3 days to break camp?

Why would they be using 'horse drawn carts'?

No, it takes 2-3 days to move camp. But I don't want to go off at a tangent, as the key point is that Suetonius, like all Romans, would under threat from Boudica have sought the strongest defensive position behind the Thames. And that therefore his "seat for war" ... which he must have held some considerable time given the comment about "put off more delay" in the text ... must have been south of the Thames (St.Albans being the only real possibility north).

The simple fact is that Suetonius went south from London. There is no doubt about that.

No, the simple fact is that he did not!
And there is no doubt about that either!

(You see, anyone can do this...)

The only 'simple fact' is that there are no simple facts. And twelve years of discussion have shown that there is considerable doubt about everything.

And your argument is that the Romans never built walls ... because what you are saying, is that the Romans saw no strategic value is a line of defence from Thames to Severn. Which means you are saying the walls do not exist. That is how daft your argument is ... all the history of Roman Britain is filled with walls: forts with walls, and walls with walls. Yet, in this moment when Suetonius is about to be overrun in London by Boudica .. suddenly the rest of Roman history in Britain ... is wrong ... because rather than using the standard tactic of the Roman wall ... Suetonius gallops off toward St.Albans, where the Iceni are heading ... to join his army, cut off from all supplies in the middle of England where there is no decent defences at all.