+- 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. - Nathan Ross - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 04:49 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Are you saying SP had his troops do nothing other than sit about resting and waiting on open ground for several days and nights
Of course not. He would keep his army in their marching camp until the enemy were approaching and he could determine their numbers and direction. Then and only then would he take up the position he had selected - not in 'open ground' but in a confined area where he could not be easily outflanked, and with woods at the rear (not on all sides) to prevent surprise attacks.
We don't, in any case, know how long Suetonius had to wait until the Britons turned up. It may have been only hours. It seems nobody pays any attention to Cassius Dio any more, but he says that Suetonius 'grew short of food and the barbarians pressed relentlessly upon him [so] he was compelled, contrary to his judgment, to engage them.'
None of this suggests that he fortified himself in a redoubt and waited there for ages for the enemy to come and attack him. Roman armies of this period did not fight from behind fortifications unless they had already been defeated in the field and been forced to retreat there.
When Suetonius Paulinus did have time to 'prepare' the battlefield, at Ad Castores in AD69, he did not build fortifications either: "He ordered the trenches to be filled up, the plain to be cleared, and the line to be extended, holding that it would be time enough to begin his victory when he had provided against being vanquished." (Histories, 2.20)
(09-17-2022, 04:49 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Her speech prior to the battle
Obviously nobody at the time was taking notes, so we can safely assume that Boudica's pre-battle speech was Tacitus's invention.
I don't think anything in it tells us about the ground though: "a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows." (Church and Brodribb translation).
The 'legion' was the Ninth under Cerialis. 'The rest' could either be the rest of the Roman army as a whole, which Boudica assumes to be 'hiding', or just Suetonius's men still in camp and not yet marched out into the 'defile'. She suggests they are scared and want to run away, and won't stand and fight ('sustain' etc).
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 06:44 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-17-2022, 04:49 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Are you saying SP had his troops do nothing other than sit about resting and waiting on open ground for several days and nights
Of course not. He would keep his army in their marching camp until the enemy were approaching and he could determine their numbers and direction. Then and only then would he take up the position he had selected - not in 'open ground' but in a confined area where he could not be easily outflanked, and with woods at the rear (not on all sides) to prevent surprise attacks.
We don't, in any case, know how long Suetonius had to wait until the Britons turned up. It may have been only hours. It seems nobody pays any attention to Cassius Dio any more, but he says that Suetonius 'grew short of food and the barbarians pressed relentlessly upon him [so] he was compelled, contrary to his judgment, to engage them.'
None of this suggests that he fortified himself in a redoubt and waited there for ages for the enemy to come and attack him. Roman armies of this period did not fight from behind fortifications unless they had already been defeated in the field and been forced to retreat there.
When Suetonius Paulinus did have time to 'prepare' the battlefield, at Ad Castores in AD69, he did not build fortifications either: "He ordered the trenches to be filled up, the plain to be cleared, and the line to be extended, holding that it would be time enough to begin his victory when he had provided against being vanquished." (Histories, 2.20)
(09-17-2022, 04:49 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Her speech prior to the battle
Obviously nobody at the time was taking notes, so we can safely assume that Boudica's pre-battle speech was Tacitus's invention.
I don't think anything in it tells us about the ground though: "a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows." (Church and Brodribb translation).
The 'legion' was the Ninth under Cerialis. 'The rest' could either be the rest of the Roman army as a whole, which Boudica assumes to be 'hiding', or just Suetonius's men still in camp and not yet marched out into the 'defile'. She suggests they are scared and want to run away, and won't stand and fight ('sustain' etc).
Concerning the camp and the protection of the civilians, to maintain their safety the camp would need be situated behind the battle lines, or SP would have to divide his army to defend them at the camp, and I don't see him weakening his army to do that.
(I am smiling saying this). Do you agree ?
I have to say, SP really has his back to the wall at this point !
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 12:21 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-16-2022, 05:45 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: What about Suetonius preparing defences around his position?
Nothing in our sources mentions it. He was choosing a battlefield, not building a fortress.
His idea, as I see it, was to get the Britons to attack him on a restricted frontage. They would have been a lot less likely to do this if he was in a securely fortified position - they could have just surrounded him and waited...
That's rubbish. We are explicitly told he is looking for a seat for war, that he was PREPARING to give up DELAY and that he was NOT BEING RASH like Cerialis. So, he was not looking for a battlefield, he was looking for a seat for war.
Everything talks of delay in order to prepare, not rushing into battle (the Galloping Horseman Scenario!).
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 08:01 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: to maintain their safety the camp would need be situated behind the battle lines, or SP would have to divide his army to defend them at the camp
Of course, yes.
I made some points about camps back here.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 08:01 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: Concerning the camp and the protection of the civilians, to maintain their safety the camp would need be situated behind the battle lines, or SP would have to divide his army to defend them at the camp, and I don't see him weakening his army to do that.
(I am smiling saying this). Do you agree ?
I have to say, SP really has his back to the wall at this point !
That is why Suetonius crossed the Thames along with all the civilians. The Thames creates a natural barrier which is far better than a camp.
Anyone saying Suetonius headed north is talking nonsense for exactly the reason you say.
London was a settlement of no strategic value, except that it had a bridge. Indeed, it doesn't seem to have existed in any meaningful sense before the bridge. So, there is no point for Suetonius to head for London, except to secure the bridge and via it the Thames against Boudica.
The "Galloping Horseman" is a fiction ... which led to the idea that Suetonius goes directly to battle and so is the idea he heads north. It is time to totally ditch the Galloping Horseman along with the idea that Suetonius heads north and immediately goes to battle. Because the only strategic value in going to London ... was the bridge.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-17-2022
(09-17-2022, 08:19 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: That's rubbish. We are explicitly told he is looking for a seat for war, that he was PREPARING to give up DELAY and that he was NOT BEING RASH like Cerialis. So, he was not looking for a battlefield, he was looking for a seat for war.
Let's unpick this:
We are explicitly told he is looking for a seat for war - We are not. We are told only that Suetonius considered making London a 'seat for war' (We'll come back to what that means in a moment.) but decided against it because he had too few troops.
he was PREPARING - There is no magic in the word 'preparing'. Paro with the infinitive (as here) does mean 'prepare' but in the sense of 'determine' or 'decide'. The translators could just as well have said that he 'decided' to break off delay and fight a battle, which is what Michael Grant does in the Penguin edition. It does not imply lengthy preparations.
to give up DELAY - Suetonius was indeed delaying engaging with the rebels but only, I suggest, until he had gathered sufficient reinforcements to give him confidence of victory. In the event, he had augmented his force to some extent but the bulk of his reinforcements, the legions in North Wales, did not arrive in time and he decided to give battle with what he had. As I have said before, Tacitus makes a virtue of necessity but Dio makes it clear that his hand was forced and the decision was made against his better judgment.
he was NOT BEING RASH like Cerialis - Tacitus' comment about rashness is made in the context of the situation in London and the decision to abandon the town. Cerialis had tried to engage the enemy with too few troops and Suetonius was not going to make the same mistake, hence the need for reinforcements. In fact, despite Tacitus' criticism of him, Cerialis' actions did his career no harm. He served with distinction in the civil war in AD69 and became the governor of Britain. The reason is that, faced with a rebellion, he did exactly what was expected of him and tried to snuff it out. That he failed was no disgrace.
he was not looking for a battlefield, he was looking for a seat for war - As we have noted before, 'sedes bello' is an ambiguous expression which can mean a centre of operations or a place to fight. I have suggested that it could also perhaps be stretched to include a rallying point for troops. However, in the event, looking for a battlefield was exactly what Suetonius did. He did not have the strength to engage the enemy in the open field and had to find a site that favoured his much inferior force. Nathan's comment was made specifically in relation to that choice and was most certainly not 'rubbish'.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-18-2022
(09-17-2022, 08:37 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-17-2022, 08:01 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: to maintain their safety the camp would need be situated behind the battle lines, or SP would have to divide his army to defend them at the camp
Of course, yes.
I made some points about camps back here.
Thank you, Nathan.
We at least share similar views about terrain and field layout, now its 'only' the direction taken from near St Albans and where SP would choose to meet his reinforcements (those immediately available) that is open to question.
You know I am saying SP returned backup Watling Street as a safe place to rendezvous with any auxiliaries or troops that might have been available, also he saw using the Fosse Way as a safe option after the XX Legion from Exeter failed to materialize.
My problem is trying to justify why he would put at risk small groups of reinforcements and expect them to travel independently through unknown, hostile territory, when he could have got them all to muster safely at one place, say Alcester or The Lunt fort or even Mancetter, where they could wait for further orders.
My search is to the north-west and yours is west.
I thought it would be safer for SP to return along a route he knew and had used only a few days earlier than risk heading a different way, but I could be wrong.
The source of Ironstone might influence his decision, and he could have scouted a suitable site for his stand, while travelling to London.
Also, there are the questions raised by the location of the Lunt Fort and why the Potters from St Albans appear to travel north-west, then influence pottery production, to High cross and Mancetter after the rebellion?
(none of this is evidence, but it is interesting)
I am interested to know if you have any similar 'circumstantial' reasons for thinking west was best.
Please don't call it rubbish...
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-18-2022
Suetonius went to London looking to use it as a "Seat of War". And Sedes Bello is not ambiguous:
sedes: a seat, bench, chair, throne from sedo: to bring to rest
bello: from the verb meaning to wage war, carry on war, war
... it means a sedentary place or seat of war. Clearly not a place of battle.
He was not looking for a place of battle, but a place to sit and develop a military campaign.
Likewise there is no ambiguity in the phrase:
Quote:cum omittere cunctationem et congredi acie parat.Which explicitly says Suetonius had been delaying before he prepared to do battle:
Omitto: to lay aside, let go, give up,
cunctatio: a delaying, lingering, tarrying, delay, hesitation, doubt
et
congredi to come together, meet ... it has the "idea of intention, in a friendly or hostile sense" ...
acie: In milit. lang., the front of an army (conceived of as the edge of a sword), line of battle, battle-array.
paro: to make ready, prepare, furnish, provide, arrange, order, contrive, design . (90.4% of the time)
"He decided to let go delay and prepare to come together for battle."
This tells us he had been delaying, that he decided to prepare to change state to that of "being ready for battle". None of that suggests The "Galloping Horseman" haste, quite the contrary.
You admit Suetonius was delaying, you admit he wasn't being rash, you agree with (almost) everything I said, and then you go back to the mad galloping horseman scenario .... with Suetonius Galloping rushing down the M6 passing numerous places of importance, especially St.Albans, that might be worth saving, to come to the minor settlement of London, which had no importance except that it has a bridge linking the SE and East of England across the Thames and a port. A settlement that doesn't seem to have existed in any meaningful sense until it had a bridge. So, in the 60s a settlement of no consequence, compared to St. Albans. Yet you have him Gallop rush past St.Albans, not once but twice: once on the way down, and then having got to a settlement of no consequence, (as you claim neither the bridge nor port has a strategic value) ... you then have poor Suetonius Gallop rush back up the way he came, passing the consequential tribal capital of St.Albans and head into the nothingness surrounded by hostile forces.
What was the point in Suetonius going to London?? ... a minor settlement of no consequence? Was it to secure the bridge to the SE? You don't have him do that. Was it to secure supplies from the port? No! You don't have him do that. Instead all you have this poor galloping rushing horseman do, is to gallop rush down to London and then gallop rush back the same way he came and .... and to do what ... into no where in the midst of a hostile enemy. It's totally defies any military logic as you have him head to a point where there are hostiles:
- To the NW down the M6 where he came
- From the NE and the Iceni
- To the South where London is taken by Boudica
So almost totally surrounded.
Why then would Boudica bother with him? We are told Boudica was not taking on any defended places:
Quote:[Boudica] passed by the fortresses with military garrisons, and attacked whatever offered most wealth to the spoiler,We are told she didn't attack the ninth:
Quote:Cerialis escaped with some cavalry into the camp, and was saved by its fortifications.So, we are told if Suetonius found a seat of war in the midst of the hostiles, as you would have him, Boudica could just leave him there to rot.
What we are told about London clearly has a strategic value in terms of logistics:
Quote:Londinium, which, though undistinguished by the name of a colony, was much frequented by a number of merchants and trading vesselsSo, apart from the bridge, the only other explanation for Suetonius galloping rushing to London for those advocating the Galloping Horseman scenario of heading north to an immediate battle, was that London was a port ... which means a logistic supply line. But instead, the Galloping Rushing Horsemen having him gallop away from London where his supply lines are immediately cut off by taking St. Albans, which means there was absolutely no point galloping Rushing to London.
So, the only reason (except the bridge) for Suetonius to go to London, is to secure the port and his supply lines. Instead, instead you have him head up north away form the port and leaving the bridge to allow Boudica to cross the Thames and take the rebellion all the way down to the south coast, which would mean all of Suetonius' supply lines are totally cut.
You must think Suetonius was totally crazy!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 09-18-2022
Life is too short to deal with this sort of thing. You totally misrepresent everything I have been saying and it is impossible to hold a rational discussion with you. So, we have come to this: I disagree with you; you disagree with me. I suggest that we leave it there and stop wasting each other's time.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Owein Walker - 09-18-2022
(09-18-2022, 03:03 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: Suetonius went to London looking to use it as a "Seat of War". And Sedes Bello is not ambiguous:The Bridge, it's just a bridge. Before the Romans turned up, there hadn't even been a bridge. For thousands of years, people had crossed the River Thames without any need for this BRIDGE. You should understand it was the Roman army and traders who needed the bridge with their heavy armour, weapons and carts, not the tribesmen. If SP had crossed the bridge then destroyed it, he would have done Boudica a favour and left himself isolated.
sedes: a seat, bench, chair, throne from sedo: to bring to rest
bello: from the verb meaning to wage war, carry on war, war
... it means a sedentary place or seat of war. Clearly not a place of battle.
He was not looking for a place of battle, but a place to sit and develop a military campaign.
Likewise there is no ambiguity in the phrase:
Quote:cum omittere cunctationem et congredi acie parat.Which explicitly says Suetonius had been delaying before he prepared to do battle:
Omitto: to lay aside, let go, give up,
cunctatio: a delaying, lingering, tarrying, delay, hesitation, doubt
et
congredi to come together, meet ... it has the "idea of intention, in a friendly or hostile sense" ...
acie: In milit. lang., the front of an army (conceived of as the edge of a sword), line of battle, battle-array.
paro: to make ready, prepare, furnish, provide, arrange, order, contrive, design . (90.4% of the time)
"He decided to let go delay and prepare to come together for battle."
This tells us he had been delaying, that he decided to prepare to change state to that of "being ready for battle". None of that suggests The "Galloping Horseman" haste, quite the contrary.
You admit Suetonius was delaying, you admit he wasn't being rash, you agree with (almost) everything I said, and then you go back to the mad galloping horseman scenario .... with Suetonius Galloping rushing down the M6 passing numerous places of importance, especially St.Albans, that might be worth saving, to come to the minor settlement of London, which had no importance except that it has a bridge linking the SE and East of England across the Thames and a port. A settlement that doesn't seem to have existed in any meaningful sense until it had a bridge. So, in the 60s a settlement of no consequence, compared to St. Albans. Yet you have him Gallop rush past St.Albans, not once but twice: once on the way down, and then having got to a settlement of no consequence, (as you claim neither the bridge nor port has a strategic value) ... you then have poor Suetonius Gallop rush back up the way he came, passing the consequential tribal capital of St.Albans and head into the nothingness surrounded by hostile forces.
What was the point in Suetonius going to London?? ... a minor settlement of no consequence? Was it to secure the bridge to the SE? You don't have him do that. Was it to secure supplies from the port? No! You don't have him do that. Instead all you have this poor galloping rushing horseman do, is to gallop rush down to London and then gallop rush back the same way he came and .... and to do what ... into no where in the midst of a hostile enemy. It's totally defies any military logic as you have him head to a point where there are hostiles:
- To the NW down the M6 where he came
- From the NE and the Iceni
- To the South where London is taken by Boudica
So almost totally surrounded.
Why then would Boudica bother with him? We are told Boudica was not taking on any defended places:
Quote:[Boudica] passed by the fortresses with military garrisons, and attacked whatever offered most wealth to the spoiler,We are told she didn't attack the ninth:
Quote:Cerialis escaped with some cavalry into the camp, and was saved by its fortifications.So, we are told if Suetonius found a seat of war in the midst of the hostiles, as you would have him, Boudica could just leave him there to rot.
What we are told about London clearly has a strategic value in terms of logistics:
Quote:Londinium, which, though undistinguished by the name of a colony, was much frequented by a number of merchants and trading vesselsSo, apart from the bridge, the only other explanation for Suetonius galloping rushing to London for those advocating the Galloping Horseman scenario of heading north to an immediate battle, was that London was a port ... which means a logistic supply line. But instead, the Galloping Rushing Horsemen having him gallop away from London where his supply lines are immediately cut off by taking St. Albans, which means there was absolutely no point galloping Rushing to London.
So, the only reason (except the bridge) for Suetonius to go to London, is to secure the port and his supply lines. Instead, instead you have him head up north away form the port and leaving the bridge to allow Boudica to cross the Thames and take the rebellion all the way down to the south coast, which would mean all of Suetonius' supply lines are totally cut.
You must think Suetonius was totally crazy!
If you look at a map of crossing points navigable by foot from Oxford in the west to Cliffe in Kent, to the East, that is a distance of 100 miles, so unless you now start building a wall and a lot of forts I fail to see your plan.
As i once said, you will find yourself retreating across the River Medway if you are not careful. (OH No! There's another bridge over the Medway).
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-18-2022
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: The Bridge, it's just a bridge. Before the Romans turned up, there hadn't even been a bridge. For thousands of years, people had crossed the River Thames without any need for this BRIDGE.The Thames is extremely difficult to cross, to the extent that I know the names of the two people who have attempted it (in the tidal section) in the last century, one failed to the extent they were forced to swim, the other succeeded.
In contrast, Hadrians and the Antonine wall are far easier to cross without using the gate. It is after all just a 12 foot wall, with a much lower chance of death than attempting the ford at London Bridge. So is your argument that they were not a barrier and the Romans were being silly when they built them?
Should we dismiss Hadrians wall as a mere "folly?" because according to you, if people can get through, then it is no barrier at all?
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: You should understand it was the Roman army and traders who needed the bridge with their heavy armour, weapons and carts, not the tribesmen.And Boudica's army did not have carts?
Quote:The rest turned their back in flight, and flight proved difficult, because the surrounding waggons had blocked retreat. Our soldiers spared not to slay even the women, while the very beasts of burden, transfixed by the missiles, swelled the piles of bodies.
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: If SP had crossed the bridge then destroyed it, he would have done Boudica a favour and left himself isolated.Isolated?? ... in the SE of Britain amongst friendly tribes, with direct lines of supply from Rome. Are you saying if Suetonius went to Gaul he would be even more "isolated" ... and to Rome "Totally totally isolated"?
How is moving toward your own home and supplies and friendly tribes becoming "isolated"?
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: If you look at a map of crossing points navigable by foot from Oxford in the west to Cliffe in Kent, to the East, that is a distance of 100 miles, so unless you now start building a wall and a lot of forts I fail to see your plan.I have studied the Thames crossing points in detail, and the few crossing points below Goring are such poor quality that they were not even considered crossing points by the Anglo Saxons who said that Wallingford was the first crossing point of the Thames.
(09-18-2022, 06:12 PM)Owein Walker Wrote: As i once said, you will find yourself retreating across the River Medway if you are not careful. (OH No! There's another bridge over the Medway).We are told Suetonius left London and that people were "overwhelmed" in London, which could only happen if Suetonius went south and pulled down the bridge.
And, as London was a minor settlement of no consequence, except for the bridge and the port, the only reason for him going to London was to either:
- Take down the bridge and use the Thames as a defensive line
- To secure London as a port for his supply lines
The galloping horseman scenarios do not include either of these objectives. No move northward explains why Suetonius came to London to secure the bridge or the port so they are all TOTALLY STUPID. The Thames is a defensive barrier as even Caesar found. Yet, suddenly the Galloping Horsemen claim it is not. How absurd!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-19-2022
(09-18-2022, 11:25 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: I am interested to know if you have any similar 'circumstantial' reasons for thinking west was best.
Sure!
![[Image: smile.png]](https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/images/icons/smile.png){kind=icon}
To be clear, both the sites I'm suggesting are very close to St Albans - 10-12 miles north west, on the Chilterns watershed. But here are a few reasons why Suetonius may not have withdrawn further:
1. St Albans is at the junction of Watling and Akeman Streets, the main reinforcement, supply and communication routes from Wales (via Wroxeter) and Usk/Exeter (via Cirencester) respectively. So Suetonius would want to hold his position there as long as possible, to keep these routes open. Withdrawing further in one direction or the other would risk losing contact with his reinforcements.
(I'm assuming that these reinforcements are gathering men as they march, so getting stronger the closer they get to the hostile areas. While there may have been scattered plundering bands and angry locals in the Midlands region, I doubt any would have risked a confrontation with several thousand Roman troops - any larger rebel groups would probably have joined Boudica's main army.)
2. Beyond the Chilterns, the Iknield Way is an important native trackway that would take the rebels back to their own homelands, or further south-west if they were so inclined. I doubt Suetonius would want to surrender control of this important route to the enemy.
3. By withdrawing further from the enemy, Suetonius would surrender the strategic advantage to them. I still believe he was using the classic 'Fabian' delay strategy - Tacitus, I think, uses the word cuncatio on purpose to alert his reader to the connection with Fabius Maximus 'Cunctator'. This strategy involves remaining close to the enemy, observing and harrassing them, shadowing and countering their movements.
If Suetonius withdrew into the Midlands he would lose all that. The Britons could do anything - march on Silchester, plunder the south coast ports, go home - and he would be able to do little to respond to them. He would be blind, and entrely at the mercy of the enemy's actions.
4. Whatever route he took, Suetonius had just marched from Wales down to London with his army. If that same army was then seen marching back towards Wales again, it would be very demoralising for the provincials, and a massive boost for the rebellion. Disaffected people all over central Britain would rise in revolt in the wake of Suetonius's apparent retreat. He would be giving the whole of the south east to Boudica.
A single day's march to St Albans and holding ground there, on the other hand, would not look so much like a retreat. Suetonius could keep the pressure on the rebels around London, counter their movements and deter any further risings in the Midlands too, while waiting for his reinforcements to join him.
There's so much that we don't know about the basics of all this that any real certainty is impossible. But that's what I currently consider to be most likely...
Although it's really just a precis of what I was thinking over ten years ago!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - MonsGraupius - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 10:02 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote:(09-18-2022, 11:25 AM)Owein Walker Wrote: I am interested to know if you have any similar 'circumstantial' reasons for thinking west was best.
Sure!
To be clear, both the sites I'm suggesting are very close to St Albans - 10-12 miles north west, on the Chilterns watershed. But here are a few reasons why Suetonius may not have withdrawn further:
Suetonius withdrew south of the Thames. I have provided plenty of evidence for that and you have not given one credible reason to reject it.
If you cannot come up with a plausible argument to substantiate this silly idea that Suetonius went north, then please stop just asserting it as fact.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 09-19-2022
(09-19-2022, 10:10 AM)MonsGraupius Wrote: I have provided plenty of evidence for that and you have not given one credible reason to reject it.
You have 'provided' little but heated bluster, fanciful assertion and scorn.
Evidence for destruction at Southwark, and Dio's reference to fords of the Thames*, are both 'credible reasons' to think that it did not form an impassable barrier. I have not 'asserted' anything as fact, while you have done so repeatedly.
* Dio 60.20.5-6: "Thence the Britons retired to the river Thames at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood-tide forms a lake. This they easily crossed because they knew where the firm ground and the easy passages in this region were to be found; but the Romans in attempting to follow them were not so successful."
(09-18-2022, 04:13 PM)Renatus Wrote: Life is too short to deal with this sort of thing.
I agree entirely!
![[Image: shocked.png]](https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/images/icons/shocked.png){kind=icon}
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - John1 - 09-19-2022
Loving the new cartography, still not my favourite sites, both are so flank-able and it's unclear whether those lines are defending an approach from the north or south..... but I think we're stuck without further significant finds on any of these sites.