+- 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. - John1 - 01-24-2023
A = Roman Start line ?
B = Waggon Massacre ?
You seem pretty much aligned for a days fighting to me...
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-24-2023
(01-24-2023, 12:04 PM)John1 Wrote: A = Roman Start line ?
B = Waggon Massacre ?
The people on the wagons would need to be close enough to see the fighting, and for the charging Romans to reach them before they could make their escape. I would say a mile is the furthest feasible distance between the two points.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-24-2023
Meanwhile, for anyone interested (or just for the bot traffic!), here is the latest version of my projected timeline for the revolt.
As I mentioned above, I'm currently thinking that the fighting broke out in mid autumn 60, after the completion of what could have been a bad harvest, with the full report not reaching Rome until 61 - which is why Tacitus dates the whole event to that year instead. This puts the fall of Colchester in mid October, which would explain the evidence of soft fruit remains, including grapes, berries and dates on the stem, in the destruction layer. It puts the climactic battle in early November - perhaps a colder and wetter environment than we've been anticipating so far - and spreads the Roman reaction over the first two thirds of 61.
I've also slowed down the Roman marching pace to allow for different types of roads and terrain, and given Suetonius Paulinus three days for rest and reconnaissance on the march as well. This, I think, would suit the attitude of a cautious and meticulous commander, but one capable of acting decisively when required.
AD60
September 23rd – Autumn Equinox. Boudica holds tribal assembly and calls for revolt.
September 29th – Iceni mustering at Thetford. Catus Decianus’s message requesting military support against the Iceni reaches Suetonius Paulinus at his camp beside the Menai Strait.
DAY 1-7 (October 1st-7th) Paulinus, with c.6000 men (4000 men of 14th Legion, plus 4 auxiliary units) marches from the Menai Strait to Wroxeter, covering nearly 100 miles in seven days at an average 14 miles per day. Iceni and Trinovantes form alliance at Sudbury, neglecting to sow winter crops as they intend to seize Roman supplies.
DAY 8 (October 8th) Paulinus rests and resupplies for the day at Wroxeter. He sends orders to Cerialis to meet him at Godmanchester for operations against the Iceni. Iceni and Trinvantes move south towards Colchester.
DAY 9-11 (October 9th-11th) Paulinus marches 48 miles from Wroxeter to Mancetter, three days on Watling Street averaging 16 miles per day. Iceni and Trinovantes surround Colchester and commence attack.
DAY 12 (October 12th) Paulinus rests his troops at Mancetter. Fall of Colchester. Cerialis marching towards Colchester to try and relieve siege.
DAY 13 (October 13th) Paulinus marches 17 miles Mancetter to Leicester. Cerialis’s force is destroyed a few miles outside Colchester. Cerealis falls back to his last marching camp and defends himself there.
DAY 14-16 (October 14th-16th) Paulinus marches 48 miles from Leicester to Godmanchester in three days, averaging 16 miles per day. News of defeat of Cerialis’ force reaches him when he arrives at Godmanchester.
DAY 17 (October 17th) Paulinus rests his troops at Godmanchester. He sends messages to the 2nd Legion detachment at Exeter, the 20th Legion veterans at Usk, the 14th legion veterans at Wroxeter, and his remaining troops in North Wales to march for a collective rendezvous at London. Iceni and Trinovantes plundering Colchester and celebrating their victories.
DAY 18-20 (October 18th-20th) Suetonius Paulinus marches 60 miles down Ermine Street ‘through the midst of the enemy’ to London, averaging 20 miles a day at ‘full pace’. He arrives in London to find Catus Decianus has already fled to Gaul. Iceni and Trinovantes plundering area of Chelmsford. Order to march reaches 14th Legion veterans at Wroxeter.
DAY 21-22 (October 21st-22nd) Paulinus rests his troops in London. Order to march reaches 20th Legion at Usk. Iceni and Trinovantes plundering the area of Romford. 14th veterans set off from Wroxeter.
DAY 23 (October 23rd) Paulinus, deciding to give up London, orders the inhabitants to prepare for evacuation. Sends orders rerouting advancing reinforcements to St Albans. Original order to march reaches 2nd Legion veterans at Exeter. 20th Legion veterans and auxiliaries set off from Usk.
DAY 24 (October 24th) Suetonius Paulinus retreats from London towards St Albans with refugees and supplies. Postumus, commanding 2nd Legion garrison at Exeter, refuses to move. Order to march reaches legions in North Wales.
DAY 25 (October 25th) Boudica, learning of Paulinus’s retreat, enters city and commences sack of London. Paulinus reaches St Albans, delaying there while awaiting reinforcements. 20th Legion veterans arrive at Gloucester, collecting any troops remaining there and at Kingsholm.
DAY 26-30 (October 26th-30th) Paulinus remains at St Albans, sending out scouts and detachments to watch the enemy and attack wider-ranging rebel bands. Iceni plundering and burning London, with plundering bands ranging to Brentford, Putney and Staines, across the Thames to Southwark, and potentially as far west as Silchester. 14th legion veterans arrive at St Albans from Wroxeter.
DAY 31 (October 31st) 20th Legion veterans and auxiliaries join Paulinus at St Albans. Boudica recalls scattered plundering bands to London.
DAY 32 (November 1st) Paulinus continues holding position at St Albans. Boudica musters her full army north of London.
DAY 33 (November 2nd) Boudica’s army begins advance north from London on Watling Street. Paulinus pulls back along Akeman Street to Tring. He discovers that the 2nd Legion have not left Exeter.
DAY 34-35 (November 3rd-4th) Paulinus camped at Tring. Rebels sack St Albans.
DAY 36 (November 5th) Iceni advance up the Bulborne to Cow Roast. Paulinus prepares his position at Newground.
DAY 37 (November 6th) Battle. Roman victory. Boudica defeated.
DAY 38-40 (November 7th-9th) Paulinus rests troops after battle. Scouts continue harrying fleeing rebels. Paulinus marches back to St Albans, where he meets advancing troops from North Wales. “The whole army was then brought together and kept under canvas to finish the remainder of the war.”
DAY 42 (November 11th) Seas close to shipping.
December – Iceni endure a hungry winter after abandoning their campaign supplies following the battle. They survive by eating seed corn kept back at the harvest.
AD61
April – Suetonius Paulinus’s full report of the revolt reaches Rome. Tacitus later comes to date his account of the revolt to the consular year commencing January AD61. Iceni have no seed to plant spring crops as they have consumed it over the winter.
Spring-summer – Paulinus continues punitive campaign against Iceni and other rebel peoples. “Whatever tribes still wavered or were hostile were ravaged with fire and sword.” Boudica dies.
May – Classicianus sent to Britain as replacement Procurator. Emperor sends order to Rhine garrisons to reinforce army in Britain.
June – Classicianus sends report to Rome complaining of Paulinus’s actions: “no cessation of fighting must be expected, unless Suetonius were superseded.” Troops from Germany commence crossing to Britain.
July – Suetonius establishes new winter camps* for his auxiliary forces, guarding rebel areas. Iceni in famine conditions, with no grain remaining and no crops to harvest. Polyclitus, ordered to investigate the situation in Britain, arrives with a huge retinue. After a short stay in the province, he sends more favourable report to Rome.
August – Several ships are wrecked and their crews lost. Classicianus sends report of the losses to Rome. Petronius Turpilianus (ordinary consul of the year) nominated to replace Paulinus as governor of Britain.
September – Turpilianus arrives in Britain and replaces Paulinus.
*(winter camps could be established and even garrisoned during the summer campaign season, eg Tac Ann 2.25.1 re. Tiberius in Germania, “However, as summer was already at the full (ie July) a part of the legions were sent back to winter quarters by the land route.” See also Tac Ann 15.7-8 – Paetus constructs winter camps during summer campaign season.)
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 01-27-2023
If the revolt broke out in AD60 but Paulinus' report did not reach Rome until AD61, the report would nevertheless have made it abundantly clear that the events it described had occurred in the previous year. I am, therefore, reluctant to believe that Tacitus made the elementary mistake of getting the years mixed up. Why not simply move the whole scenario forward one year? That would have Tacitus correctly place the outbreak of the revolt in AD61, with the aftermath taking place, to some extent at least, in AD62.
There is a possible difficulty in that it is said of Paulinus' successor, Petronius Turpilianus, 'qui iam consulatu abierat' (literally, 'who had now retired from the consulship'). Translators tend to interpret this as a recent event and I have made the same point myself. However, this can be taken too far. His retirement could have been fairly recent but it need not have only just happened. Tacitus had previously said that the revolt broke out during his consulship or, at least, during his consular year and this may simply be his way of saying that Turpilianus was no longer consul and, therefore, free to replace Paulinus as governor of Britain.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-27-2023
(01-27-2023, 10:07 PM)Renatus Wrote: Why not simply move the whole scenario forward one year?
I'd be okay with that. Although I still find 60-61 more likely. It's not a matter of Tacitus making a mistake - he may have been aware that the course of events stretched back before the beginning of the consular year. But giving accurate dates for events in distant provinces may not have been important to him as it is to us.
(01-27-2023, 10:07 PM)Renatus Wrote: Tacitus had previously said that the revolt broke out during his consulship or, at least, during his consular year
Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus gravis clades in Britannia accepta seems to refer to a single 'disaster'. But it could perhaps also mean a course of events covering some time, and stretching up to whenever Suetonius Paulinus was replaced as governor. As usual, Tacitus is not as explicit as we might like him to be.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 01-28-2023
(01-27-2023, 11:27 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I still find 60-61 more likely.
Why? Tacitus had been meticulously recounting events each year since AD14, naming the consuls for the year. He had already named the consuls for AD60, Nero for the fourth time and Cornelius Cossus. Why should he suddenly go off the rails in AD61? The only logical reason that I can think of is the use of iam in relation to Turpillianus' retirement from the consulship, if this is interpreted as meaning that he had only just handed over to a suffect consul, which could push the outbreak of the revolt back to AD60. However, I have put forward what I believe to be a plausible explanation of the wording which preserves Tacitus' dating.
(01-27-2023, 11:27 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus gravis clades in Britannia accepta seems to refer to a single 'disaster'. But it could perhaps also mean a course of events covering some time
Accepta is the past participle of accipio which means literally 'accept' or 'take to oneself' but it can also mean 'bear' or 'endure', which is surely the meaning here. The 'disaster' from the Roman point of view was the destruction of a colony, a major trading centre and a municipium, and the loss of a large number of Roman and pro-Roman lives, even if it was not as many as 70,000. That is disaster enough for one year. I don't suppose he was much concerned with the 'disaster' caused to the rebel tribes by Paulinus' reprisals.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 11:31 AM)Renatus Wrote: He had already named the consuls for AD60, Nero for the fourth time and Cornelius Cossus.
Yes, and I think that might hold a clue to his method. Tacitus names the consuls (Annals 14.20) and then the events of the that year: Nero's activities in Rome, a comet, and Corbulo's ongoing conflict in the east, including a lengthy summer campaign against the Mardi and the capture of Tigranocerta, culminating in Corbulo being made governor of Syria.
However, Corbulo's campaign most likely happened, or at least began, in 59, and his governorship of Syria was in 60. Tacitus is grouping these events together and allotting them to particular years to suit his annalistic method - perhaps indeed depending on when news of the events reached Rome, so he can integrate events at home and abroad. What he is not doing, I would say, is writing strictly chronological history in the manner of a modern historian.
So the events that Tacitus describes could and indeed almost certainly did spill out of the dates to which he assigns them, with some of them actually happening the year before. I believe a similar thing might be happening with his narration of the Boudica revolt - he assigns the gravis clades to the consulate of Paetus and Turpilianus firstly to indicate that annalistic time has now moved on since the previous events in Rome and Armenia, and secondly to integrate the revolt itself with the subsequent appointment of Turpilianus to the governorship of Britain.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 01-28-2023
I agree that Tacitus sometimes departs from a strict annalistic method and presents some topics thematically. I don't have the reference to hand but, on one occasion, he states that he is doing this to make his narrative more intelligible to his audience. He certainly does this in relation to tje Boudican revolt. First, he refers to the relative inaction of Paulinus' predecessors and his desire to emulate Corbulo as a justification for his assault upon Mona. Secondly, he deals with what he regards as inaction by Paulinus' successors which, of course, relates to subsequent years. However, I don't believe that this results in his ascribing core events to the 'wrong' year. What he does do, when he reverts to his annalistic technique, is to introduce the new topic by such words as 'eodem anno' {in the same year), 'eo anno' {in that year} or 'isdem consulibus' {in the same consulship}. If the revolt had broken out in AD60, it would have been easy for him, after dealing with other events of that year, to have written, 'Eodem anno gravis clades in Britannia accepta', if that is what he meant, but he didn't.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 01:09 PM)Renatus Wrote: I agree that Tacitus sometimes departs from a strict annalistic method and presents some topics thematically... If the revolt had broken out in AD60, it would have been easy for him, after dealing with other events of that year, to have written, 'Eodem anno gravis clades in Britannia accepta'...
Although if he wanted to stress that the revolt had already broken out that same year, he would have had to put his year break in the midst of the action, which we see elsewhere that he was disinclined to do.
Corbulo's Armenian war, for example, is mainly described in the section allotted to AD58. There's then a long break, as the bit on 59 mainly concerns Nero's actions during and after the murder of Agrippina. Corbulo's war narrative resumes in AD60 - despite the majority of the action having already happened in 59...
I must stress that I am not suggesting that Tacitus was 'wrong' or 'made a mistake'. Just that his idea of narrating history is not the same as our idea of reading it. He deliberately groups events from different years into the same year, in order to present them alongside or in relation to other events, particularly those in Rome.
In any case, without additional evidence I do not think we can state with any certainly when the revolt happened. Tacitus may indeed have the year spot on, by our reckoning. But there is sufficient evidence of his blurring of dates in other sections, I would say, to allow for at least the possibility that his annalistic method should not be read as a strict chronology.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - dadlamassu - 01-28-2023
To depart from this dating thread - I have started drafting staff work for the campaign using the Combat Estimate methodology (when I was serving it was called an "situation appreciation") which consists of seven questions as follows:
What is the enemy doing and why? - intelligence estimate of enemy commanders' intention, enemy forces, style of fighting etc.
What have I been told to do and why? - what is Suetonius' "Commander's Intention (CI)"
What actions/effects do I want to have on the enemy?
Where can I best accomplish each action/effect? - ground assessment
What resources do I need to accomplish each action/effect? - forces available, locations, logistics, recce, force protection
When and where do these actions take place in relation to each other? - outline possible courses of action, force multipliers
What control measures do I need to impose? Movements, timings, RV locations, Assembly Areas, couriers
So should I present it here once finished or in a new thread?
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 02:29 PM)dadlamassu Wrote: To depart from this dating thread . . . So should I present it here once finished or in a new thread?
I would say present it here. Dating is only the last topic that we have been discussing. Otherwise, the thread considers all aspects of the revolt. In fact, it started out seeking the site of the last battle. Although it is a very long thread, I think it is best to keep everything together.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-28-2023
(01-28-2023, 04:57 PM)Renatus Wrote:(01-28-2023, 02:29 PM)dadlamassu Wrote: So should I present it here once finished or in a new thread?
I would say present it here.
If the end result is an identification of potential battle sites then probably here is best. Although I do wonder if many people avoid reading this thread nowadays as it's got so very long...
![[Image: sad.png]](https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/images/icons/sad.png){kind=icon}
Could I suggest, either way, that you try and keep the use of modern military jargon, acronyms etc, to a minimum? It often confuses more than it clarifies, and can create a false impression - like those historians who insist on 'translating' Roman army ranks into modern ones!
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - dadlamassu - 01-28-2023
Thanks, I will post here. It may assist in finding a site though it may also offer another different line to investigate (teaser).
The process is designed to present reasonable courses of action to a Commander to inform his decision on how to conduct the war.
I too find "translating" Roman terminology and ranks into modern ones confusing. I do not intend to use modern acronyms though there will be modern (non-Roman) common military terms e.g. guerilla warfare, forced march though when I do I will try to remember to define each as I use it. If I slip up tell me!
I regard it as a discussion paper - as it would be in a modern HQ or at Suetonius Paulinus' planning consilium.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Renatus - 01-29-2023
(01-28-2023, 01:58 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: In any case, without additional evidence I do not think we can state with any certainly when the revolt happened. Tacitus may indeed have the year spot on, by our reckoning. But there is sufficient evidence of his blurring of dates in other sections, I would say, to allow for at least the possibility that his annalistic method should not be read as a strict chronology.
This is unduly pessimistic. Tacitus' technique is principally annalistic but he seems to depart from it in two ways. First, he will explain how a situation arose by setting out the background and this may lead him to consider events in an earlier year. Any historian would do that. In relation to the Boudican revolt, he first explains what led to Paulinus' assault on Mona, namely, the relative inactivity of his predecessors Aulus Didius, who had not sought to advance beyond existing conquests, and Veranius, who had engaged in minor raids upon the Silures but had then died before proceeding further, and his desire the emulate the successes of Corbulo in Armenia. The importance of the Mona campaign in relation to the revolt is that it explains why Paulinus was not on hand to crush it before it had got started but was only made aware of the outbreak in the final stages of the campaign, when it was too late to prevent its early successes. His consideration of the background to the revolt itself involved the death of Prasutagus and its consequences, which could well have occurred the previous year, and the grievances of the Trinovantes, which were evidently of long standing.
His second departure from a strictly annalistic approach is that, once engaged on a topic, he may pursue it to its conclusion or at least until he reaches a natural break, even if this extends into a later year, before turning to events elsewhere in his original year. Again in relation to the revolt, this is evident when he considers Turpilianus' less antagonistic governance of the province, which would have extended to his return to Rome in AD63. Also, it is possible that some at least of the events in the aftermath of the revolt could have taken place in the following year. One thinks of what Tacitus implies was the ponderous progress of Polyclitus and his entourage through Italy and Gaul, which seems likely to have taken some time.
Having said all this, the revolt itself appears to have been short-lived and there is nothing to suggest that it did not arise and fail in the same year. It is clearly the 'gravis clades' that Tacitus states was suffered in Britain and I see no reason to disbelieve his unequivocal statement that it occurred 'Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus', i.e., in AD61.
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - Nathan Ross - 01-30-2023
(01-29-2023, 06:46 PM)Renatus Wrote: First, he will explain how a situation arose by setting out the background and this may lead him to consider events in an earlier year... he may pursue it to its conclusion or at least until he reaches a natural break, even if this extends into a later year, before turning to events elsewhere in his original year.
Certainly he does both. Although neither, I think, explains why he should place Corbulo's Armenian campaign of AD59, including the summer operations leading up to the capture of Tigranocerta, very firmly in AD60. In this case he apparently wants to relate the action to Corbulo's grant of the governorship of Syria in 60, so shifts the entire set of events to that year.
This creates a problem, perhaps, with what follows: he needs to show that the Boudica revolt was after the Armenian war, especially as he claims that Suetonius Paulinus's actions at Anglesey were in emulation of Corbulo - so clearly they cannot have happened simultaneously. So I would think it quite possible that he has just shunted the action forward into AD61, to relate it directly to Turpilianus's grant of Britain in the same way as he has just done for Corbulo's grant of Syria.
(01-29-2023, 06:46 PM)Renatus Wrote: I see no reason to disbelieve his unequivocal statement that it occurred 'Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus', i.e., in AD61.
I spent many years saying the same thing, so I can see the benefits, and you may well be right. But nowadays I am less convinced of Tacitus's unambiguity.
![[Image: wink.png]](https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/images/icons/wink.png){kind=icon}
However, we will surely not agree on this, so we should probably let others move on without further debate!