Sure.
1, I take the view Church Stowe is not too far North, in fact, any further South would be recklessly open to attack from the East.
2, The closed ridge provides a funnel open only to the East, guaranteeing a choreographed approach to the Roman positions if the flanks can be substantially secured by topography and/or woodland. Church Stowe has the potential for both.
3, The "rear" can be more that the 180 degrees directly behind the roman line in this instance. It can be a broader system that significantly impedes approach to the ridge from as broad a set of directions as possible. In this case the valleys which define the southern and northern feet of the ridge making the only viable approach directly from the East.
4, The nature of the "wooded" must be very specific. We must be looking for a native woodland type the mature character of which must be close to impenetrable for lithe, local light infantry. That is a very tough terrain. That character can only really be met by one woodland type, which is alder willow scrub. For example mature oak or beech woodland that would be found on this ridge top (Oak) or the Chilterns (Beech) would present no meaningful obstacle to light infantry. Native alder willow scrub, in a UK context, is usually characterised by ground so poorly drained it is peppered with pools, streams and deep soft ground. Pre agricultural drainage it is likely that the north and south valleys surrounding this ridge would have that character. It's now a rare habitat in the UK but once you tried walking through a site of this character you will appreciate how impassable it is for any organised unit to move through.
Likely extent of wet woodland at Church Stowe;
Character of native Wet Woodland;
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-w...-woodland/
The chain of comments regarding alternative sites above is not intended to emphatically lead to Church Stowe, rather it demonstrates how recent nominations have now strayed entirely (and frustratingly) beyond meaningful topographic determinants for nomination. I'm approaching this as a geographer and either you take the topography seriously, limiting the site characteristics and options (as Steve Kaye did), or you just stick a pin in the map and throw away the concept of a meaningful valley topography. I can't and see that approach as futile but I may well be wrong, I am an advocate for a particular method of research by terrain analysis, that's really all I have to offer ... I must stress I put Arbury Banks and Heydon in the "not taking the valley seriously" camp too. What could be better than a closed valley next to Watling Street, the topographic advantage bolstered by a ring fence of willow/alder scrub and bog...which could be described as woods and the topography as the forcibus...?
Tacitus has described the entire site as a forcibus implying a distinct change in levels he doesn't provide sufficient description to say whether that forcibus was open at one or two ends. We have to cope with his lack of specificity and step away from the text to privilege the quality of the ground for the purpose and a closed valley would suit him far better than an open one. An open valley would likely carry both a significant water course and a track thus negating any tactical advantage... relying on "woods" is simple short hand for relying on woods and the topography of the forcibus the significance of which he had already made a core part of his site description..
1, I take the view Church Stowe is not too far North, in fact, any further South would be recklessly open to attack from the East.
2, The closed ridge provides a funnel open only to the East, guaranteeing a choreographed approach to the Roman positions if the flanks can be substantially secured by topography and/or woodland. Church Stowe has the potential for both.
3, The "rear" can be more that the 180 degrees directly behind the roman line in this instance. It can be a broader system that significantly impedes approach to the ridge from as broad a set of directions as possible. In this case the valleys which define the southern and northern feet of the ridge making the only viable approach directly from the East.
4, The nature of the "wooded" must be very specific. We must be looking for a native woodland type the mature character of which must be close to impenetrable for lithe, local light infantry. That is a very tough terrain. That character can only really be met by one woodland type, which is alder willow scrub. For example mature oak or beech woodland that would be found on this ridge top (Oak) or the Chilterns (Beech) would present no meaningful obstacle to light infantry. Native alder willow scrub, in a UK context, is usually characterised by ground so poorly drained it is peppered with pools, streams and deep soft ground. Pre agricultural drainage it is likely that the north and south valleys surrounding this ridge would have that character. It's now a rare habitat in the UK but once you tried walking through a site of this character you will appreciate how impassable it is for any organised unit to move through.
Likely extent of wet woodland at Church Stowe;
Character of native Wet Woodland;
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-w...-woodland/
The chain of comments regarding alternative sites above is not intended to emphatically lead to Church Stowe, rather it demonstrates how recent nominations have now strayed entirely (and frustratingly) beyond meaningful topographic determinants for nomination. I'm approaching this as a geographer and either you take the topography seriously, limiting the site characteristics and options (as Steve Kaye did), or you just stick a pin in the map and throw away the concept of a meaningful valley topography. I can't and see that approach as futile but I may well be wrong, I am an advocate for a particular method of research by terrain analysis, that's really all I have to offer ... I must stress I put Arbury Banks and Heydon in the "not taking the valley seriously" camp too. What could be better than a closed valley next to Watling Street, the topographic advantage bolstered by a ring fence of willow/alder scrub and bog...which could be described as woods and the topography as the forcibus...?
Tacitus has described the entire site as a forcibus implying a distinct change in levels he doesn't provide sufficient description to say whether that forcibus was open at one or two ends. We have to cope with his lack of specificity and step away from the text to privilege the quality of the ground for the purpose and a closed valley would suit him far better than an open one. An open valley would likely carry both a significant water course and a track thus negating any tactical advantage... relying on "woods" is simple short hand for relying on woods and the topography of the forcibus the significance of which he had already made a core part of his site description..
