Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Quote:I read these both as ridge top positions.

The idea is, I think, for the hills at either side to act as 'barriers', channelling the British advance into the narrow space and towards the Roman line, and preventing them outflanking it. No need for additional fortifications.

My suggested site at Dunstable is in a saddle of the Chilterns. The (hypothetical) position itself is on a shallow slope, but lies between two steep 50m elevations on each flank.

I believed your CS idea was something similar actually!

Does anyone have a plan of Webster's proposed arrangement at Mancetter, for comparison purposes?
Nathan Ross
Reply
This is Webster's plan from Boudica: the British Revolt against Rome AD 60, London, 1978. Sorry about the quality.
[attachment=5192]Mancetter.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Michael King Macdona

And do as adversaries do in law, -
Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.
(The Taming of the Shrew: Act 1, Scene 2)
Reply
So that would be a 5km wide waggon park, a river, no "anchoring of the wings" and a valley to be trapped in rather than use as a rampart :? :? :?

differs somewhat from the reality of the topography and disposition stated with certainty and gusto by Mike Loades and Aryeh Nusbacher at 54 minutes in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=end...MQ8gIxBj4Y
Reply
Nathan wrote

At first the legio stood immobile and retained the narrowness of the place as a barrier

(Church & Brodribb give 'clinging to the narrow defile as a defence', of course...)

So - unless you can translate angustias as 'steepness' rather than 'narrowness' (?), the soldiers were in the 'narrow place' rather than standing on top of it!



I of course prefer the "clinging to the narrow defile...." (as you might expect :winkSmile

If you look at the Cunetio site you (see attached) you can see that you have the steepness of the defile and the narrowness of the battle site.

[attachment=5193]CUNETIOBATTLFIELD.pdf[/attachment]

Regarding Dunstable and Church Stowe, both sites have much to recommend them so they cannot be written off but do need to be either proven or disproven. I think that both sites lack the topography to trap the Brythons or control their advance but look forward to be disabused of my views.


Vindex wrote:

...and has a river running through the middle of it which one or the other side would have to cross. I would argue that this is far from ideal for an armoured foot soldier and for me discounts Cunetio.

The River Kennet is not a huge river like the Medway or the Thames and is more like a large stream at this point and is fed by streams from Salisbury plain called winter bournes. In late summer many of these dry up and the Kennet is very shallow and easy to cross.

Even if there was a lot of water there are crossing places as I have indicated, one from the Roman period consistent with the roads at that time and one farther up stream.

The diagrams attached show the battlefield and the red star marks the point of where the following picture is taken from.


Kind Regards - Deryk


Attached Files
.pdf   CUNETIOBATTLFIELD.pdf (Size: 446.99 KB / Downloads: 1)
Deryk
Reply
Quote:Webster's plan from Boudica: the British Revolt against Rome AD 60,

Thanks - I must have seen that plan when I read the book, but didn't study it. Interesting - not at all the topography I would envisage.


Quote:the reality of the topography and disposition stated with certainty and gusto by Mike Loades and Aryeh Nusbacher

Presenter: Gentlemen, can you show us what really happened in history?
Gentlemen: Certainly! Absolutely!

If only... ;-)

But where is this supposed to be? Doesn't look much like Mancetter...

[attachment=5194]Untitled.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Nathan Ross
Reply
Quote: Even if there was a lot of water there are crossing places as I have indicated, one from the Roman period consistent with the roads at that time and one farther up stream.

No general is going to funnel his line into crossing points and then reassembled it into an attacking formation in the face of a potentially larger force which could outflank him anyway.

I know this valley quite well, as it happens, and even in a relatively dry summer/autumn it does not dry to a solid surface and I cannot understand why a lack of visible water makes you think the river bed would be "dry". The area may be chalk but you still get mud! I certainly wouldn't put horses across it.

And not much of a "narrowness of place" either I'm afraid. Your battle lines are fighting across a valley not up and down it.

Sorry Deryk, still a no from me (for what its worth).
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
Quote:I think that both sites lack the topography to trap the Brythons or control their advance but look forward to be disabused of my views.

A gap between two steep hills is the only topography that makes sense of the text for me.

At Dunstable, the 'plain' is a narrowing band of level ground with slopes to either side, which rise to the 210m summits at either side of my suggested Roman position. This would constrain the British to a narrow frontal attack and restrict their retreat. They can't move forward without defeating the Romans, they can't move back without running into their own baggage train. They can't move sideways without climbing hills against cavalry and light troops.
Nathan Ross
Reply
I thought we'd had this discussion way back on page 9 :wink: ?
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
Quote:I thought we'd had this discussion way back on page 9 :wink: ?

So did I, funnily enough! But it was over six months ago... :whistle:

Meanwhile - the article Moi linked (here) in the thread about the 'Oldest Roman camp in Germany' mentions an annexe built onto a large camp to surround a spring. One spring supplying water for thousands of troops?

Interesting, maybe... :neutral:
Nathan Ross
Reply
Vindex wrote:

No general is going to funnel his line into crossing points and then reassembled it into an attacking formation in the face of a potentially larger force which could outflank him anyway.

I know this valley quite well, as it happens, and even in a relatively dry summer/autumn it does not dry to a solid surface and I cannot understand why a lack of visible water makes you think the river bed would be "dry". The area may be chalk but you still get mud! I certainly wouldn't put horses across it.

And not much of a "narrowness of place" either I'm afraid. Your battle lines are fighting across a valley not up and down it.



Hi Vindex

I think you are missing the point here. Paulinus could never have outflanked the horde. Tacitus states that. What he does do at Cunetio is to put his forces in a position that cannot be outflanked because of the woods and the steepness of the hills.

In fact although the Roman Army is completely on display because of the steepness of the slope at this point (which you will appreciate being familiar with the valley) it is really hard to attack which means the Brythons are forced to try and attack on the one front.

They would not be outflanked as they had far more forces.

I have never said that the river was dry but again as you know the valley and river well you will appreciate that it is easily waded and would not be a problem for horses or chariots.

Although you say that the valley is not narrow it is the narrowest of all the battle sites from a depth point of view.

The key here is the use of the cuneus to split the Brythons and force them up and down the valley and some will run back up to the wagons. The Brythons will be driven up to the "pinchpoint" at Stitchcombe one way a nd the Og valley the other way with some escaping to the West when they expand to absorb / avoid the charging Romans.

The cavalry could then follow up and cut down the fleeing Brythons.

(At least that's how I see it at the present) Smile

It is interesting to see the Mancetter dmonstration where unless the waggons surrounded the Brythonic army completely you can see that as the Romans burst forth the Brythons would run to either side and escape as there is no narrowing valley behind them. This is the same (in my humble opinion) for the Dunstable and the Church Stowe sites.....

Time to stop now - too many words!!!! :grin:

Cheers - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:there is no narrowing valley behind them. This is the same (in my humble opinion) for the Dunstable and the Church Stowe sites.....

I believe there is a narrowing valley behind the British at Dunstable - the A5 runs down it, between Kensworth and Caddington...

As for Cunetio - I hope you'll forgive me for trying to redraw one your maps (I find OS easier to judge elevations!). I think the positions are more or less as you've last described them. If the British (marked in orange) are advancing from the east, what's to stop them following the oblique valley up past Coombe Farm and appearing on the high level ground behind the Roman position? (route marked in red dots - a second outflanking move to the west runs off the map!)

[attachment=5195]UntitledII.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Nathan Ross
Reply
Quote:could you be more expansive about the military equipment please?
There is a summary of what was found in the EH document on the archaeology of Mildenhall-Cunetio (para 6.2.7: PDF of document here) and this is taken from Nick Griffiths' original article:

Griffiths, N. 1983: 'Early Roman Military Metalwork from Wiltshire', Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine 77, 49-60

Can't find my copy or I could give a bit more detail.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
Quote:
Hi Vindex

I think you are missing the point here. Paulinus could never have outflanked the horde. Tacitus states that.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the Romans being outflanked by the Britons. Nothing in the sources suggest Paulinus had enough men.


Quote: I have never said that the river was dry but again as you know the valley and river well you will appreciate that it is easily waded and would not be a problem for horses or chariots.

The river MAY have been easily waded by horses and infantry; perhaps even chariots (which I strongly doubt) BUT it leads to a massive reduction in momentum as you're going to have to slow down to cross this particular obstruction. The Britons may have galloped in full of confidence from previous successess; Paulinus, facing the possibility of his defeat meaning the loss of the province would not, I am sure, have taken such a risk.

So, sorry; I think my point stands. ;-)
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
Quote: One spring supplying water for thousands of troops?

Interesting, maybe... :neutral:

I am beginning to feel vindicated...something must be wrong! :woot:
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
It is interesting to see the Mancetter dmonstration where unless the waggons surrounded the Brythonic army completely you can see that as the Romans burst forth the Brythons would run to either side and escape as there is no narrowing valley behind them. This is the same (in my humble opinion) for the Dunstable and the Church Stowe sites.....


At CS the British retreat is constrained to the valley bottom from Stowe Wood to Watling Street, about a mile, only then do options open up as the refugees spill out onto the "Great Plain" of the Nene valley. So very different to Mancetter. Cavalry using the ridgetops to Weedon Bec and Church Stowe can cut off/harry etc
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: