Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

You are still trying to say. That someone in the much smaller settlement of London, who sees Boudica coming, will not "hobble" over the bridge. It's not that difficult a concept ... enemy coming ... they are but a few meters from the Bridge which goes directly from the Roman settlement to the other side. A bridge that is extremely easy to defend. yet you claim they did not.

I think I see the argument.  The bridge must have been destroyed as, if it had not been, all the remaining inhabitants of London, of whatever sex, age or state of health, would have crossed to the southern side.

Finally, you have seen the open goal, you have seen that it's such an obvious goal you take aim ...

  There they would have been safe because the rebels, despite having travelled all the way from East Anglia, sacked a colony and virtually annihilated a Roman legion, would have been incapable of crossing the 100m over the bridge and wreaking their slaughter on the other side.

and completely miss the target!!

It's a very easily destroyed bridge, and we have numerous examples of such bridges being destroyed in order to stop an enemy crossing. We also have at least one example of three people holding a bridge against an entire army, whilst someone called Renatus, tries to find an axe, having not considered the possibility that it might be a good idea to destroy the bridge and protect the civilians who crossed.

  This would be because the bridge would have been defended by a 'small force' - Horatius risen from the dead, perhaps, as Suetonius had abandoned the town [Sorry, this sort of playground argumentation is catching].

You will forgive me, if I say that I am not convinced.

But you do see, that if the civilians left London and crossed over, that the bridge could either be destroyed or defended using a small force.



So, I hope you will agree, that if you were a rich person from north of the Thames, deciding to take all your valuables over the bridge and head toward Gaul (and Roman-friendly areas of the SE), that you would put whatever pressure you can, to hold or destroy that bridge so that there are no hoards of Iceni flooding over, and so that you can escape.



Likewise, if you were a rich person from south of the Thames, or a Belgic Gaul tribal leader, you would also be rather keen to stop the marauding hoard of Iceni flooding over the Thames. So, llikewise, you would be putting pressure on Suetonius to hold or destroy the bridge.

And, if the bridge is held ... there is no problem crossing the short distance from London ... so the only scenario which is compatible with people being "overwhelmed in London" ... is if they reach London after the bridge is down.



Irrespective of the movement of Suetonius, the bridge, and any other crossings of the Thames, become critical transportation focal points that either allow (for fleeing Romans) or deny (for boudica) a crossing of the Thames. So, given their military and logistic importance, any suggestion of what happens, has to explain how the Thames crossings were used. you can't just ignore them, They are far too important for that.


We also see that whether it is at the time, or becomes as a result of this campaign, the use of defensive barriers such as Hadrian's wall and the Antonine wall become the way that the military fight in Britain. The Thames-Berkshire downs is clearly such a line of defence and as such is clearly the original line that gives rise to the other Roman walls in Britain.



So, whatever all your books say about "the way Romans fought this or that way", the simple fact as shown by not one, but two, or even more lines of defence, is that the Roman practice at the time was based on using lines of defence. YOU CANNOT DENY IT. So, to put it rather bluntly your books are a load of codswallop flying in the face of the clear and obvious evidence of defensive lines in Britain.

Go back and read my posts on this thread (it will take some effort, I admit, as you evidently have not bothered to do so, so far) and then tell me where I have ever supported the idea of 'the gallop down Watling Street'.  You will have a hard task.

It's just so poetic and silly ... but so too is ignoring the Thames, which everyone seems to be doing except me and Suetonius, and Catus, and all the civilians who desperately crossed the Thames to evade Boudica ... and not forgetting those poor souls who through infirmity  of being a woman ... got to the bridge after it was down, with Suetonius on the other side saying: "oh the gods ... is that Aunt Flora they are stringing up?