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

I am not sure where we are. This looks like a different site from that previously discussed. A North point might help.

Hi Renatus

My apologies but I am having major difficulties loading diagrams but I will try again.

This site is very large and the previous battle area that we discussed is on the south western side of the plateau... this battle site is on the north eastern side f the plateau facing Tring and Akeman Street....

[attachment=7909]Tring1050913.jpg[/attachment]

(Hope this helps)

Kind Regards - Deryk


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
Hi Renatus /Nathan

Here are some more.....


[attachment=7910]Tring3050913.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=7912]Tring05050913.jpg[/attachment]
[attachment=7911]Tring4050913.png[/attachment]

Kind Regards - Deryk


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Deryk
Reply
Quote:Renatus stated:

I am not sure where we are. This looks like a different site from that previously discussed. A North point might help.

...This site is very large and the previous battle area that we discussed is on the south western side of the plateau... this battle site is on the north eastern side of the plateau facing Tring and Akeman Street....

It seems you've gone back to the location you originally suggested in this post. A good thing - it's a lot more credible as a site, I think.

From what I can see on your very small images, you're placing your Roman line wnw-ese across the valley between Coombe Hill and the long ridge of Hastoe Hill, centred more or less on Hanghill. The 'open plain' and the Britons would be over towards modern Tring. Here's the OS, taken from one of your earlier posts, Deryk:

[attachment=7913]tringmap.jpg[/attachment]

I'm not actually sure what you mean by the two valleys and the two access points - I looks like quite a straighforward enclosed defile with woods behind. Are you overcomplicating your battle plan? If so, why?

Two problems I can see with this. Firstly, it's possibly too enclosed. A cavalry or light force placed up on the hill to the west ('Buckland Hoo') would be okay, but the long ridge of Hastoe Hill to the east, covered by Pavis, Grove and Stubbings Wood, is too steep to allow troops to charge down it into the valley or the plain. In effect, any troops placed on the heights up here would be out of the battle. They would be okay as a blocking force, preventing the position from being outflanked from the east perhaps, but unless they made a side sweep north-east through Tring Park and around, they'd be tactically useless.

Second problem - where's the camp? In your previous version of this plan (see above) you put a camp in the valley somewhere. The more recent version has various camps up on the hills. But I don't see a lot of level ground - it's all slopes and steeps until you get the hill crests, where water would be a problem. Also the issue of being besieged up there... I'd say your Roman force would need an easier fallback route to their camping ground.

But it's an interesting site nevertheless...


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Nathan Ross
Reply
[attachment=7914]TRING1050913.pdf[/attachment]


Attached Files
.pdf   TRING1050913.pdf (Size: 158.44 KB / Downloads: 1)
Deryk
Reply
Hi Nathan

I'll try another PDF.....


[attachment=7915]TR01.pdf[/attachment]


Attached Files
.pdf   TR01.pdf (Size: 155.03 KB / Downloads: 1)
Deryk
Reply
This should be a picture of the Divisions

[attachment=7916]TR02.pdf[/attachment]


Attached Files
.pdf   TR02.pdf (Size: 203.5 KB / Downloads: 1)
Deryk
Reply
Hi Nathan

Map
[attachment=7917]TRINGB01.pdf[/attachment]


Attached Files
.pdf   TRINGB01.pdf (Size: 222.28 KB / Downloads: 1)
Deryk
Reply
Fascinating.
In no way a critique of recent posts, for which I am not qualified (just admiring the effort you Generals put into your theories) but just a couple of observations.
1. Why are the British surprised by P's tactics? Surely both sides had experienced scouts/ intelligence?
The longer P 'delayed', the more likely B would have detailed info. about P's intentions.
2. Interestingly, the further North-West P. travels, the more defendable Roman forts are at his disposal. Bicester, ?Towcester,CS, Mancetter,etc, whereas the Celts had many around the Chilterns, etc.
3. On a lighter note, when this mystery is solved, as one day it will be, are you Armchair Generals going to retire? Or look for Mons Graupius, Badon Hill, Camlann? Maybe Boudicas burial place? Or, maybe there is an agenda to keep it going?
Davidus
Reply
David Scott wrote:

1. Why are the British surprised by P's tactics? Surely both sides had experienced scouts/ intelligence? The longer P 'delayed', the more likely B would have detailed info. about P's intentions.

