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

yep I'm a little surprised the academics haven't thought to jump on board and test these. Maybe the academic world is demonstrating it cannot keep up with free booting amateur research, or is above speculation of this sort preferring rather the secure dogma of Mancetter. It's an interesting topic on it's own, maybe the skeptical stance of historians today militates against moving anything forward?

Dunstable may be too new to have gained traction but CS made it into the Nic Fields book and who could want more proof than Radio 4's psychics last New Years Eve? Sick
Reply
FWIW there is also the report from the Time Team episode in 2010.
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
this episode;
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-...od#3141611
Reply
Quote: which is now available for download for a mere £1.24, someone is actually making money from this debate :woot:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01509vj...o+Download

<sigh>
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
Its free on you tube....you in that one Moi?
Kevin
Kevin
Reply
Hi Nathan

Many thanks for this - the map is really good and encapsulates many of the points that need to be discussed.

(As a matter of interest perhaps we should apply this methodology to all the sites.)

Like you when I first looked at the site I had assumed the obvious defensive position was for the Roman army to block the valley (as the current thinking would have us believe) but came to the conclusion that the valley position could be outflanked and the force be attacked from behind and enveloped due to the size of the Brythonic horde which could also attack from Avebury or indeed from the Ridgeway.

Also there was no frontal plain.

So the valley location did not make sense and also Tacitus seems (and I use that word advisedly) to indicate that the valley itself offered a defense. Yet if you think of it, the valley floor offers no protection whatsoever.

So what protection could a defile give the Romans? Yes it funneled the Brythons down to a limited front but nothing else.

By turning the Cunetio site so that the Army was on the side of the defile, immediately the Roman Army had protection and the plain was in front. The Front was also effectively limited because the Agger of the Roman Road formed the Eastern edge of the position as a protection which could be manned.

Obviously the one weak area that becomes apparent is the option that the horde if moving in from the East could go up the very route that you suggest because it is a more gentle slope.

There are a number of options here:

1. I mentioned the Agger earlier and this could have been used as a defensive line manned by 1,000 local auxiliaries. If John is right about the artillery they would have been able to form a withering fire from here and protect the flanks.

2. You mentioned forestation in an earlier post and I surmise that in fact the area between the forest and the ridge would have been wooded at this time but obviously I cannot prove it any more than any of the sites can prove to be wooded. What I can say is that in the 1840s there is more forestation around the bottom of Forest Hill according to a map I found.

What does seem to support this matter is that if you look at your map you can see an earthworks on the slope to the east that goes up towards Hill Barn - see attached picture:

[attachment=5205]CUNETIOEARTHWORKS.pdf[/attachment]

The Western approach even today is protected by forest but you would expect the Romans to have secured that side as well again protected by the earthworks from an earlier oppida.

3. Using marching speeds etc. it is possible to demonstrate that Seutonius Paulinus was there a few days before the Brythons and would have been able to have set up considerable defensive works similar to what would have been set up around a marching camp or more.

Behind the Roman army was in fact the earlier iron age fort /oppida so this was obviously a proven defensive position.

Regarding Dunstable:

[attachment=5206]DUNSTABLE.pdf[/attachment]

I have mapped the battle site and placed wagons where you say. The width of the valley is around 1200 - 1300 yards which mean at 8 deep you would need all your infantry in the valley with the cavalry on the wings.

I have put the Brythonic horde of 180,000 men (assuming 50,000 in the baggage train) in close order of 1 yard per man with 3 yards between each row and 90 rows. As you can see it is a considerable force.

Although you maintain that the hills would have funnelled the horde I think that the hills are not particularly steep and have shown that when the Romans attacked and the Brythons broke they would have just run away over the hills.

I think that perhaps the 80,000 slaughter was in fact the baggage train, the families, the cattle and the warriors who ran back to get their families and just could not get away.

The other 150,0000 escaped...allegedly.

Kind Regards - Deryk


Attached Files
.pdf   CUNETIOEARTHWORKS.pdf (Size: 253.24 KB / Downloads: 0)
.pdf   DUNSTABLE.pdf (Size: 303.83 KB / Downloads: 0)
Deryk
Reply
Vindex wrote:

I am beginning to feel vindicated...something must be wrong!

Probably! :wink:

Crossing the Kennet was about 300 yards from the Roman lines so has no bearing on the charge at all.

The position on the side of the valley is what allows the Romans to bring in the Brythonic army to callenge them on equal terms.

The Cunetio Time Team is about 200 years after this action.

I don't understand the comment about one spring????? :?

You are the person who has indicated that the river would be dry.

I indicated that it is easily fordable in a number of places.... was there enough water for thousands of horses - no idea..... but it does fit Steve Kaye's criteria and that is good enough for me.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Yet if you think of it, the valley floor offers no protection whatsoever.
I think that's why the "valley acting as a rampart" implies the Romans were on the top of the ridges surrounding a valley, hence CS and Dunstable are a good fit. But you are taking a brave route in not interpreting the text/topography in the accepted way, I applaud this.

I don't understand the comment about one spring?????
I understood this to be a reference to Steve's methodology regarding water supply as a logistical determinant but I'm sure Moi can elaborate.
Reply
Quote:[i]Maybe the academic world is demonstrating it cannot keep up with free booting amateur research, or is above speculation of this sort preferring rather the secure dogma of Mancetter.

You'd need to present your case in publication - print or online journal would be best. Dudley and Webster floated Mancetter on the back of a full survey of the rebellion, which became so influential that the location idea stuck.

Nick Fuentes' presentation of Virginia Water would be the best model. But you'd need some physical evidence, however slight - Fuentes used burnt debris from Brentwood and Staines to plot his westward British advance, for example.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Hi John

I would agree that CS it is a very different and perhaps we should test this site ourselves.

It probably depends in part if the cavalry could indeed coral the Brythons in defeat. Again there is a river where perhaps the Wagons were which again may have delayed the escape.

Thanks for the kind remarks regarding my interpretation of the text - at least its worth testing...

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:I have mapped the battle site and placed wagons where you say.

Thanks! Interesting to see.


Quote:The width of the valley is around 1200 - 1300 yards which mean at 8 deep you would need all your infantry in the valley with the cavalry on the wings.

I'd place them 12 deep actually, in solid compact blocks.


Quote:I have put the Brythonic horde of 180,000 men (assuming 50,000 in the baggage train) in close order of 1 yard per man with 3 yards between each row and 90 rows. As you can see it is a considerable force.

It is - but it wouldn't be lined up like this, I think. More a mass of men pressing forward towards the centre of the Roman line. The natural 'funnel' of the ground would accentuate this.


Quote:Although you maintain that the hills would have funnelled the horde I think that the hills are not particularly steep and have shown that when the Romans attacked and the Brythons broke they would have just run away over the hills.

Not if they were trying to save their wagons and families ;-)

I may do another quick sketch of the position myself later to explain the use of the hills as a 'barrier'.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Quote:Its free on you tube....you in that one Moi?
Kevin

Nope! Managed to avoid them...
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:Vindex wrote:

I am beginning to feel vindicated...something must be wrong!

Probably! :wink:

Crossing the Kennet was about 300 yards from the Roman lines so has no bearing on the charge at all.

The position on the side of the valley is what allows the Romans to bring in the Brythonic army to callenge them on equal terms.

The Cunetio Time Team is about 200 years after this action.

I don't understand the comment about one spring????? :?

You are the person who has indicated that the river would be dry.

I indicated that it is easily fordable in a number of places.... was there enough water for thousands of horses - no idea..... but it does fit Steve Kaye's criteria and that is good enough for me.

Kind Regards - Deryk

I would respectfully ask that you READ the posts which contribute to this discussion more carefully. If you do you will see that I never said the river would be dry - why would I? I don't believe any Roman general would be stupid enough to put a natural obstacle in the way of his troops and horses!

(And, for the umpteenth time, the sources do not mention a river).

Last post from me on this topic for sure.
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
Vindex wrote:

I would respectfully ask that you READ the posts which contribute to this discussion more carefully. If you do you will see that I never said the river would be dry - why would I? I don't believe any Roman general would be stupid enough to put a natural obstacle in the way of his troops and horses!

(And, for the umpteenth time, the sources do not mention a river).

Last post from me on this topic for sure.


Hi Vindex

I am sorry if I have offended you.

I do try to reflect accurately on what I have read but perhaps in this case I have failed!

The Battlefield puts the Brythons between the Romans and the River Kennet (where the Romans are based on the Southern enscarpment of the valley and the Brythonic Army on the Northern side of the valley).

I therefore cannot see how Seutonius Paulinus is putting a barrier in the way of his troops, in fact he has put the barrier in the way of the Brythons both in the assemblage of their troops and their immediate withdrawal - a masterly stroke.

His camp was in fact behind where his troops would have been lined up allowing for retreat down the Roman Road to Winchester - away from the Brythonic Army - if needed.

There is an obvious misunderstanding over the river bed but obviously as we both know it is never "dry" or has no visible water but can be shallower at the end of the summer as I expect that you are aware of and therefore in my opinion easier to cross than in the winter. It is never a major barrier.

[attachment=5207]CUNETIORIVERCROSSINGS.pdf[/attachment]

I agree that Tacitus does not mention a river but from what you are implying both Mancetter and Church Stowe are also ruled out of contention as battle sites.

I hope that you don't leave the discussion as your input will be missed.

Kind Regards - Deryk


Attached Files
.pdf   CUNETIORIVERCROSSINGS.pdf (Size: 226.42 KB / Downloads: 0)
Deryk
Reply
Quote:Yet if you think of it, the valley floor offers no protection whatsoever.
I think that's why the "valley acting as a rampart" implies the Romans were on the top of the ridges surrounding a valley

But the text says angustias loci - so a narrow place.

The phrase is also used by Livy (36.18: ad naturam et angustias loci) to describe Antiochus' position in the pass at Thermopylae in 191BC. I think we can agree this was not on top of a ridge!

Livy also uses the phrase (34.39: nam propter angustias loci) to describe a battle in a narrow street.

Tacitus must surely be describing a position in a narrow confined space between hills. Not on a ridge.


Quote:Last post from me on this topic for sure.

Sorry to hear that!
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,483 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: