Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
[attachment=5643]mapserv.png[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
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
Just as an aside:

The 2nd Iceni army could have gone via the Icknield way to Braughing and then directly on to St Albans as opposed from going to London.

There is then a link from St Albans to Silchester along old roads.

When SP left to go to the West - the next town was Silchester so everyone would have gathered where he was going..... and decided to follow him.

Of course my problem is how did SP get them to follow him to Cunetio after Silchester? Would Nathan's idea of pretending to be fleeing just out of reach work?

Cunetio is a wonderful site for defence. It borders one of the oldest forests in Britain, even the New Forest was young in comparison.

It also has access to all of the Legionary bases (apart from the Ninth).

It was also well situated for Exeter, Bath, Cirencester, Gloucester, Usk etc. where there were Roman troops.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote: Cunetio is a wonderful site for defence... Kind Regards - Deryk

And after several pages of discussion STILL has a sizable water hazard running in the middle of your proposed site.
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:

And after several pages of discussion STILL has a sizable water hazard running in the middle of your proposed site.

I agree with you that there is a shallow river running through it which has a number of fords at the battle site. It is NOT a sizeable water hazard. It is less than the river at the Mancetter Site which also runs through the battle ground and has no fords.

The river at Mancetter is deep enough for today's pleasure barges whereas the River Kennet is not, which is why the Kennet and Avon Canal was built some miles away which joins the River Kennet at Hungerford down the valley.

So if Cunetio is a write off for that reason so is Mancetter.

Is that your opinion?

I do not view it in the same way that you do.

In my opinion SP set a trap.

As you know the site well as you say and are looking from the North Side of the river valley across the river, imagine the Roman troops drawn up on the opposing valley side which is as steep as a rampart.

The land between the river and the Roman lines is some 300 yards deep and the valley is miles long towards Hungerford / Silchester.

Once the Brythons were on this land (between the river and the Southern side of the Kennet Valley) and it was easy to cross the river they could have charged uphill at the Roman line. The Roman line could have been on the side of the hill where it becomes extremely steep and would have thrown their pillums (pillae?) at the advancing force and then have charged down the hill driving them towards the river where the Brythons would have been slowed down to cross the river and chaos would have ensued.

I still fail to understand your objection apart that the river is not mentioned by Tacitus.

As he doesn't mention it perhaps it wasn't seen as a great hazard?

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:I do not view it in the same way that you do.

I'd have to agree that the river is a problem - Tacitus's apertam planitiem... sine metu insidiarum ('open plain, without fear of ambush', approximately, I think: basically somewhere with no cover for the enemy) doesn't suggest a river valley to me - the banks of the river, however shallow, would offer the Britons a defence against Roman counterattack.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this one though...

Incidentally, I would dismiss Mancetter on a number of grounds. The 'water feature' would be only one of them!
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan Ross wrote:

....basically somewhere with no cover for the enemy) doesn't suggest a river valley to me - the banks of the river, however shallow, would offer the Britons a defence against Roman counterattack.

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this one though...


Probably. I think that if SP had the Batavians with him with their well known expertise of crossing rivers the River Kennet would not have been a problem for them.

The other point it would have been very difficult to turn and mount a defense when people are rushing back to the waggons to protect the baggage train.

Nathan Ross wrote:

Incidentally, I would dismiss Mancetter on a number of grounds. The 'water feature' would be only one of them!

Its a pleasure to be able to agreee.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Clarification:

The River Kennet is a "Chalk Stream:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk_stream

The Kennet runs dry or very low quite regularly.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...n-betjeman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17908323

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...74we16.htm

Another factor that has been previously mentioned is that it would have been very easy for SP to have dammed the Kennet upstream making it dry.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Hi remember me? I haven't read all of the last months postings so I may be irrelevant on this but the quote;

"Cerialis with the cavalry escaped into a camp and was protected by the ramparts."

put me in mind of Grahame Appleby's observation that Camden claimed a Roman Battlefield was at Wandlebury Ring just south of Cambridge. Right area, still has great ramparts and is Iron Age with mid first century work to the ramparts and Roman occupation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandlebury_Hill_Fort
http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob...perpage=10

In regard to the "water feature" debate the streams/rivers at both Mancetter and Cunetio are such major features that I too cannot square them with Tacitus. There would need to be a lot of other positive evidence in terms of finds and earthworks to balance the presence of the river beds. So if Cunetio is out of the running, that leaves us with Virginia Water or no credible western site. Shall we settle that the Western Theory is a blind alley? :twisted: It has generated some fantastic analysis of the text but, other than Cunetio, no new candidates. :whistle:

I am struck by the fact that through this debate we have yet to find a champion for Mancetter but it still seems to be the academic default position (Nic Fields Osprey book 2011 and Richard Hingley In Our Time 2010). Why are the academics not motivated to look for the site? I can't figure out what makes them tick. :unsure:
Reply
Quote:Shall we settle that the Western Theory is a blind alley? :twisted:

I don't think so. Although I still prefer the north route, the west has a lot to be said for it. I believe that a consideration of the strategic shape of the campaign is possibly more useful than our attempts to accurately identify the site, which rely on a lot of variables (not least Tacitus's powers of description!).

Virginia Water is still very plausible, I think. Perhaps not the exact site suggested by Fuentes, but nearby - there's high ground, valleys, and it's close to London on the Roman road. The topography has been rather altered by development and the construction of an artifical lake, unfortunately!

It would perhaps be my second choice, after Dunstable, which continues to provide the best match for site topography and strategic plausibility...
Nathan Ross
Reply
John 1 wrote:

Hi remember me?

How could we possibly forget? Nice to have you back! Smile

John 1 wrote:

I haven't read all of the last months postings so I may be irrelevant on this but the quote;

"Cerialis with the cavalry escaped into a camp and was protected by the ramparts."

put me in mind of Grahame Appleby's observation that Camden claimed a Roman Battlefield was at Wandlebury Ring just south of Cambridge. Right area, still has great ramparts and is Iron Age with mid first century work to the ramparts and Roman occupation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandlebury_Hill_Fort

www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=371...=q&recordsperpage=10


It is a possibility (but you would have to come down on the side of the Ninth being ambushed!)

John 1 wrote:

In regard to the "water feature" debate the streams/rivers at both Mancetter and Cunetio are such major features that I too cannot square them with Tacitus. There would need to be a lot of other positive evidence in terms of finds and earthworks to balance the presence of the river beds.
So if Cunetio is out of the running, that leaves us with Virginia Water or no credible western site.

Shall we settle that the Western Theory is a blind alley?


I (of course) cannot agree with that and as I try (but fail abysmally) to convince people that the Kennet was NOT a huge obstruction (It is fed by “Winterbournes” and at the Summers end is very low) I still think that Cunetio is still viable.

For me the main problem is the distance from London / St Albans, which is where Dunstable has the edge being only 30 miles from London but the topography doesn’t work for me. Of course Church Strowe is 65 miles from London (75 miles from Thetford) and Mancetter is nearer 100 miles from London.

John 1 wrote:

It has generated some fantastic analysis of the text but, other than Cunetio, no new candidates.

Yes this is a bit disappointing. Perhaps we need to analyse the areas around Virginia water. There does not appear to be the topography before Cunetio that really fits.

Nathan Ross wrote:

I don't think so. Although I still prefer the north route, the west has a lot to be said for it. I believe that a consideration of the strategic shape of the campaign is possibly more useful than our attempts to accurately identify the site, which rely on a lot of variables (not least Tacitus's powers of description!).

Virginia Water is still very plausible, I think. Perhaps not the exact site suggested by Fuentes, but nearby - there's high ground, valleys, and it's close to London on the Roman road. The topography has been rather altered by development and the construction of an artifical lake, unfortunately!


It would perhaps be my second choice, after Dunstable, which continues to provide the best match for site topography and strategic plausibility...

OK – we will have to agree to disagree on the sites BUT lets have a look at the campaign and what events and reactions drove it.....

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
I believe that a consideration of the strategic shape of the campaign is possibly more useful than our attempts to accurately identify the site, which rely on a lot of variables
Strategic campaign issues are important, I'm learning a lot, however they will always be inconclusive and rest on a deep stratigraphy of opinions. This threads greatest value is that it has put 3 new candidate sites on the table, CS, Dunstable and Cunetio (ranked in order of credibility, you can choose to read left to right or right to left, you'll always be my second choice Nathan :evil: ) Personally I'd like to see more candidates being brought forward and discussed or dismissed, a filtering exercise, maybe 100 sites. Almost a retread of Steve scale of thinking but reversed into, with site first, parameters weighted second.

It is a possibility (but you would have to come down on the side of the Ninth being ambushed!)
I can still buy the ambush for what it's worth but have no firm view on Bartlow or Wandlebury they just provide good topographic speculations.

For me the main problem is the distance from London / St Albans, which is where Dunstable has the edge being only 30 miles from London but the topography doesn’t work for me. Of course Church Stowe is 65 miles from London (75 miles from Thetford) and Mancetter is nearer 100 miles from London.
London and St Albans happen to have been destroyed as part of this rising (I no longer think of it as a campaign from the Brit side) but weren't necessarily full scale actions, they could simply have been peripheral raids from a core location, or even Roman scorched earth. I would argue that the distance from Iceni territory could be a better "distance" issue to assess the sites credibility. Better muster for Iceni families, better threat posed by SP to the Iceni. If Betty didn't come to him he could just stroll into her back door and wreak havoc before his probable demise, going down fighting and doing damage to the Iceni core seems a better option to me than running to nowhere. Ready reckoning puts CS 85 miles, Dunstable 85 miles and Colchester 50 miles from a hub at Norwich. As opposed to Cunetio, about 140 miles, and Virginia water at about 110 miles. If you take supposed Iceni territorial limits the closest is CS at about 40 miles.....so distance problem? what distance problem for anywhere but the West?

Perhaps we need to analyse the areas around Virginia water. I'm pretty sure Nathan has done a good job on this already.
Reply
Quote:

I (of course) cannot agree with that and as I try (but fail abysmally) to convince people that the Kennet was NOT a huge obstruction Kind Regards - Deryk

I think perhaps if you were to consider the immediate ground rather than just the water you could perhaps see why there are those of us (Tacitus apart) who have a problem with a river in the equation.

Chalky ground may not get quite as boggy as more clayey ground; you are not, for example, going to disappear up to your knees in wet chalky ground, but it presents its own problems of footing and being able to walk on it unencumbered by arms and armour; not to mention horses, wagons etc etc etc.

Wet chalky ground churns up very quickly and the numbers we are looking at for this particular battle would soon make it virtually unpassable.

Why would any General choose a site which gave him an avoidable hazard unless it was entirely in his favour?

Amongst all the theory and debate, one should bear in mind the practicalities.
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
"Pontification", is that "to build a bridge"?
Reply
Vindex wrote:

I think perhaps if you were to consider the immediate ground rather than just the water you could perhaps see why there are those of us (Tacitus apart) who have a problem with a river in the equation.

Chalky ground may not get quite as boggy as more clayey ground; you are not, for example, going to disappear up to your knees in wet chalky ground, but it presents its own problems of footing and being able to walk on it unencumbered by arms and armour; not to mention horses, wagons etc etc etc.

Wet chalky ground churns up very quickly and the numbers we are looking at for this particular battle would soon make it virtually unpassable.

Why would any General choose a site which gave him an avoidable hazard unless it was entirely in his favour?

Amongst all the theory and debate, one should bear in mind the practicalities.


If only you did...... Confusedad:

Could you please explain why this site is not in SP's favour as you consistently say?

What is the disadvantage for him?

If the river was shallow which it would be in the summer and still is most years even now, the land nearest the river would be dry. The few feet nearest the river might get churned up when the Brythons crossed but the Roman Army would have been drawn up 300 yards away. The main battle site would have been dry.

The disadvantage was always with Boudica and her army and especially in defeat.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:"Pontification", is that "to build a bridge"?

...close! But no cigar... ;-)
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


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: