+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. (/showthread.php?tid=16575)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-05-2022
(09-05-2022, 07:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Although even then Suetonius is passing through the margins of the enemy district rather than the middle of it, strictly speaking - but unless we see him detouring through Norfolk and Suffolk there isn't a completely satisfactory answer to who and where the hostes might have been.
I think we may have to allow for a little rhetorical exaggeration here.
(09-05-2022, 09:04 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Is the general opinion that ALL the Catuvellauni were pro Roman? I have to say I am going to take some convincing.
I very much doubt whether Verulamium would have been made a municipium if the tribal leaders were not perceived to have been, at least to some extent, Romanised. That is not to say that there were not some die-hards who hankered after the old days and who, if the sacking of Verulamium meant that the leaders were also overthrown, might have joined Boudica's cause. However, that would be at a later stage of the rebellion, after Suetonius had moved away from the town.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-06-2022
(09-05-2022, 09:47 PM)Renatus Wrote:One of the big questions has to be, Why didn't the residents of London and/or St Albans simply leave without military support if the area was pro Roman and safe? For London simply escape south or west, and St Albans head west.(Unless they are both attacked and surrounded at the same time which seems not to be the case)(09-05-2022, 07:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Although even then Suetonius is passing through the margins of the enemy district rather than the middle of it, strictly speaking - but unless we see him detouring through Norfolk and Suffolk there isn't a completely satisfactory answer to who and where the hostes might have been.
I think we may have to allow for a little rhetorical exaggeration here.
(09-05-2022, 09:04 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Is the general opinion that ALL the Catuvellauni were pro Roman? I have to say I am going to take some convincing.
I very much doubt whether Verulamium would have been made a municipium if the tribal leaders were not perceived to have been, at least to some extent, Romanised. That is not to say that there were not some die-hards who hankered after the old days and who, if the sacking of Verulamium meant that the leaders were also overthrown, might have joined Boudica's cause. However, that would be at a later stage of the rebellion, after Suetonius had moved away from the town.
I think there were winners and losers in the new Catuvellauni/Roman society, and suddenly the situation changed for everyone, no longer could people travel safely, fearing attack.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 07:58 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: Why didn't the residents of London and/or St Albans simply leave without military support if the area was pro Roman and safe?
I'm sure a lot of them probably did! But many of the Roman inhabitants were merchants who had stock in warehouses, besides other property in the town, and would not have wanted to risk abandoning it, especially if they thought a Roman relief column was on its way. Such people were probably mightily pissed off when Suetonius decided to 'save the province at the cost of a single town'!
There may have been problems with the Catavellauni - possibly a pro-Trinovantes faction, bearing in mind their recent history. But there could have been similar problems with any other British tribe, so one direction out of London was not inherently safer than another (aside from northeast, or down the Thames to Gaul, obviously...)
But the fact that there were large numbers of people in London who had not already fled by the time Suetonius turned up does support the idea that the rebels were not exactly beating down the doors at this point, and that the Romans probably arrived there considerably ahead of Boudica's advance.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 10:44 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-06-2022, 07:58 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: Why didn't the residents of London and/or St Albans simply leave without military support if the area was pro Roman and safe?
I'm sure a lot of them probably did! But many of the Roman inhabitants were merchants who had stock in warehouses, besides other property in the town, and would not have wanted to risk abandoning it, especially if they thought a Roman relief column was on its way. Such people were probably mightily pissed off when Suetonius decided to 'save the province at the cost of a single town'!
There may have been problems with the Catavellauni - possibly a pro-Trinovantes faction, bearing in mind their recent history. But there could have been similar problems with any other British tribe, so one direction out of London was not inherently safer than another (aside from northeast, or down the Thames to Gaul, obviously...)
But the fact that there were large numbers of people in London who had not already fled by the time Suetonius turned up does support the idea that the rebels were not exactly beating down the doors at this point, and that the Romans probably arrived there considerably ahead of Boudica's advance.
I agree with everything you have said, but I needed to make clear the Catuvellauni were not just onlookers. The fact the ditches\defences of the Wootton Hill enclosures were strengthened 50AD(against them), the previous royal marriage with the Trinovantes as well as giving them their kingdom back!,and being the leaders of the Britons against Julius Caesar, then of course Caratacus ! a thorn in their side.
The Catuvellauni would have positioned themselves to take power as soon as the opportunity arose.
The point "there could have been similar problems with any other tribe" may be true (if it's to escape south from London) but St Albans and London were IN Catuvellauni territory so the situations with other tribes seems irrelevant.
I have mentioned the Lunt fort, south of Coventry, and although it is easy to dispel it along with Mancetter, I don't think we should. It seems history has changed and it is no longer "where captured horses were retrained". Could it be a supply point for SP or the centre of command set up after the battle.(beyond the Catuvellauni).
Do you see my problem ? I have wealthy Traders\Potters from St Albans moving up Watling Street to set up in High Cross and Mancetter(before the battle?) as well as a possible command centre set up after the battle. I understand a lot of the pottery was used by the military, so it makes sense that they would move with(follow) them, but if the battle was much further south or west then surely the military base(Lunt fort) would be there too.
The thread can move quite fast.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 07:58 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: Why didn't the residents of London and/or St Albans simply leave without military support if the area was pro Roman and safe?
To add to Nathan's post, all we are told in the sources is that some could not or would not leave London, while some put themselves under military protection. It is likely that others had left but, I suspect, only those who had somewhere to go. Many may simply not have travelled far outside London and did not know what was out there. News would only have passed by word-of-mouth, so all that many would have known was that there was a threat approaching but not how widespread it might have been. The horror stories may have been circulating, so again many would not have wanted to venture into the unknown. These are the people most likely to have put themselves under Suetonius' protection.
So far as Verulamium is concerned, we are told nothing of what the inhabitants may have done. Again, some may have sought to put themselves under Suetonius' protection, if he would have them. However, their situation was somewhat different from that of those from London. They were part of a large tribe and may have made contacts through tribal assemblies. Moreover, as the tribal area extended far beyond the confines of the town, they may have felt confident that, wherever they went in that area, they could expect a sympathetic reception.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 12:13 PM)Renatus Wrote:(09-06-2022, 07:58 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: Why didn't the residents of London and/or St Albans simply leave without military support if the area was pro Roman and safe?
To add to Nathan's post, all we are told in the sources is that some could not or would not leave London, while some put themselves under military protection. It is likely that others had left but, I suspect, only those who had somewhere to go. Many may simply not have travelled far outside London and did not know what was out there. News would only have passed by word-of-mouth, so all that many would have known was that there was a threat approaching but not how widespread it might have been. The horror stories may have been circulating, so again many would not have wanted to venture into the unknown. These are the people most likely to have put themselves under Suetonius' protection.
So far as Verulamium is concerned, we are told nothing of what the inhabitants may have done. Again, some may have sought to put themselves under Suetonius' protection, if he would have them. However, their situation was somewhat different from that of those from London. They were part of a large tribe and may have made contacts through tribal assemblies. Moreover, as the tribal area extended far beyond the confines of the town, they may have felt confident that, wherever they went in that area, they could expect a sympathetic reception.
............Verulamium suffered the same fate.
Later we are given a figure of I think 70,000 dead, from the 3 towns which seems high but if Verulamium is not included then this figure looks fictitious at best.
Tacitus then tells us SP met up with his reinforcements. This is written AFTER the destruction of Verulamium and Londinium, so now he has all of his troops and chooses to attack without further delay.
To avoid explaining my interpretation of "Defile" and where I think it is, I will leave this here.
Hopefully I have provided a couple of things to consider. My search for the Battlefield includes Iron age tribes, ancient trackways, Roman Potters and their movements and studying archaeology reports. I have overlaid the results with the writings of Tacitus(I admit I ignored Dio as pointless) to reach my opinion and unless something important and new comes to light, like 30,000 cremated bodies, then I am of the opinion the battlefield is a couple of days march North from St Albans.
One last thought (for now), To escape from Londinium by boat would risk sailing past the Trinovantes further down
river, How long that would be a safe option for, I wouldn't like to guess.
As John Pegg says, it will be a shame when the battlefield is finally discovered as this Post will ultimately end, but that will mean the search has been a success.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Theoderic - 09-06-2022
Owein Walker wrote:
Is the general opinion that ALL the Catuvellauni were pro Roman? I have to say I am going to take some convincing.
It is possibly worth reflecting that when Aulus Plautius led the troops on the original invasion, Claudius had used the excuse that the Catuvellauni had usurped the kings of the Atrebates (Verica) and the Cantiaci (Adminius) and Claudius used this as a reason to invade.
Consequently client kings and were queens were installed for the Atrebates and Cantiaci, the Iceni and the Brigantes (there may have been more) at Chelmsford after the victory but the territory of the Trinovantes and Catuvellauni were garrisoned and occupied by the Romans after the defeat and death of Togodumnus and the exile of Caractacus.
After a relative short time in AD50 Verulamium was made a Municipium – effectively a Roman city around the same time Camulodunun was founded as a Roman city.
I agree with Owein that many of the Catuvellauni would not be pro Roman at all as many would have lost their lands and subsequent wealth to Roman settlers.
When the client king of the Iceni died, Rome again garrisoned the area and took their land for their own.
This war was about a people trying to take back the land that had (in their eyes) been stolen from them by the invaders – to the victors the spoils.
The land grab by the Romans on the Iceni just acted as a cohesive factor in bringing the tribes together in a concerted manner to take back what had previously been theirs.
So Seutonius did indeed march through a hostile land.
Renatus wrote:
I believe that, knowing that he was attacking an island of major religious significance and expecting substantial opposition, as well as being a cautious general, he invaded North Wales in force, taking the 2nd, 14th and 20th Legions with the intention of countering opposition by sheer intimidation. The veterans of those legions, those of 16 years' service who were not expected to fight unless themselves threatened, remained guarding their legionary fortresses, under the command of their respective praefecti castrorum.
My feeling is that 14th and half of the 2nd Legion (with their commanders) were with Seutonius on campaign, that as stated the veterans were guarding their legionary fortresses and half the 2nd (Cornwall ad Devon), half the 9th (Brigantian) and all of the 20th (Wales) were on garrison duties. The veterans of the 20th joined up with Seutonius but the 2nd failed to and the 9th were in no fit state to do so.
Renatus wrote:
I very much doubt whether Verulamium would have been made a municipium if the tribal leaders were not perceived to have been, at least to some extent, Romanised.
I would agree but I think that these were the leaders filling the gap of the defeated Royal Family and working and profiting with Rome to show that in both the Tribal Capitals, Rome had truly defeated the Catuvellauni as Caractacus was handed over to Rome by the queen of the Brigantes in AD50 after losing the battle at Caer Caradoc.
So Verulamium was Romanised but that does not necessarily apply to the whole of the territory or peoples of the Catuvellauni.
It was important however in Roman eyes as another Roman city that was lost and the people under Rome's protection unsafe.
Nathan wrote:
Alternatively, I could see him resting his troops at St Albans after a direct march south, perhaps, and pushing on the last 21 miles to London with a light vanguard - perhaps to meet with Decianus Catus, if he didn't know he'd already fled, or to assess the possibilities of fighting a battle there once his full column arrived.
This does seem the obvious route for Seutonius and would make sense to protect the only official Roman city left by bringing down a Legion to protect the city also Verulamium is of strategic worth being to the west of Colchester and the main enemy as well as being linked by road to the Northern(Watling Street) and Western (Akeman Street) garrisons where most of his forces were based.
I cannot accept that Seutonius, having been appraised of the uprising would not also have been appraised of the loss of the 9th Legion until he got to Godmanchester and in fact much earlier whilst he was on the road possibly at Wroxeter on his way south, therefore Watling Street and Verulamium would have been the more obvious choice
Dadlamassau wrote:
Suetonius rides out with a proportion of the cavalry and possibly some light infantry maybe a maximum of 1,000 to 1,500 men in total. He does not take all his cavalry as that would blind his main body advancing into possibly hostile territory. He sends out his reconnaissance troops (exploratores) in small parties backed by a few turmae of cavalry. It is likely that the first indications of enemy activity will be some distance away and heralded by refugees and/or the smoke of burning properties.
I think this is possibly what happened when Seutonius left his main force at Verulamium after marching down Watling Street and went to see Catus in London and his subsequent reconnoitre of the area around London.
Nathan wrote:
Suetonius would have guessed that the rebels would go to London as it was the procurator's headquarters, and held large stores of grain. But it was also the main entry port for the Gallic trade, and presumably ships came right up the river to unload at the wharfs - like the Blackfriars I ship, of a later date. Catus Decianus, then, fleeing London for Gaul, would not need to head for a Channel port, but could just step directly aboard the next ship going downriver.
I am not convinced that it was the intention of the rebels to go to London for the grain. I maintain that their first priority would be to take back their farms, their estates and their lands. Also they would have known (like Cerialis) that Seutonius would attack, a typical Roman response so they needed to know where he was heading so they could ambush him. If they just went on the rampage spread all over the land as is often envisaged they would not have been able to organise into a credible fighting force.
IMHO they only advanced on London when they knew Seutonius was there, erroneously thinking that he would be easy pickings but by the time they had mobilised he had gone to Verulamium and in their frustration and not to waste the opportunity treated it the same as they had Colchester/
Nathan wrote:
However, it looks like he (Seutonius) did not destroy the bridge at all, considering the evidence for destruction in Southwark dated to the revolt.
I am not sure about the interpretation of events here. I think that to prevent any stores falling into the hands of the rebels Seutonius did indeed burn the warehouses by the bridge and then then the bridge itself to stop the rebels getting supplies and to protect the inhabitants who had fled south
He took what food he could carry and went to join his forces in Verulamium to decide where, when and how to destroy the rebel forces.
Owein Walker wrote:
But the fact that there were large numbers of people in London who had not already fled by the time Suetonius turned up does support the idea that the rebels were not exactly beating down the doors at this point, and that the Romans probably arrived there considerably ahead of Boudica's advance.
Firstly I am not convinced that there were a large number of people left and the figures of 80,000 people does not match the size of Roman towns of that time in Britain after all there were only half of that many troops in the whole island and Verulamium was not destroyed and London although a thriving trading post was still a town of wood and huts.
Perhaps there is a little poetic licence here although no doubt atrocities happened as was the case with armies at this time and indeed some since.
I expect it was typical of current day evacuations. Those who could afford to (like Catus) left by ship as soon as the news of Colchester being burnt arrived. Some others would have left over the bridge or gone west. Others would have decided to protect their property hoping that Seutonius would stay not aware the sheer size of the threat and some would only go with an armed escort and sadly some were left behind if they could not keep up.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Later we are given a figure of I think 70,000 dead, from the 3 towns which seems high but if Verulamium is not included then this figure looks fictitious at best.
Tacitus says that the 70,000 dead were citizens and allies in the places mentioned, i.e., Colchester, London and Verulamium, so there is no reason to conclude that Verulamium may have been excluded. Although he confines these casualties to the three towns, I would not be surprised if the figure includes anyone else who got in the way of the rebels.
(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Tacitus then tells us SP met up with his reinforcements. This is written AFTER the destruction of Verulamium and Londinium, so now he has all of his troops and chooses to attack without further delay.
Tacitus does not say that Suetonius met up with his reinforcements. He says that he has almost 10,000 men, made up of the 14th Legion, the veterans of the 20th and the nearest auxiliaries. This, no doubt, represents some reinforcement of the troops that he took to London but is by no means 'all his troops'. He is missing the 2nd Legion, the remainder of the 20th and what is left of the 9th, not to mention however many other auxiliaries that might have been available. All these (with the possible exception of the 9th) were, on my analysis, on their way to him but could not arrive in time. As I have said before, Tacitus makes a virtue of necessity in saying that Suetonius decided to put an end to delay and give battle. He was forced into it by the numbers and proximity of the enemy and shortness of rations. This is from Dio but is nevertheless highly plausible. I don't know why you emphasise 'AFTER the destruction of Verulamium and Londinium'. I don't think anyone is saying any different.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: 70,000 dead... this figure looks fictitious at best.
Yes, in this case we can be pretty sure that Tacitus is talking out of his hat!
The population of London in AD60 was about 10,000 (Museum of London estimate); Colchester was about 15,000, St Albans about 5,000. There were probably fewer than 50,000 Roman civilian citizens in the whole province, most of them nowhere near the rebellion.
(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: To escape from Londinium by boat would risk sailing past the Trinovantes further down river, How long that would be a safe option for, I wouldn't like to guess.
Even today the Thames at London Bridge is about 230 metres across. Further downstream it widens to around 600 metres at Gravesend. In Roman times it would probably have been wider.
The maximum range of an English bow in the 12th Century was c.137 metres, and it's unlikely the native Britons of the 1st Century had anything more powerful. All a boat or ship would need to do is keep to the southern or Kent shore and they'd be well out of range of anything the natives of Essex could lob at them!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-06-2022
(09-06-2022, 08:56 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: 70,000 dead... this figure looks fictitious at best.
Yes, in this case we can be pretty sure that Tacitus is talking out of his hat!
The population of London in AD60 was about 10,000 (Museum of London estimate); Colchester was about 15,000, St Albans about 5,000. There were probably fewer than 50,000 Roman civilian citizens in the whole province, most of them nowhere near the rebellion.
(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: To escape from Londinium by boat would risk sailing past the Trinovantes further down river, How long that would be a safe option for, I wouldn't like to guess.
Even today the Thames at London Bridge is about 230 metres across. Further downstream it widens to around 600 metres at Gravesend. In Roman times it would probably have been wider.
The maximum range of an English bow in the 12th Century was c.137 metres, and it's unlikely the native Britons of the 1st Century had anything more powerful. All a boat or ship would need to do is keep to the southern or Kent shore and they'd be well out of range of anything the natives of Essex could lob at them!
I don't think a bow will stop a boat if thats what you are thinking. I suggest the Trinovantes and Iceni would be able to sail a boat or two, or even convince someone to assist ,with the aid of a knife and some hostages.
It doesn't affect the battle site so I am satisfied with bow and arrow if it helps.
I am aware of the MOLA population estimate which is far more realistic, thank you.
(09-06-2022, 06:00 PM)Renatus Wrote:(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Later we are given a figure of I think 70,000 dead, from the 3 towns which seems high but if Verulamium is not included then this figure looks fictitious at best.
Tacitus says that the 70,000 dead were citizens and allies in the places mentioned, i.e., Colchester, London and Verulamium, so there is no reason to conclude that Verulamium may have been excluded. Although he confines these casualties to the three towns, I would not be surprised if the figure includes anyone else who got in the way of the rebels.
(09-06-2022, 04:11 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Tacitus then tells us SP met up with his reinforcements. This is written AFTER the destruction of Verulamium and Londinium, so now he has all of his troops and chooses to attack without further delay.
Tacitus does not say that Suetonius met up with his reinforcements. He says that he has almost 10,000 men, made up of the 14th Legion, the veterans of the 20th and the nearest auxiliaries. This, no doubt, represents some reinforcement of the troops that he took to London but is by no means 'all his troops'. He is missing the 2nd Legion, the remainder of the 20th and what is left of the 9th, not to mention however many other auxiliaries that might have been available. All these (with the possible exception of the 9th) were, on my analysis, on their way to him but could not arrive in time. As I have said before, Tacitus makes a virtue of necessity in saying that Suetonius decided to put an end to delay and give battle. He was forced into it by the numbers and proximity of the enemy and shortness of rations. This is from Dio but is nevertheless highly plausible. I don't know why you emphasise 'AFTER the destruction of Verulamium and Londinium'. I don't think anyone is saying any different.
My bad,sorry.I should have written "Tacitus tells us SP met up with his AVAILABLE reinforcements".
The addition of 'AFTER',is purely to emphasise the order of things and that he was not being pursued down Watling Street ,across the river and west to somewhere else!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-10-2022
How to interpret the movement of Armies ... points or areas?
Ukraine
I have been following the events in Ukraine, where we can now access daily maps of what each side says their position is. And, I start thinking about the "topology" of this front line. Because it is a line. And, even better for anyone understanding war, we can see videos from this line and see what it is really like.
This front line is not decided by the normal process of government: big committees stuffed with expensive civil servants and politicians endless debating where it ought to be, instead the front line is a construct of those individual soldiers behind the line, and really represents "the area which we control ... where our troops can reasonably confidently move and operate.
This is a very interesting construct, because in most places there is no actual physical "line", instead it is something that those soldiers on the ground recognise as "our" space. And, looking at the way these lines move over time, the one thing that is clear, is that any area that become "cut off" from "our space" is in big trouble. And by "cut off", what is meant is that they are no longer in contact with their own space through area held by them.
How Roman armies are viewed by historians
I want to contrast that view of real armies in the field, where they control an "area", which is "theirs", with the way historians write about history, which is not necessarily incorrect, but is clearly a different perspective.
So, when Agricola heads toward the Caledonians, it is seen as a single army, existing at some "point" on the map, which moves as a single point .... in the manner of a "join the dots" campaign between encampments.
The result, is that historians of Roman armies, hardly ever talk about the physical space being controlled by the army, except in terms of "the conquest of Gaul", which is assumed to have gone from the concept of a few dots moving around the map, suddenly to the total conquest of a mass area.
A realistic view of Roman Armies
So, I want to propose a realistic view of Roman armies. The main purpose of an army, is not to fight battles, but to control an area. As such the main occupation of an army, is not fighting battles, but instead to harass an area of enemy land until resistance stops and they are in control of that area. That "harassment" might simply be the threat of battle, it may be literally "rape and pillage" or taking captives. Or it might be a series of small engagements flattening all settlements that resist.
So, when a Roman army advances to the next encampment. This is not just an overnight stay. Instead, it is a new base from which to harass the enemy, subdue the local population and take control over the next chunk of land. That new chunk of land, is likely to have been 15-30miles around the camp. That area would take perhaps 1-2weeks to subdue, because there are only so many small settlements that can be raised in a day and ... slowly executing all who resist ... does take time, and you need the news to sink in to those thinking of resisting.
But, basically, a Roman army advancing, is one that was constantly sending out patrols, not just around the area that it was taking control of, but throughout the whole area which it had taken control of, in order to maintain control. That is how the supplies lines were kept safe, by constantly patrolling and harassing the enemy in the controlled areas, so as to maintain a contiguous area of control from the army back to the "home areas" where it is certain of resupply.
The problem with Suetonius
Suetonius was no different from any army: he didn't want to be cut off ... which is to say, he wanted to have control of a contiguous area of control through which Romans had no problems travelling, right the way back to Rome.
What we know of the battle is that the Britons either held or threatened (meaning the Romans did not have control) of London, St.Albans, the area of the Ninth Legion and by the failure of other legions to come to Suetonius' aid, it is clear numerous other parts of Britain were either not under their control ... or were close to being lost.
All we are actually told, is that Catus felt Gaul was safe. So, any analysis of the position of Suetonius, starts with Suetonius in London, and needs to explain how he was going to have a contiguous area of Roman control from Gaul, to whatever position Suetonius picks as his "seat of war".
I've said Suetonius went south of the Thames, because the Thames immediately creates an area of Roman control that extends from the South to Gaul ... job done.
Others wish to have Suetonius move north. So, the question I have to them is this: where is the area of Roman control that secures their supply lines from Gaul? Unless you can answer that simple question, then no proposal is adequate.
Rivers Matter
And just to rub in the importance of rivers, I've been looking at the front line in Ukraine, and it is immediately obvious that even today, Rivers are very important. They still create effective barriers which armies use to help them control an an area and stop enemy incursion. The idea that a river like the Thames or Dnieper would be totally overlooked by a competent general, whether Roman or modern, is is beyond absurd.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-10-2022
(09-10-2022, 01:28 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: How to interpret the movement of Armies ... points or areas?I will give you my answer, but first ask yourself, Why would the residents of London Need to be fit and strong to keep up with SP if they were only going to cross the River Thames, to safety? And if not to safety, then the River is no longer the barrier you suggest. I cannot understand why their health would matter unless they had to travel a considerable distance at some speed. Please also note SP and the civilians met up with his available reinforcements after London and after St Albans were lost, which puts him at least 30 miles away.
Ukraine
I have been following the events in Ukraine, where we can now access daily maps of what each side says their position is. And, I start thinking about the "topology" of this front line. Because it is a line. And, even better for anyone understanding war, we can see videos from this line and see what it is really like.
This front line is not decided by the normal process of government: big committees stuffed with expensive civil servants and politicians endless debating where it ought to be, instead the front line is a construct of those individual soldiers behind the line, and really represents "the area which we control ... where our troops can reasonably confidently move and operate.
This is a very interesting construct, because in most places there is no actual physical "line", instead it is something that those soldiers on the ground recognise as "our" space. And, looking at the way these lines move over time, the one thing that is clear, is that any area that become "cut off" from "our space" is in big trouble. And by "cut off", what is meant is that they are no longer in contact with their own space through area held by them.
How Roman armies are viewed by historians
I want to contrast that view of real armies in the field, where they control an "area", which is "theirs", with the way historians write about history, which is not necessarily incorrect, but is clearly a different perspective.
So, when Agricola heads toward the Caledonians, it is seen as a single army, existing at some "point" on the map, which moves as a single point .... in the manner of a "join the dots" campaign between encampments.
The result, is that historians of Roman armies, hardly ever talk about the physical space being controlled by the army, except in terms of "the conquest of Gaul", which is assumed to have gone from the concept of a few dots moving around the map, suddenly to the total conquest of a mass area.
A realistic view of Roman Armies
So, I want to propose a realistic view of Roman armies. The main purpose of an army, is not to fight battles, but to control an area. As such the main occupation of an army, is not fighting battles, but instead to harass an area of enemy land until resistance stops and they are in control of that area. That "harassment" might simply be the threat of battle, it may be literally "rape and pillage" or taking captives. Or it might be a series of small engagements flattening all settlements that resist.
So, when a Roman army advances to the next encampment. This is not just an overnight stay. Instead, it is a new base from which to harass the enemy, subdue the local population and take control over the next chunk of land. That new chunk of land, is likely to have been 15-30miles around the camp. That area would take perhaps 1-2weeks to subdue, because there are only so many small settlements that can be raised in a day and ... slowly executing all who resist ... does take time, and you need the news to sink in to those thinking of resisting.
But, basically, a Roman army advancing, is one that was constantly sending out patrols, not just around the area that it was taking control of, but throughout the whole area which it had taken control of, in order to maintain control. That is how the supplies lines were kept safe, by constantly patrolling and harassing the enemy in the controlled areas, so as to maintain a contiguous area of control from the army back to the "home areas" where it is certain of resupply.
The problem with Suetonius
Suetonius was no different from any army: he didn't want to be cut off ... which is to say, he wanted to have control of a contiguous area of control through which Romans had no problems travelling, right the way back to Rome.
What we know of the battle is that the Britons either held or threatened (meaning the Romans did not have control) of London, St.Albans, the area of the Ninth Legion and by the failure of other legions to come to Suetonius' aid, it is clear numerous other parts of Britain were either not under their control ... or were close to being lost.
All we are actually told, is that Catus felt Gaul was safe. So, any analysis of the position of Suetonius, starts with Suetonius in London, and needs to explain how he was going to have a contiguous area of Roman control from Gaul, to whatever position Suetonius picks as his "seat of war".
I've said Suetonius went south of the Thames, because the Thames immediately creates an area of Roman control that extends from the South to Gaul ... job done.
Others wish to have Suetonius move north. So, the question I have to them is this: where is the area of Roman control that secures their supply lines from Gaul? Unless you can answer that simple question, then no proposal is adequate.
Rivers Matter
And just to rub in the importance of rivers, I've been looking at the front line in Ukraine, and it is immediately obvious that even today, Rivers are very important. They still create effective barriers which armies use to help them control an an area and stop enemy incursion. The idea that a river like the Thames or Dnieper would be totally overlooked by a competent general, whether Roman or modern, is is beyond absurd.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-10-2022
(09-10-2022, 07:59 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: I will give you my answer, but first ask yourself, Why would the residents of London Need to be fit and strong to keep up with SP if they were only going to cross the River Thames, to safety? And if not to safety, then the River is no longer the barrier you suggest. I cannot understand why their health would matter unless they had to travel a considerable distance at some speed. Please also note SP and the civilians met up with his available reinforcements after London and after St Albans were lost, which puts him at least 30 miles away.
Good question, and much appreciated (not a lot to read online just now). The section you refer to is this:
Quote:Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off by the enemy
The phrase "cut off", means that they were left with no escape, which is something that only happens if they are totally surrounded, or if there is a barrier like the Thames where the few crossings are blocked.
The previous sentence refers to people ... presumably in London:
Quote:Nor did the tears and weeping of the people, as they implored his aid, deter him from giving the signal of departure and receiving into his army all who would go with him.
So, it might at first be presumed that the people "cut off" were in London. However, I would suggest that rather than being in London when they started, they started in settlements north of the Thames and were cut off when London was taken by Boudica. What is likely to have happened, is that they were making their way toward London bridge, and then discovered that London was taken or worse, Suetonius when fleeing had destroyed the bridge.
Unable to reach the crossings in time because of their "weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age", they were then unable to cross the Thames, and totally cut off from the Romans on the other side.
They presumably went up the Thames trying to find somewhere else to cross. It's not that great a distance across the Thames, so, we can assume that they could call across. Indeed, if they had servants, they would have swum across the Thames to attempt to plead for help.
Presumably, those in good health, could, have moved quickly along the north bank ahead of Boudica to find a ford. Today the Thames is tidal to Teddington. In the Roman period it was probably tidal to around Richmond. There is suggestions there was a ford at Hampton court, but that may been lower downstream in the Roman period. But let's say there was one at Richmond, which is about 12miles from London.
We can imagine Boudica's hoard, having reached London and finding their way blocked, then decided to take revenge on all the Romans they could. As such they spread out overtaking the slowest of those attempting to flee along the north of the Thames, and presumably they were then slaughtered in view of the Romans, who could do nothing. That kind of thing would be reported.
How do you explain "cut off"
In fact, the problem with this passage is those who claim that Suetonius went North. Because how then does Boudica "cut off" those in London who, as you point out, can simply walk across London Bridge? And, it is not possible to "surround them" in London, because the Thames prevents them flanking London and coming from the south. The only way to be cut off in London, is if the crossings of the Thames had been destroyed by Suetonius, which means that Suetonius must be south of the Thames. If you suggest Suetonius went to St.Albans, then all he is doing by destroying the Thames crossings is to cut himself off from his own supplies which come via the SE from Gaul.
Quote:Please also note SP and the civilians met up with his available reinforcements after London and after St Albans were lost, which puts him at least 30 miles away.What "Like ruin fell on the town of Verulamium" means, is that Suetonius never even attempted to help Verulamium. it likewise was "cut off" and surrounded by Boudica.
if Suetonius' army was split, then it met up to the south of the Thames.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-11-2022
(09-10-2022, 09:09 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote:Quote:Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off by the enemy
The phrase "cut off", means that they were left with no escape, which is something that only happens if they are totally surrounded, or if there is a barrier like the Thames where the few crossings are blocked.
As I have explained, 'cut off' is a mistranslation.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-11-2022
(09-11-2022, 06:56 AM)Renatus Wrote:(09-10-2022, 09:09 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote:Quote:Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off by the enemy
The phrase "cut off", means that they were left with no escape, which is something that only happens if they are totally surrounded, or if there is a barrier like the Thames where the few crossings are blocked.
As I have explained, 'cut off' is a mistranslation.
But the fact Tacitus is talking about London and then talks about those "overwhelmed" or "Raped" is not. The narrative is referring to London and does not move away. Which means they were cut off from crossing the Thames. That is the only reasonable way to interpret it.