Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

I have shown, firstly

Dude, you really haven't.

The destruction was extensive, and is dated to 55-70, and I have quoted sources to support this. The buildings you mentioned probably date from reconstruction after the fire. Unless your lamp also burned most of London, it was not the cause.

You: The Southwark destruction layer, dated to the same AD55-70 range as the other sites in London, is well attested. There's no 'Boudica did this' label, of course

The other problems are that Southwark island is too small for Suetonius so his camp would be south of the island, which means the buildings of Southwark are blocking his view, and as you yourself said: the river is easily crossed at London ford ... so if Suetonius could not destroy the ford, did Suetonius fortify the southern rampart off Southwark leaving Southwark it to Boudica?

And very simply ... if North London were all burning, all it takes is a wind from the north and the flames could have easily spread the short distance to Southwark. And indeed, a few burning arrows might also have done the same.

If it's well attested, why could I only find one site. Might I suggest you are being extremely generous with the evidence ... which seems to amount to one site burnt down by one fire caused by an obviously dodgy lamp.

bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans.

Why do you keep claiming this? I have been saying exactly the opposite for over ten years.

For how long, Catalina, will you wave these straw men at us?

You do not say what you are "opposite of", but if you mean he did stay in St.Albans (which is precisely the opposite) Suetonius went to the minor settlement of London ... for absolutely no reason ... then goes to St.Albans and stayed there ... And yet he does nothing to secure the Thames, not against attacking the SE where he might have got auxiliaries from, nor even to secure his own supply lines ... that's an interesting theory. 

Seems as if you have no idea that London was an insignificant settlement at the time of the Romans!

This would be the settlement of c.10,000 people, second only to Colchester (c.15,000) in the whole of Britain, and twice the size of St Albans (c.5000)? The major entrepot for the Gallic trade and base of the procurator? That little place? Hmmmmm....

There is no evidence of the general size of settlements in 60AD, so I cannot see how you can say that:

In Britain, only three cities provide reasonably clear evidence for early stone walled circuits: the coloniae of Camulodunum (with walls of perhaps c.ad 65, soon after the Boudiccan insurrection), Glevum and Lindum (perhaps both walled at the time of their foundation c.100AD). Most other circuits in Britain, for example Chichester, Silchester and Verulamium, are usually considered to be much later, perhaps mid-3rd century.

The size of London in 55AD is shown as about 550x250m by Dominic Perring or 14 hectares, which is half that used as the definition of an iron-age Oppida. So not a big place by the size of iron-age towns.

Yes London had an early defined area, but that dates after the Boudican revolt.

Londinium’s landward walls, those on its northern, eastern and western sides, were also built of new stone and – with the Thames to the south – enclosed some 130ha (330 acres), an urban area larger than elsewhere in Britain. Most recent writers suggest that they were built close to ad 200 and thus were intermediate between the circuits of the early coloniae and those of the rest of the major towns or cities in lowland Britain (Esmonde Cleary 2003). Londinium’s landward walls, those on its northern, eastern and western sides, were also built of new stone and – with the Thames to the south – enclosed some 130ha (330 acres), an urban area larger than elsewhere in Britain. Most recent writers suggest that they were built close to ad 200 and thus were intermediate between the circuits of the early coloniae and those of the rest of the major towns or cities in lowland Britain (Esmonde Cleary 2003). However some archaeological evidence could place Londinium’s walls as late as c.ad 230 or beyond (Sankey & Stephenson 1991, 122),

And yet again, you refuse to admit the Thames is a defensive barrier ... it is like trying to discuss Hadrian's wall with someone who will not admit that it was a defensive barrier (it is in fact easier to cross Hadrian's wall than the lower Thames)