I think that once SP had stopped and was obviously not going anywhere (for whatever reason) the Brythons had to fight them otherwise they would have left themselves exposed on their return to their homeland.

Apart from this it was an opportunity to rid Britannia of the Roman Governor another Legion and a number of Roman citizens.

2. Interestingly, the further North-West P. travels, the more defendable Roman forts are at his disposal. Bicester, ?Towcester,CS, Mancetter,etc, whereas the Celts had many around the Chilterns, etc.

I am not sure that SP was looking to defend. In fact it is unlikely that he could have defended for long (Dio says he was short of food). Interestingly the Brythons could not hang around too long either, because they had to get back to plant their crops and already had been away for some time.

So it was in both sides interest to have a battle ASAP - which they did.

3. On a lighter note, when this mystery is solved, as one day it will be, are you Armchair Generals going to retire? Or look for Mons Graupius, Badon Hill, Camlann? Maybe Boudicas burial place? Or, maybe there is an agenda to keep it going?

I already have ideas about Badon Hill - but I thought that everyone knew that Boudicca was buried under a station in London :grin:

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:[attachment=7917]TRINGB01.pdf[/attachment]

That one works a lot better - thanks.

Your camps still appear to be on very uneven ground! Don't see much of a water supply either (and for a camp that might be occupied for some days, that's a problem...)

Your 'Division 1' is just about where I'd assumed it would be - that's the place that makes the best use of the location, in my opinion.

The other 'divisions', though... Dio does say that T divided his force into three, but when the original force is so heavily outnumbered, this would be crazy unless the three 'divisions' are able to work closely together. A main infantry force in the defile with cavalry and light troops on heights to either flank would work fine - the three sections could be easily coordinated and cooperate towards the same end.

Your division, however, does not allow for coordination - in effect, you're having the Romans fight three separate mini-battles, which increases the chances of their being beaten piecemeal. Each division is fairly small, and SP has no reserves - if any get into trouble, there's nothing he could do to help them. He'd lose a third of his army and have his flank turned.

Besides, your two eastern divisions are apparently stationed in response to flanking attacks that haven't happened yet! Unless the Britons did decide to attack up those exact valleys, you'd have half the Roman force sitting around waiting for an attack that never comes, while their mates get chopped to bits over to the west...

I can only see this working if the Roman force keeps together with a strong infantry centre, as T describes. The cuneus 'wedge' formation was probably very deep, rather like an attack column, It was very hard to outflank, and could only be opposed by a strong formation of disciplined infantry, which the Britons didn't have. Against a crowd of unarmoured warriors in open order it would have been devastating.

The two cavalry 'divisions' on the flanks would keep the Britons herded together and stop them spilling away to either side. This also suggests, actually, that T's 'open plain' was somewhat closed at the sides by slopes, allowing the cavalry to more effectively harrass and hem the Britons in.

I still like this location though, if you could keep it to the one 'division'. There's still a problem with the steepness of the eastern hill isolating the right flank troops, and nowhere very tempting as a camp site. But the topography fits at least, which is something!
Nathan Ross
Reply
I agree with virtually everything that Nathan has said. Dividing one's force against an eventuality that may never come and having each division separated from the others by high ground (especially with Hastoe Hill between Divisions I and 2) is a recipe for disaster. A single force with its left and right flanks anchored on Coombe Hill and Hastoe Hill respectively fits the topography and Tacitus' description exactly. I still think that there may be some mileage in the idea of the Roman force fanning out into three divisions after emerging from the defile to counter the superior numbers of the enemy. Do others agree or is this fanciful?
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
I flicked though the new "The Roman Invasion of Britain" by Birgitta Hoffmann yesterday, Steve Kaye and John Waite get a name check, but there is no commitment to a site. The number of sites identified by Steve's study seems to be taken as a demonstration that the text evidence is insufficient to reasonably identify the battlefield.

Hoffmann comments on the burning at Silchester and brings Nick Fuentes up, this seems to hint towards a Western preference, but I was just flicking through so I may have mis-interpreted that;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Roman-Invasi...a+Hoffmann
Reply
Good, I'll look out for it!

Quote:The number of sites identified by Steve's study seems to be taken as a demonstration that the text evidence is insufficient to reasonably identify the battlefield.

This is one of the problems with these large scale 'scientific' surveys. Accurate topographic mapping and satellite imaging allows us a terrific field of enquiry, and as Steve's survey demonstrates it can suggest a vast number of sites that potentially answer Tacitus's description.

But while we have access to this technology, Paulinus had nothing of the sort. He didn't even have an accurate road-map as we would understand it. All he had to plan his campaign and find his battle site was the evidence of his own eyes, the reports of scouts and a sort of itinerary of distances by road. So we can (I think) narrow down the range of options quite considerably, based on a wider interpretation of the shape of the campaign and the sort of locations Paulinus might have considered. This is less scientific, more speculative, and of course interpretations can vary wildly, as we've been finding for the last three years!
Nathan Ross
Reply
Steve's survey demonstrates it can suggest a vast number of sites

the thing I most clear drew from Steve's work was how a single variable could be tweaked in a very minor way and the results will alter enormously. This puts a incredible pressure on the choice and weighting of the variables, choices we can't really determine precisely from the available material.

It would seem to me that that form of study is valuable for this search if run numerous times varying the criteria each time, but this may still only give a broad zonation of sites.

Alternatively it is a method possibly better utilised to predict the positions of permanent installations, forts, bridges, inland ports etc. Steve observations that forts were generally constructed at sites with significantly more water availability than would be required for a garrison, may in fact be an indicator of the Roman Army's reliance on water borne logistics, which is significant in itself.

I'd still like to see Steve's techniques used to test the nominated sites, i.e. if the site was Dunstable what would the criteria have to be for the GIS model to come up with that as the top result, and how would those criteria differ to CS coming up as the optimum candidate. Student dissertation anyone?
Reply
I received my copy of Birgitta Hoffmann's book today and have read the chapter on the revolt. The following are few random points that struck me (others may pick out different details):

1. She emphasises that we do not know the timescale of the revolt or how long elapsed between the various events. She suggests that the sacking of Colchester may have taken some time and that, as fragments of Claudius' equestrian statue have been found in two places in East Anglia, some at least of the rebels may have had time to return home.

2. She speaks of Paulinus returning to London without the army. However, this is in the context of his receiving news of the revolt while the attack on Anglesey was in the mopping-up stage and perhaps implies, although she does not say so in terms, that this was not a 'cavalry dash' but Paulinus returning as a matter of course, having satisfied himself that the campaign was over and that his presence was no longer required.

3. She expresses some doubt that the rebel army operated as a single unit, describing this as "at best a good guess".

4. She points out that there is little evidence of destruction at Verulamium and quotes the excavator as suggesting that, at the time, it was "still very much an emerging town" with "comparatively little to destroy in terms of 'Roman' buildings". This may be why both Suetonius and Dio refer to only two towns being destroyed (this is my thought, not hers).

5. In considering the location of the final battle, she concludes that the literary evidence could support both the 'Western' and 'Watling Street' scenarios. In support of the former, she cites those who suggest that, if Paulinus was still hoping to link up with the Second Legion, he would go in that direction, which might place the battle in the area of Staines or Silchester, both of which have produced evidence of burning. In support of the latter, she mentions that Paulinus was in search of further troops, most of whom were still coming back from Wales, and the suggestion that the British army was last seen at Verulamium. She comments, " . . . in the absence of any firmly identified traces of the uprising or the battle at either location, an open mind may well be a valuable asset for future researchers."
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


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,481 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: