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.
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.
Deryk
