Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Boudica Revisited
#1
The military aspects of Boudica's British revolt in AD61 and the Roman responses to it have received much comment and speculation (not least here on RAT!), a lot of them involving the location of the final battle. But at the risk of further reheating old chestnuts, I'd like to raise a few more questions on the subject.

As we know from Tacitus (Annals / Agricola) and Cassius Dio (Epitome book LXII), Suetonius Paulinus was away campaigning against the Druids on Anglesey when the revolt broke out. Boudica's forces attacked and burned Colchester, then defeated Petilius Cerialis and a vexillation of the Ninth Legion. Paulinus then arrived at London, decided it was indefensible and ordered it evacuated, withdrawing to some undisclosed location, where the Britons, after sacking London and St Albans, were signally defeated. The Second Legion, which had been ordered to support Paulinus, did not move from their base, and their commanding prefect committed suicide when he learned what had happened.

But there is a problem with all this: Anglesey is 250 miles by road from London. Colchester is only 50 miles away. Even considering the relative speeds of Boudica's tribal warband and Paulinus' legions, how did the legate reach London before the Britons, in time to survey the situation, evacuate the town and retreat?

One common suggestion (originally, I think, from Webster in 1978), is that Paulinus took ship from Anglesey to Deva, then sped south on Watling Street with only a cavalry bodyguard, leaving the legions to follow as best they could. He then retreated from London, meeting the legions somewhere on the road and turned to give battle.

Dio mentions Paulinus 'sailing' from Mona (LXII.8), but this could reflect Dio's uncertainty of the distance from Anglesey to the mainland! There is no other reference to cavalry, or a mad gallop down Watling Street. Tacitus says that Paulinus marched 'with wonderful resolution... amidst a hostile population' (Annals 14.33) - which seems to imply a steady measured advance, fortifying camps along the line of the road. When he reaches London, Paulinus is 'uncertain whether he should choose it as a seat of war', which implies that he had the numbers to do so - even if they were 'a scanty force of soldiers', they were not a mere cavalry bodyguard. Besides, would Paulinus really dash into the heart of a tribal rebellion with only a small cavalry force?

A mounted courier, riding at 50 miles a day, would have taken 3-4 days to reach Paulinus from London. Even with his cavalry alone, Paulinus would have taken the same time to get back there again. What were Boudica and her warriors doing for 8 days after the fall of Colchester? London was undefended, presumably wealthy, and the home of hated procurator Decianus. Why delay attacking it?

If we assume, instead, that Paulinus moved with his legions he would have taken even longer - up to 14 days from the straits of Anglesey at a normal marching pace of 18-20 miles per day, or 8 days if a faster pace was adopted (this is following Benario, 'Legionary Speed of March before the battle with Boudicca', Britannia 17, 1986. My calculation of distances uses the very handy distance measuring tool on Wikimapia - it's the little orange ruler in the top left of the frame!). So, if we don't go with Paulinus' cavalry gallop, we're looking at a delay of up to 18 days between the fall of Colchester and Boudica's attack on London!

The current favoured theory for the battle site - at Mancetter - would involve Boudica's force, together with families and baggage, hauling themselves 100 miles up Watling Street, through the territories of two other tribes, just to meet Paulinus in battle. Hard to imagine such dedication in a group that had taken 8-18 days just to decide to attack London!

Could there be a misapprehension here, based on the way Tacitus presents the story? He implies, and most people seem to have accepted, that the attack on Colchester was the start of the revolt, and the first news that Paulinus would have received of it. This is certainly dramatic, but is it likely? We know that the citizens of Colchester had already asked for help from Decianus, and he sent 200 men in response (probably all he had available at the time). Would he not have also informed Paulinus? We don't know how soon before the attack this happened, but the assembly of a tribal warband amongst the Iceni and Trinovantes must have taken some time. It's possible that Decianus, unless he was truly incompetent, could have know of this days, or even weeks, before the revolt broke out into open warfare, and passed the information on to the Governor.

Dio claims that Paulinus had 'already brought Mona to terms' when he learned of the revolt (LXII.8), so there was nothing to detain him from moving against the rebels at once. Would he have waited for the first outbreak, or would he have recognised that a massive tribal assembly close to Colchester, threatening to cut his lines of communication, needed to be confronted at once?

It is possible, therefore, that Paulinus was already on the march down Watling Street with his full force by the time the attack on Colchester actually happened. So what about Cerialis and the Ninth Legion? Could it be that his advance, rather than an independent attempt to relieve Colchester, was part of a combined strategy with Paulinus? The legions moving down Watling Street would form the central division of a three-pronged advance, with Cerialis and Ninth to the east and the Second to the west, all closing in on the rebels around Colchester. In Dio's description of the final battle there is the odd note that Paulinus 'separated his army into three divisions, in order to fight at several points at one and the same time' - this contradicts Tacitus, but could it be that this is Dio's (or the epitomator's) confused reference to Paulinus' initial plan of advance?

If this is the case, the plan went wrong - Cerialis perhaps moved forward too quickly, and his force was isolated and destroyed (Tacitus mentions his 'rashness'). The Second, of course, never left camp. Arriving somewhere close to London, therefore, Paulinus would have learned that Colchester had already fallen (but possibly only a day or two previously), his left wing had been beaten and his right had failed to move. Not surprising, if so, that he considered the troops he had with him (his own central division) to be 'scanty', and withdrew to a position where a small number could more adequately oppose a multitude - he wouldn't need to go far, though, as his troops were already with him. In this light, the suicide of Pœnius Postumus of the Second Legion is entirely justified - his failure had left Paulinus in a dangerously exposed position.

All of this, of course, would argue for a much more southerly location for that final battle, probably somewhere very close to London or St Albans. There would be no need, however, for Boudica's warband to go racing off for vast distances into the Midlands after the Romans!

Certainly this isn't a massively radical suggestion, but it does seem to me a plausible interpretation, and clears up the problem of Paulinus' movements prior to the battle. I'd be interested to learn what others make of it, and any counter-suggestions they might make! Confusedmile:

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply
#2
There are a lot of assumptions made about this campaign from some very scanty evidence. The use of Watling Street is one, and the unity of the British forces is another.

Watling Street is very new in 60/61AD, older more effective ways of transporting British crowds around the country were surely still active, river valleys, old tracks et al. Raymond Selkirk’s “On the Trail of the Legions” postulates that even the bulk of Roman transport was on waterways rather than rivers. One might assume that the British forces were also using these to move around rather than complying with the less efficient (for there purposes) Roman Roads.

The unity of British Forces is another question, having sacked Colchester would the force stay together with all the logistic problems that entails? A relatively small group could sack and loot an undefended settlement like London or head directly west to hit St Albans. There is no need for this to be one in the same group moving en mass.

Might it be that having done the damage at Colchester the bulk of the Iceni forces re-group in or around their own territory ready to take on Paulinus. When they do they approach him directly from the east along either the Nene or the Ouse valley. Church Stowe is at the head of the Nene Valley, Paulerspury at the head of a branch of the Ouse. Indeed Church Stowe is bang central at the head waters of the Ouse, Cherwell (Thames), Nene and Avon, all rise 5 km west of the proposed battle site at Arbury hill (a sacred place despoiled by Paulinus to bring the Brits to battle? I can’t remember where I read that one).

Even if you buy the “Parade” theory of the Brits forming a column and rambling along, and more importantly up and down the Roman Roads from Colchester to London to St Albans, you’d have to assume that with the carts they are supposed to be dragging a speed of no more than 2 miles an hours (again see Selkirk). How do you assemble a force with a column that slow, days to pass a single point I would imagine.

So the Ninth hear about the threat, set off towards Colchester, but send a dispatch rider to pick up Paulinus on his way back from Mona (maybe 3 hard days travel). The Ninth get bumped somewhere south of Cambridge (Bartlow maybe?), Cerealis legs it to Longthorpe, on the Nene, sends battered bits of force and equipment up river to meet Paulinus around Towcester. Colchester gets nailed by the main force which disperses home, elements go on to do London and St Albans. Paulinus is already on his way south as you suggest, forms a hard riding flying column heads south and then back up to the Midlands.

Iceni’s at home hear about assembly of Romans to the west, they form up and make the relatively short trip west along river valleys to have a pitched battle on the ground of Paulinus’ choosing, where he would have dug in big time. The Roman site may have been pre-existing from the conquest period, or even some sort of Depot as Weedon Bec (Church Stowe) became centuries later. Then it all kicks off, I can’t conceive that the Romans would have assembled the scale of force that is discussed without several large camps being developed, hence I’m keen on the Church Stowe site. I certainly think it is bizarre to follow Tacitus’ suggestion that the whole engagement was fought on open ground whatever the woods behind were like.

Sorry to have gone on so much on the basis of such little fact.
Reply
#3
Church Stowe is an attractive possibility, and your scenario sounds plausible. I'm still not convinced by the 'flying column / cavalry bodyguard' idea though - as far as I know, there's no other situation attested in which a Roman commander leaves the main body of his troops and goes racing off into enemy territory unsupported.

There's also the problem of coordinating a large tribal band. The uprising could have split into various parts, operating in different places, as you suggest, but with no maps and few means of communication it would be difficult to bring a large enough force to bear once the initial assembly had dispersed. More likely, I think, that the Britons kept together in a single large group, around a focal point (Boudica herself, presumably). If we assume that the battle site was much closer to London and St Albans, there would no need for this tribal assembly to go 'parading' across the countryside for great distances. I've suggested that the vicinity of Dunstable, only a day's cart journey beyond St Albans, could be a viable option for the battle site.

Quote:Sorry to have gone on so much on the basis of such little fact.

Entertaining though, isn't it! :-)

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply
#4
Well, only having read a translation of Tacitus, I had understood it to be a flying column to check on the situation in London and warning them to follow him out again.
While seemingly a dodgy thing to do, a cavalry column would be able to scout and move rapidly away from a serious threat. Unlike a long body of foot soldiers.

I seem to recall seeing that theory once before on here John.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#5
I've seen the Church Stowe site theory; http://www.craftpegg.com/Battle_Church_Stowe_CP.pdf

but I don't recall seeing the "parade" theory being challenged and use of rivers brought to the fore previously. Please point me at the reference if I've missed it.

The work by Appleby, Marix-Evans and Kaye seems to assume (I'm quiet prepared to be put right on this) that the British forces moved south and then north en masse. The suggestion I was making was that they could have been acting in smaller groups post Colchester, the bulk being in Iceni lands and moving to hit Paulinus from the east along the Ouse and/or Nene. The east/west distances are far shorter if the tyranny of the road system is avoided. If this is the case with smaller forces hitting London and then, or simultaneously St Alban's then a flying column getting through to London seems plausible.

I'm wondering what the state of Watling St would really be, in 60/61AD the occupation isn't very old, at the roads maximum development it wasn't exactly a 6 lane highway additionally the section South of Church Stowe is a series of valley crossings, so the straight line is impeded by a number of rises and drops that could simply have been bypassed, particularly if you're dragging half of Norfolk with you. I entirely agree the Romans would be using it as intended, but the Iceni? I have my doubts. Any thoughts?
Reply
#6
Quote:I don't recall seeing the "parade" theory being challenged and use of rivers brought to the fore previously.

True, water transport was indeed the preferred means of moving goods around Britain right into the 19th century and the invention of railways. But it was slow - and involved transferring everything onto boats, of course. Since we know that the Britons were using wheeled transport at the final battle (carts, and apparently chariots), it would seem likely that they'd travelled by road rather than water. Watling Street may not have been a motorway, but we know it was at least a road, and led from London to St Albans (two sites visited by the rebels). The burden of probability would suggest that, if your enemies have made a nice straight road going directly where you want to go, you use it :wink:

Quote:that they could have been acting in smaller groups post Colchester, the bulk being in Iceni lands and moving to hit Paulinus from the east along the Ouse and/or Nene.

Paulinus' withdrawal from London suggests, I would say, that a very sizeable enemy was in the vicinity - the same force that had destroyed Colchester, and had not dispersed into smaller groups, which could feasibly have been tackled in detail.

Quote:a flying column getting through to London seems plausible

The 'flying column' theory is not attested in Tacitus, or anywhere else. It was invented (by Graham Webster, I think) solely to account for Paulinus' rapidity in reaching London before Boudica got there. As I suggested above, with an earlier warning Paulinus would have had enough time to get his full force down to the London area - there is no need for any cavalry bodyguards or flying columns. Roman commanders moved with their legions.

Btw - I'm aware we're having parallel discussions on virtually the same topic on two threads! My fault - apologies. If any moderator has a problem with this and wants to merge the threads, please do. Confusedmile:

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply


Forum Jump: