Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[John1]

I don't recall the post either, but it is the "Chivery" site that has been discussed a few times (Derek and Nathan), I certainly visited the site on the basis of the thread.

Chivery itself is quite an interesting study in Chiltern Woodland. The mature ridgetop woodland (Forestry Commission) demonstrates how open the forest structure is, certainly no impediment to light infantry.

You can use "Chivery" as a search term to find the posts in the thread.

[Renatus]

I noticed the proximity to Chivery but did not realise that they were the same. I must check Deryk Cundy's book.

[Nathan Ross]

the "Chivery" site... has been discussed a few times (Derek and Nathan)

There are various sites around that area - I think the poster (whose post presumably did not show up for security reasons; new members need to post several times before they gain visibility, at least initially; which is why nobody responded to it) was describing the position labelled 1 here;

   

(Akeman Street shown in grey)

It's quite a nice site, although it involves the Britons moving northwest from St Albans and then swinging south to confront Paulinus. So they would either be chasing him, or moving against the fortification of Alchester. 

Position 2, swung 90 degrees, would make for a narrower 'defile' with woods to the rear, but it's a very tight spot and it's hard to see how the Romans could have either their camp or a water source behind their line.

Position 3 is also a bit narrower and would work better if the Britons were approaching from the south rather than taking a circuitous route around the Chiltern heights.

Position 4 is Deryk's suggested site. Again, nice and distinct with woods behind, but lacking secure camp positions and water, and rather easy to get up onto the high ground behind it from Akeman Street, I would say.

Position 5 is my preferred one at New Ground / Cow Roast. The most obvious site, I would say, to confront a force moving up the Bulborne Valley from St Albans, and one that keeps water source and camp site behind the Roman line, high ground on the flanks and involves the least manoeuvrings by either side. It is also the only one which (to date) has turned up Roman military finds.

The mature ridgetop woodland (Forestry Commission) demonstrates how open the forest structure is, certainly no impediment to light infantry.

Although Tacitus does not mention the wood as a tactical feature, only a geographic one to mirror the 'open plain'. That Paulinus had to check there were no enemies behind him indicates that the wood was not an impassable barrier.

It might be worth checking what sorts of woodlands have formed distinct tactical features on more recent battlefields of the pre-gunpowder era. What sort of wood anchored the flanks of the English line at Agincourt, for example, or Crecy? I suspect they were most likely relatively open open coppice or similar, rather than impenetrable jungles!

[Renatus]

A very useful map, Nathan, although a scale would be handy.  My thoughts on the matter are as follows.

I don't see a problem with the rebels proceeding northwest and then swinging south.  It would depend on their ultimate destination.  I have postulated that they might have intended to attack the pro-Roman Atrebates, which would involve traveling along Akeman Street to its junction with the Icknield Way at Aston Clinton and then turning on to it to go south, or continuing on Akeman Street to attack the probably also pro-Roman Dobunni in the west.  In either case, the plain at the angle of the two roads could provida suitable camping ground for a large force.

From the Roman point of view, their camp is unlikely to have been behind their line.  Suetonius would not at first have known where or even if he would have to face the rebels in that area.  Being a cautious general who left nothing to chance, he probably reconnoitered several possible sites and only chose one when he knew where the rebels had positioned themselves.  The siting of his camp, therefore, would have nothing to do with his eventual battle-line.  Deryk has addressed this issue and that of water supply by suggesting that the Roman camp was on the plateau overlooking the various valleys where he says there are numerous natural springs.

Regarding the wood at the rear, it need not be completely impenetrable.  It may be that small bands of lightly-armed troops could make their way through it but that is not the situation that we have here.  First, Suetonius had ascertained that there was no enemy behind him, so the presence of the wood is largely irrelevant.  Secondly, climax woodland is incompatible with a mass assault by a large force.  That is evidently what Suetonius was expecting and that is what the rebels gave him.

Turning to the individual positions, Position 1 faces an extensive plain but appears to place the Roman line simply between two hills.  To my mind, therefore, it lacks the 'throat' that I would be looking for.  Position 2 is a valley but I do not see much of a plain in front of it.  Position 5, as presented, straddles Akeman Street and, therefore, cannot be said to be closed at the rear by a wood.  However, I recall that you have in the past suggested two possible Roman positions at New Ground, so, if one of those is off the road, that brings that site back into contention.  You mention that it has produced finds of military equipment.  I know of the Tring helmet, which I believe was found during the digging of the Grand Union Canal, although I do not know precisely where.  You have in the past referred to other finds.  Could you remind me what they were?

Of the other sites, Position 4 seems to have all the necessary elements and remains a strong contender.  I don't remember our having discussed Position 3 before but it looks interesting.  It is certainly in a 'throat' but it is not possible to tell from the map whether there is a plain in front of it.  It also requires a route suitable for wheeled transport whereby the rebels could reach it.  I have some sort of recollection of seeing a map showing a trackway to the south of this area which I thought that the rebels might have used, preferring a traditional route to the Roman road, but I can find nothing about it now.  Any ideas?

[Nathan Ross]

From the Roman point of view, their camp is unlikely to have been behind their line.

Interesting point - I've always considered that it probably was! 

My understanding is that the siting of the camp and the position of the chosen battle line were closely linked: the Roman force would want to march out of their camp directly to the battle site by a relatively straight route, deploying from their line of march. If the battle went badly and they needed to retreat, they would have to be able to fall back directly to their camp once more.

Therefore, the camp would need to be behind them. If it were not, they would be surrendering their camp site (presumably well chosen, close to water, etc, quite apart from perhaps still containing all their tents and heavy kit, mules, camp followers etc) to their enemy. Since Paulinus probably had a period of time to prepare himself before the Britons showed up, I expect he would have considered these things and chosen a site for his camp that he would not have to surrender, and which would have offered a secure refuge if required.

Position 5... cannot be said to be closed at the rear by a wood.  However, I recall that you have in the past suggested two possible Roman positions at New Ground... You mention that it has produced finds of military equipment...Could you remind me what they were?

It's been many years since I originally described the Newground site, so here's a recap:

I've proposed two possible positions for the Romans, although I would say that both of them have woods to the rear - the wooded area covers the northern opening of the valley, around the modern site of Tring station.

   

The military finds include the famous Tring helmet (bronze Coolus type, probably Claudian, actually found closer to the modern canal than the 'Norcott Hill' often cited: my theory is that this helmet was owned by a veteran from Colchester and taken from there by a rebel warrior after the fall of the colony, then discarded during the rout after the battle in one of the marshy pools along the valley floor. There are very few finds of Roman infantry helmets in Britain, and all of them except Bosham relate to sites connected to the Boudica revolt!)

Other finds are mentioned in this paper summarising archeological work, mainly at the Cow Roast site. The area has a very complex past, with finds dating back to the earlier iron age and stretching through into the later Roman period. The principal site was a civilian iron-works, probably established at the end of the 1st century, although there were many anomalous copper-alloy finds, some of a military nature. The excavators' theory is that these items were made on site, although the nearest military establishment is over 20 miles away. My theory is that the rubbish pits from the ironworks were mixed up with other dumped material, including refuse from an earlier battle site. There are also native British finds, including coins and brooches that do not (as far as I can tell) appear to come from individual grave deposits.

Some quotes from the paper:

p.8 – “Some of the copper-alloy objects found at the Orchard site ‘point to a military connection with the site’ (Zeepvat 1997, finds appendix, 22; Britannia 7 (1976), 338-9). These include a fragment from scale armour. Also from the Orchard was a bone sword-grip, and from the Esso site came an iron pilum head.”

p.8 – “Cow Roast lay in close association with the higher ground to the north [i.e. around Tring station?]… The woodland which was characteristic in historic times of the area surveyed… would have been the source of the large quantities of charcoal required for ironsmelting, and it is likely that the woodland was coppiced.”

p.4 – “The only other available data come from metal detectorists who have been particularly active in the fields around Newground Farm. Many coins and also small metal objects have been and continue to be recovered (Zeepvat 1995, 31).”

These 'metal objects' found by detectorists may relate to the info from Wayne Oldfield in this post: " it's also very close to where a rash of lead slingshots and arrow heads came from, put up for sale on ebay, the seller claimed they came from the side of the canal near Wiggington."

This map, meanwhile, shows the area in a Lidar scan, with my proposed positions for the Romans and Britons in more detail:

   

[Renatus]

I may have misunderstood your comment about the camp being behind the line.  I took it to mean more or less directly behind.  That could well be the case with the traditional open battlefield but the situation here is different.  Here the topography dictates everything and a valley suitable for Suetonius' limited force might not allow for the placing of the camp directly behind him.  A position somewhere to his rear might be possible, however.  Looking at the map, a camp on the plateau would serve Positions 2 and 4 and, at a pinch, 1 and 3.  It certainly would not serve Position 5, which would require a site somewhere to the north, towards Aldbury perhaps.  I suggested that Suetonius may have reconnoitered several potential battle sites but only chose the final one after he knew where the rebels had positioned themselves.  Perhaps more plausibly, in reconnoitering the general area upon his arrival there, he selected one site where he would fight if forced to do so and positioned his camp accordingly.  

Regarding Position 5, I was thinking of your Lidar scan.  That and the site map in your latest post show the position better than the original map, although the topography does not seem to match exactly.  Of the two positions, I prefer the more northerly one.  The high ground on the flanks seems more pronounced and I think the wooded area, as you have placed it, seems too far away from the other position.  I also do not like the idea of Akeman Street running through it, even if the Roman line only just clips it.  I have long thought that the battle site might have been in a valley running away from the Roman road.

Thank you for posting the details of the finds of military equipment.  They certainly add to the credentials of the site.  I must now read the Britannia article.  I will have seen it when it first came out but have long since forgotten it.  Like you, I have imagined the Tring helmet as having originally belonged to one of the colonists at Camulodunum.  However, more recently I have wondered if it might have belonged to one of the veterans of the 14th or 20th Legion, who was still using the equipment issued to him 20-odd years previously.

[Nathan Ross]

 Position 5... would require a site somewhere to the north, towards Aldbury perhaps... I think the wooded area, as you have placed it, seems too far away from the other position.

I have suggested a battle site in the Aldbury area before, although some recent research by Deryk revealed that the whole area was wooded until quite recently. The woodland appears to have spread all across the saddle between the upper Bulborne and Thame. For this proposed site, I would expect the Roman force to have camped on the flatter ground somewhere around modern Tring, perhaps.

This is all interpretation, of course, but to me the lay of the land here matches T's description perfectly. The 'defile' or 'throat' in this case is the upper valley of the Bulborne; the wooded area to the north 'closes' it from that direction. Akeman Street makes a slight turn to the west here, and climbs out of the defile over the ridge. Other interpretations bring these features much tighter together, with the wood positioned much more directly behind the Roman position, but I do not think this is necessary. T gives only the relative placement of wood, 'defile' and 'open plain', and does not provide a scale.

Incidentally, I notice that Steve Kaye's recent revision of his table of sites appears to have dropped both Tring and New Ground - which formerly featured near the top, as I recall - and all of the other sites up the Bulborne as well.

[Renatus]

Incidentally, I notice that Steve Kaye's recent revision of his table of sites appears to have dropped both Tring and New Ground - which formerly featured near the top, as I recall - and all of the other sites up the Bulborne as well.

I wonder why that would be.  I have a version of his table that has the Bulbourne (Berkhamsted) sites at 3, 5 and 7, Tring Station at 8 and New Ground at 10, 11 and 12.  Where can I access his latest version?  Could you remind me of his criteria?  Is it only water supply or are there other factors?

[Nathan Ross]

I have a version of his table that has the Bulbourne (Berkhamsted) sites at 3, 5 and 7, Tring Station at 8 and New Ground at 10, 11 and 12.  Where can I access his latest version?

Ah yes, you're quite right - it turns out I was looking at the 2013 version linked on the lefthand bar of Steve's website, which I'd carelessly taken to be an updated version of the one from 2015 linked in the site news and bibliography sections...

[Steve Kaye]

Nathan,

You wrote, "I notice that Steve Kaye's recent revision of his table of sites appears to have dropped both Tring and New Ground". 

Now I see you were viewing an old document.

And, you are right, the one you want is the 2015 document, 'Finding the site of Boudica's last battle: multi-attribute analysis of sites identified by template matching.', and that is the last piece of serious Boudica work I engaged in.

The summary contains:

"the actual battle-site may be within the Bulbourne river valley of the Chilterns (sites 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 etc.)"

The numbers relate to Tring, New Ground etc.


Renatus,

The criteria (attributes) for site selection are listed in the summary:

The 10 attributes were:

normalised height
terrain ruggedness
the suitability of the Roman front-line length
terrain wetness
distance to London
distance to the nearest Roman road
induced stress on the British rebels
distance from rivers supplying sufficient water for the Romans
effect of a river flowing through the front-line
effect of blocking or trapping by large rivers.


The document can the found at:

https://ucl.academia.edu/SteveKaye

https://zenodo.org/records/838462 

https://bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arch_intro.html


Hope that helps, Steve Kaye

[Renatus]

Renatus,

The criteria (attributes) for site selection are listed in the summary:

Thanks, Steve.  I downloaded your 2015 paper some time ago but have only dipped into it.  I will now study it more closely.  I also have what I take to be your first (? 2012) paper but I assume that this has been superseded by your later work.  I do not have your 2013 paper.  At a quick glance, it seems to be largely concerned with water requirements and supply.  Have its findings been taken into your 2015 paper or is it worth consideration in its own right?

[Steve Kaye]

Thanks, Steve.  I downloaded your 2015 paper some time ago but have only dipped into it.  I will now study it more closely.  I also have what I take to be your first (? 2012) paper but I assume that this has been superseded by your later work.  I do not have your 2013 paper.  At a quick glance, it seems to be largely concerned with water requirements and supply.  Have its findings been taken into your 2015 paper or is it worth consideration in its own right?

Renatus,

The 2015 essay (I haven't published it), 'Finding the site of Boudica's last battle: multi-attribute analysis of sites identified by template matching', contains much of the earlier essays - the methods, results etc., including the water story but also, as examples, the marching camp and energy requirements studies. These earlier works culminate  - ha!  -  in the 2015 work which is, in part, why it is long - 80 odd pages. Essentially, I tried to bring all the former work from 2010 onwards into the 2015 essay, couple that with template matching to find prospective battle sites, and then think carefully about how the campaign might have evolved.

It also has some clunky grammar which I haven't yet corrected. Nevertheless, I think it still has merit. So, you probably don't need to read the earlier works - just stick with the 2015.

However, if you like numbers, stats etc. then the earlier works are stuffed with detail on how the Roman army possibly operated. A lot of this is brought together in a one, rather large and complex spreadsheet - '2023, Roman Army Campaigning - spreadsheet (xlsx)' and associated descriptive document, 'Early Imperial Roman army campaigning: observations on marching metrics, energy expenditure and the building of marching camps' - both of which are available on Academia, my website and Zenodo.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Renatus]

Renatus,

The 2015 essay (I haven't published it), 'Finding the site of Boudica's last battle: multi-attribute analysis of sites identified by template matching', contains much of the earlier essays

Thanks.  I think I'll stick with that for the time being.