A Tall Order! Brythonic Boundaries AD43

[Theoderic]

Could anyone point me to a reference map for the boundaries of the Brythonic Tribal Territories around AD43 please?

[Vindex]

It depends on the level of detail you want. A simple google of "British tribes AD43" came up with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britis...c.AD43.jpg

or this

http://tinyurl.com/d884a6o

This latter one may suit you more.

[Kegluneq]

Don't have my Atlas of Roman Britain to hand, but Sheppard Frere's reconstruction of tribal boundaries is here.

Boundaries are a bit iffy, I'm afraid. There's no good evidence for strictly delineated borders afaik, conceptually or physically, for this period, and reconstructed maps tend to be a relic of culture-historical archaeological approaches. Even if there were recognised borders - up to this valley, the flood plain up to where the river becomes impassable, that sort of thing - they would probably be subject to fairly frequent changes as tribes waxed and waned in power and influence, or ceased to exist entirely. So the map above should be thought of only as a rough guide, not an infallible reference. Other guides, such as the BBC's map, don't impose firm boundaries at all.

[John1]

An Atlas of Roman Britain Jones and Mattingly ISBN 978-1-84217-067-0 2007 edition
Map 4:24 is post 43 AD but gives quite a tight geography as it dares to put on boundaries
Map 3.2, tribal society but no boundaries
Map 3.2 Coin producing tribal groups approximate limits

sorry I have nothing more credible but would love to know of anything that is

[Theoderic]

Hi John1

Looks like I will need to go and invest!!!!

Thanks.

I have had a contentious thought - do you think that the Iceni destroyed the Ninth because they thought they might be invading them to take back the territory that they may have already taken back prior to Colchester being destroyed by the Trinovantes? (Tacitus mentions forts being attacked although vaguely).

If Linton marks the border this may hold some water and would explain why the Iceni were so well prepared, because they were guarding their borders and not the Trinovantes at all and were expecting to be attacked?

Kind Regards - Deryk

[Kegluneq]

Hi John1

Looks like I will need to go and invest!!!!

I support this - it's a very good book. I was lucky to pick it up cheap at a conference book sale, but I'd say it's probably worth the cost on amazon (c.£30) if you are interesting in having a geographical reference work for Britain. It's a big hardback full of background discussion and detail.

If Linton marks the border this may hold some water and would explain why the Iceni were so well prepared, because they were guarding their borders and not the Trinovantes at all and were expecting to be attacked?

I haven't dedicated as much study to the Boudican revolt as many here have, but I'd be skeptical of a Late Iron Age/Early Roman British tribe having garrisoned border defences.

[Vindex]

Abe Books can be MUCH cheaper than Amazon...

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Search...y&x=38&y=9

[Kegluneq]

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Search...y&x=38&y=9

Wow, I think that's even less than I paid for it! That is pretty much a steal.

[John1]

I have had a contentious thought - do you think that the Iceni destroyed the Ninth because they thought they might be invading them to take back the territory that they may have already taken back prior to Colchester being destroyed by the Trinovantes?

I'm not even sure whether the bumping of the Ninth was before or after the Colchester attack, maybe the bulk of the Iceni returning home after torching Colchester. I can't imagine the Brits didn't know the Ninth were on the way and if the intel had got up to Longthorpe and the troops got down past Cambridge it seems plausible that the deed had already been done, also if the Colchester garrison had had as much warning they would surely have attempted some sort of evacuation? Was the attack on the Ninth a pre-emptive strike as I usually interpret it, or was it a necessary defensive action as the Rubicon was already crossed with the sacking of Colchester? If the Iceni were moving north with loot to stash does that speak to a northern location for the final battle, with Paulinus taking a position from where he could strike at Iceni territory? oops wrong thread :oops:

Still in the "don't know" camp regarding how to read the text and how literally to take it (ducks before Nathan's counter blast) :wink:

Abebooks = fantastic, it's where I got mine some time ago, but it was more than they are up for now

[Nathan Ross]

I'd have to agree with Robert on the difficulty of fixing tribal boundaries - we don't know enough about the interrelation of these peoples, whether they all existed at the same time, whether some were septs or subtribes or others, and so on. Coinage evidence gives us some idea of the rough territorial positioning, but I don't think we should imagine iron age Britain as a collection of independent 'states' with borders, more a network of competing or combining related groups.

do you think that the Iceni destroyed the Ninth because they thought they might be invading them to take back the territory that they may have already taken back prior to Colchester being destroyed by the Trinovantes? (Tacitus mentions forts being attacked although vaguely)... the Iceni... were guarding their borders and not the Trinovantes at all and were expecting to be attacked

Why do you think the Iceni and Trinovantes were operating separately?

Tacitus does mention that the enemy 'stormed the forts' (in Agricola, 16), but in the more detailed Annals (book 14) says the Britons 'passed by the fortresses with military garrisons'. I reckon the first mention actually relates to the attack on Colchester itself.

I'm not even sure whether the bumping of the Ninth was before or after the Colchester attack, maybe the bulk of the Iceni returning home after torching Colchester. I can't imagine the Brits didn't know the Ninth were on the way and if the intel had got up to Longthorpe and the got troops down past Cambridge it seems plausible that the deed had already been done

An attack on Iceni territory might make strategic sense, but the immediate objective was to reinforce Colchester. Annals 14 says that Cerealis was attacked 'as he was coming to the rescue' of the besieged colony - which implies the battle was during or immediately after the siege.

As for what the Britons knew or didn't - the message of impending revolt would have travelled from the procurator in London up to Paulinus in Wales or Wroxeter by fast courier and with as much secrecy as Roman ingenuity could devise - it was strategic intelligence, after all. Similarly, the orders to Ceralis to advance to relieve Colchester would have come from Paulinus by the same method. The Britons attacking Colchester would only have learned of Cerealis' advance some time later, by which time he could have been quite close to the city itself. No need to assume he was still much further north, unless you see the Iceni etc heading back in that direction after the fall of the colony (in which case, why was London burnt?)...

Still in the "don't know" camp regarding how to read the text and how literally to take it

Hehe! Well, of course we don't have to believe Tactitus - we could just make the whole thing up ourselves! :-)

[Theoderic]

Hi Nathan

I am going to reply on the "Armchair Generals" thread.....

Sorry my fault for linking the boundaries to the uprising!

Kind Regards - Deryk

[John1]

(in which case, why was London burnt?)...
soft, lucrative target that had been abandoned so a smallish hardcore group popped down and torched it with no resistance of note (where are the bodies?)same group or another travelling west hit St Albans, again no need for a big group for an un-defended and deserted town. Plenty of scope for reading and writing between the lines with Mr Tacitus :wink: maybe the whole thing was made up then :wink: :wink: :wink: