Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Hi Nathan

Nathan wrote:

I can't help thinking that Avebury is a bit of a red herring in this scenario. We have to consider that the neolithic stones were erected around 2561 years before Boudica's revolt - she is actually closer in time to us (a mere 1951 years) than to the builders of Avebury! We don't know much about iron age Druidic religion in Britain, but it seems to have involved sacred groves and springs rather than standing stones, which may have been relics of a much older culture.

You are right that we really don't know. What I was trying to refer to was whether there was a Druidic influence behind the revolt as well - but that is another story!


Nathan wrote:

Besides which, the families of the Britons were in the wagons: they would hardly run off and leave them. Reading slightly beyond what Tacitus actually says, I don't think it's entirely necessary for the wagons to completely close all escape routes: the Britons' desire to rescue or defend their families would make the wagon camp the first place they'd flee to.


That is a really good point about fleeing to protect their families and one I hadn't thought of. Interestingly although there is the slaughter of 80,000 men, women and children, according to the figures 150,000 escaped!

Although this battle is always looked upon as a major defeat (which it was) it changed the way that the Romans treated the Brythons for over a decade.


Nathan wrote:

However, as we've said before, any prospective site is going to have its pros and cons. Most of my liking for Dunstable is due to its position, which seems to me to suit all the strategic considerations, besides presenting a topography that (with not too much lateral thinking!) may well fit Tacitus' description...



I suppose that is how we all feel for our chosen sites. :?

Dunstable does have its merits though.
Deryk
Reply
Hi John 1

Re Bartlow:


Thank you for this information especially the burial mounds.

I suppose the battle would depend on the size of the Legion and I have understood that the Ninth Legion that marched towards Colchester was under strength.

Of course this is conjecture based upon Tacitus statement that all the infantry were killed, the cavalary plus the commander escaped and later 2,000 infantry replacements brought the Ninth up to strength.

Even so I completely agree with you and the position is perfect being at the intersection of the Icknield Way and the most direct route to Colchester.

It further makes me think that it was the Iceni who destroyed the Ninth column and that this was a planned move.
Deryk
Reply
If you ever get down there look out for the pub sign, it's a ghostly Legionary in front of some ghostly mounds, the "ghostly" is probably down to years of fading.
http://www.rhubarb-inns.co.uk/threehills/

The current theory is that the mounds are late 1st and 2nd century and belong to a wealthy civilian family. So the theory that they are somehow associated with the IX defeat needs some manipulation of current interpretation, particularly late dated coins as I recall. Still viable if the site is honourific and used for some time after the event i.e. 2 generations.....but that's the advantage of the armchair isn't it.
http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=374152
Reply
Hi John1

Thanks for that.....

I expect you are aware that there is a Roman Fort at Great Chesterfield 5 miles away from Linton and the "ambush point".

I have two different dates for the early fort, AD45ish and AD60ish

Do you have any more details regarding the date?
Deryk
Reply
Sorry that should have read Great Chesterford.....
Deryk
Reply
self destructive wild card coming here.... has anyone put forward the East/West trending valley between Catthorpe and Lilbourne as a candidate?

Still doesn't measure up to CS in my view but it's a good defile on Watling Street with the Plain to the east, albeit a bit up hill from the valley floor. Obviously a point in need of some strategic defensives positions with no less than 3 Motte and baileys on site and plenty of water for Steve.
Reply
Hi Nathan

I agree with what you say regarding a loose confederation of peoples with fairly fluid borders but if it is possible to have a vague idea of the limitations it is useful

Playing the Devil's Advocate I am trying to ascertain which actions give the greatest benefit to the Trinovantes and to the Iceni.

I think rather than looking at the rebellion as the results of one action as the Romans would have seen it, possibly it was the combination of events that affected different groups especially the aristocrats of the various tribes.

The Trinovantes were having their wealth, land and possessions removed as were the Iceni.

The prime objective for both groups would be the return of their lands and their wealth.

So the expulsion of the Romans from their own lands would have been of the highest priority which perhaps is what Tacitus was referring to when he talks about the forts being stormed.

This I feel was possibly prior to Colchester being destroyed and may even have been what alarmed the locals to ask for troops.

Did the Iceni attack Colchester or was it the Trinovantes or was it both?

Apart from loot why would the Iceni bother to attack Colchester if they had already regained their lands and the source of their wealth, remembering their normal aloofness from the Roman world?

Of course if it was vengeance of a woman and a tribe wronged .........

Regarding the Ninth being destroyed required planning and if we look at the area around Linton on the Iceni border which is only 30 miles from Colchester they weren't too far from their objective.

As you say it is unlikely that a returning force would stumble upon the Ninth and destroy them and therefore a separate army is possible...



Kind Regards
Deryk
Reply
Quote:has anyone put forward the East/West trending valley between Catthorpe and Lilbourne as a candidate
I don't think so. It's hardly a dramatic site though - rather a shallow valley, and opening eastwards as you say, with the road on the higher ground to the west. Only any use if we imagine the Britons coming from the east - I know you've been taking as lateral a view as possible, John, but personally I don't go for the idea of the Iceni returning home and then heading off to attack Paulinus, which this scenario seems to require!

(Remember that the Iceni had deliberately neglected to plant any crops in the spring, meaning that they were probably intending to seize Roman grain supplies. These supplies were in London, it would appear, and if Paulinus burned the warehouses before pulling out the rebels would be short of supplies, with nothing much waiting for them back home...)

Quote:The Trinovantes were having their wealth, land and possessions removed as were the Iceni... So the expulsion of the Romans from their own lands would have been of the highest priority

The Iceni were a client kingdom before the revolt in 61, not a colony, so although they'd been defeated and largely disarmed after the 47 revolt their lands and wealth hadn't yet been claimed by Rome. There may have been forts demarking a border with Roman territory in the Trinovante lands, but the Iceni themselves were, I think, largely left alone (albeit under the supervision of the procurator). It was the threat of direct annexation - the Roman claim on Prastutagus's will - that led in part to the revolt.

Quote:Did the Iceni attack Colchester or was it the Trinovantes or was it both?
Both, surely! If we accept Boudica as the leader, or one of the leaders, of the revolt, and if we accept that Boudica was the wife of the Iceni king (and if we don't then we don't have much else to go on!), then the Iceni were certainly involved in all stages of the uprising. The Trinovantes alone may have had cause to attack Colchester due to the overbearing attitudes of the Roman colonists on their land, but it took the rising of the Iceni (spurred by the annexation threat and the insults to Boudica herself and Prasutagus's daughters) to spark a full scale revolt.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan Wrote:

The Iceni were a client kingdom before the revolt in 61, not a colony, so although they'd been defeated and largely disarmed after the 47 revolt their lands and wealth hadn't yet been claimed by Rome. There may have been forts demarking a border with Roman territory in the Trinovante lands, but the Iceni themselves were, I think, largely left alone (albeit under the supervision of the procurator). It was the threat of direct annexation - the Roman claim on Prastutagus's will - that led in part to the revolt.

I agree with everything you say up to the point that they were left alone (albeit under the supervision of the procurator). From what Tacitus states(see following paragraph) the Procurator robs the aristocracy blind and this must be over a reasonable time to have the effect Tacitus states.

The event was otherwise. His dominions were ravaged by the centurions; the slaves
pillaged his house, and his effects were seized as lawful plunder. His wife, Boudicca,
was disgraced with cruel stripes; her daughters were ravished, and the most illustrious of the Icenians were, by force, deprived of the positions which had been transmitted to them by their ancestors. The whole country was considered as a legacy bequeathed to the plunderers. The relations of the deceased king were reduced to slavery


I suspect that AD60 was the year that these depredations took place. This was not just Boudica and the Royal Household but the whole of the Iceni nobility and landowners much as was happening to the Trinovantes.

Catus Decianus, the procurator of the province, alarmed at the scene of carnage which he beheld on every side, and further dreading the indignation of a people, whom by rapine
and oppression he had driven to despair, betook himself to flight, and crossed over into
Gaul.


Again this an indicator that Catus had been doing this over a period of time not just a week or two and if we agree that the revolt was in AD61 it is likely that this happened during AD60.


Nathan wrote:

Both, surely! If we accept Boudica as the leader, or one of the leaders, of the revolt, and if we accept that Boudica was the wife of the Iceni king (and if we don't then we don't have much else to go on!), then the Iceni were certainly involved in all stages of the uprising. The Trinovantes alone may have had cause to attack Colchester due to the overbearing attitudes of the Roman colonists on their land, but it took the rising of the Iceni (spurred by the annexation threat and the insults to Boudica herself and Prasutagus's daughters) to spark a full scale revolt.


I think that we can accept that Boudica was one of the leaders and her uprising and her successful taking back the lands in the Iceni territory could have been a "torch" and a template that others could follow. She does not necessarily have to have lent her army's weight to the destruction of Colchester.

The Trinovantes could then have taken back Colchester on their own (virtually an undefended town) with no need for help.

I think that also to a degree your argument against John (1) about the Iceni going back home and then attacking Seutonius Paulinus also shows that the Iceni probably did not march on Colchester.

The reason for this is that by your own timelines you state that the Iceni leave to attack Colchester on May the 18th but don't do this until June the 5th nearly 3 weeks later and then hang around before attacking London on June 13th another 8 days later.

To keep an army sitting around doing nothing was logistically unwise and expensive in food terms and why attack London anyway? Yes it was a thriving port and trading post but it was not a centre of power and wealth at that time.

Certainly the Iceni after their uprising in AD47 would have known how the Romans would have reacted and that is to get to grips with the enemy ASAP in a battle where the odds were on their side.

The Iceni would have waited to ambush them as they entered their territories and the first force sent against them (the Ninth were ambushed in this way) although the Iceni territories were not the target and Colchester was, the Iceni were not to have known this.

I expect that the Trinovantes would have done the same protecting their own territories rather than acting in concert with the Iceni at this time.

As an aside wouldn't the Iceni have sowed winter wheat in the Autumn and not the Spring?

Regarding the bypass of the forts. I think this happens later on the march across the country towards London and St Albans in a mad dash to bring SP to battle whilst he still had a "small army".

This was the time that it would make sense to combine ideas and forces to take on SP after he had retreated from London.
Deryk
Reply
Quote:From what Tacitus states... the Procurator robs the aristocracy blind and this must be over a reasonable time to have the effect Tacitus states.
Yes, the events that T describes happened after the death of Prasutagus, which surely happened a number of months before the revolt broke out. The Romans appear to have believed that with the death of the king all their client treaties were void and Iceni lands should fall to the imperial domain. The depredations described in these excerpts will have been enough to show the Iceni what they might expect under direct Roman control.

Quote:To keep an army sitting around doing nothing was logistically unwise and expensive in food terms and why attack London anyway?
I wondered some time ago why Boudica and co apparently spent so long reaching London after burning Colchester. I think the answer is not that complicated: a vast tribal host will move very slowly at the best of times, and with the attractions of a fallen city and a surrounding network of Roman colony settlements to plunder, they would hardly be 'sitting around'! Dio, I think, actually mentions religious ceremonies and sacrifices: whether we believe this or not, I think the Britons would have had plenty to keep them occupied.

As for London - it was a small settlement at this date, but appears to have been the seat of the procurator (Colchester being the governorial capital). So the hated Decianus was there - or his office at least. It was also an army supply dump: the destruction layer dating to the revolt includes substantial quantities of burnt grain originating from the continent. So the Britons could have combined business with pleasure, so to speak, in destroying the place (unless, as I believe, Paulinus did it first by torching the grain stores, with the fire spreading to the civilian settlement).

Quote:The Iceni would have waited to ambush them as they entered their territories and the first force sent against them (the Ninth were ambushed in this way) although the Iceni territories were not the target and Colchester was, the Iceni were not to have known this.
The Roman road from Longthorpe/Leicester doesn't appear to pass through Iceni territory, and if Cerealis was heading directly and rapidly to Colchester he surely wouldn't have paused to harass the natives. That being the case, I don't really see why anyone would assume he was going anywhere except Colchester - and since there was a large rebel force already there, it's most obvious to assume that they, or a subgroup of them, were the ones who ambushed the ninth.

Quote:As an aside wouldn't the Iceni have sowed winter wheat in the Autumn and not the Spring?
Yes. The summer harvest was sown in the spring (this was the one the Iceni neglected) and the winter harvest in the autumn (so they would have needed to return home by then to sow it). There was a discussion on harvests earlier in this thread.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan wrote:

It was also an army supply dump: the destruction layer dating to the revolt includes substantial quantities of burnt grain originating from the continent. So the Britons could have combined business with pleasure, so to speak, in destroying the place (unless, as I believe, Paulinus did it first by torching the grain stores, with the fire spreading to the civilian settlement).

I agree with you re SP torching London as part of a scorched earth poliocy and expect that he did the same to St Albans before leaving on his way to London.

Nathan wrote:

The Roman road from Longthorpe/Leicester doesn't appear to pass through Iceni territory, and if Cerealis was heading directly and rapidly to Colchester he surely wouldn't have paused to harass the natives. That being the case, I don't really see why anyone would assume he was going anywhere except Colchester - and since there was a large rebel force already there, it's most obvious to assume that they, or a subgroup of them, were the ones who ambushed the ninth.

I think that the route he would have taken was the direct one to Colchester which crosses the Inknield Way at Linton (near John's Bartlow site) near Sturmer right on the edge of Iceni territory. In fact this point is about 30 miles from both Thetford and Colchester.

I have an alternate theory which I would like to paint....

Boudica and the Iceni take back their lands and mount patrols along their borders.

The Trinovantes make a note of Boudica's success and do the same and attack Colchester and after two days destroy the Capital of the new Province and take back the farms that havebeen seeded to the Roman Vets.

The Ninth are interecepted by the Iceni and destroyed. Both the Iceni and the Trinovantes await the attack that they are expecting (if they go to London they leave their homelands open to attack by the Roman Army) along a wide front.

SP retreats.

Boudica, the Iceni and the Trinovantes rush their limited strike forces to cut him off as they now realise that his re-inforcements are not coming and they can beat him.

Boudica goes to St Albans via Dunstable and the Trinovantes to their old port Londinium but they miss him and the food and the arms.

The strike forces now have to wait for food as they haven't got enough and a decision is made to continue to pursue SP and his small army.....



When they get there he is no longer there
Deryk
Reply
I know you've been taking as lateral a view as possible, John,
A little harsh considering I haven't posted my alien invasion theory yet!!! The slopes and topo are a better fit than Paulerpury, High Cross and Arbury Banks so i think it has to go into the "candidates to be tested" folder. I'm not sure why it would have strategic significance but the Mottes suggest there may have been some route or boundary at some point. At the moment I don't think it's a patch on CS or Dunstable but it might be worth having in the pot, for the northern scenario, at least to rule out.

but personally I don't go for the idea of the Iceni returning home and then heading off to attack Paulinus, which this scenario seems to require!
Personally I do, two major engagements, one huge muster to do Colchester, then a second to meet Paulinus for the end game, in between most go home whilst smaller units are running around creating havoc, panic and mayhem, with a bit of rape and pillage on the side. I think it's a scenario I've stated a few times now so not really worthy of the exclamation :!: :!: :!: I note Dunstable is a bit stuffed if the Iceni approach is from anywhere but the south :!: :!: :!: (bring it on)

So we now have three credible scenarios for the London and St Albans burning layers with remarkably few bodies;
1) The "parade theory", a column of 250,000 with carts following the roman road network and setting fires as they go.
2) The east/west raids, small units going cross country to loot and torch deserted towns.
3) The scorched earth policy, a new one but I like it.

Back toi the bunker for me....
Reply
Quote:When they get there he is no longer there
Because he's... gone to Cunetio! Confusedmile:

OK, I see where you're going with this now. It's a plausible scenario, and there's something to be said for widening the picture beyond a simple A to B: Ockham's Razor can sometimes pare away a little too much meat. However, a few potential problems spring to mind:

1. The Iceni didn't need to 'take back their land' - at this point, the only Romans in their territory would be small groups sent by the procurator, probably land surveyors assessing for tax purposes, freedmen and soldiers grabbing whatever Decianus felt might be portable: plunder, certainly, but not yet occupation. These groups, being mobile, would certainly have hightailed it to Colchester at the first sign of trouble, taking their loot with them. If the Iceni wanted vengeance, rather just to be left alone, they'd have to leave their own territory to get it...

2. Tacitus says the Iceni neglected to plant summer crops before the revolt. This means they were intending to leave their land, for a season at least, and planning to find grain elsewhere - Roman supplies surely. So there would be no reason for them to return home to their fallow fields, and plenty of reason for them to go after the Roman supply dumps.

3. The Trinovantes had plenty of opportunities for attacking Colchester before this. They did not, IIRC, participate in the Iceni revolt of 47. So why did they rise in 61? The Iceni crossing their borders bent on revolt, swelling their numbers and bringing rousing stories of Roman injustice may have been a cause.

4. At the final battle the Britons were more numerous than ever. Coordinating a big multi-tribe group would be very difficult, especially if they were splitting up into smaller groups and wandering about the country. Smaller groups could be destroyed piecemeal. Far more likely that Boudica and the other leaders kept them together in one mass (more a swarm than an army, but cohesive at least).

Quote:A little harsh considering I haven't posted my alien invasion theory yet!!!
Ah yes, but I haven't posted my theory that Tacitus himself burned London as part of the publicity campaign for his new fictional epic 'The Histories', sequel to his blockbuster 'Agricola' - he was the Dan Brown of his day... :wink:
Nathan Ross
Reply
Quote:credible scenarios for the London and St Albans burning layers with remarkably few bodies
Hmm - but how many battle sites from the ancient world have actually produced human remains in any quantity? One of the forts on the Raetian limes I think, Dura of course... I believe there were some at Colchester (?), and of course the collection of skulls from the Walbrook in London. But not much, considering the amount of killing and death going on back then :wink:

Romans of the mid first century commonly used cremation to dispose of bodies; inhumation didn't become the fashion for another hundred years. Since they also rebuilt London and St Albans as Roman cities, they'd have plenty of time and a lot of reason to gather all the bodies and cremate them on pyres. So we'd be looking for evidence of burning (which in the case of London... oh, hang on!) rather than grave pits, large bone remains, barrows or anything else. Smaller burnt remains (cremains, is it?) would of course be much harder to find and identify...
Nathan Ross
Reply
so evidence of burning, but no evidence of mass killings, might have happened but you would not expect to see evidence. (Wallbrook = serial killer)

I've just taken a look at Dunstable again, can it be defended from an approach other than the south? doesn't seem so, I can see why you would resist any theory NOT complying with the parade theory,
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,482 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: