Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Quote:Or simply a local uprising?

Something like that, I suppose... Although, as you know, I generally prefer theories that don't have to sideline the 'destruction' of St Albans like this. Tacitus mentioned it (to a readership who'd probably never heard of the place!), so it must have been important in some way, rather than a random effect of a larger uprising.

But it's not impossible that a raiding party moving north from London burnt the place in reprisal after realising that Paulinus had based himself there for a while and then slipped away...



Quote:Essentially, I don't like the idea... going east separates Paulinus from his main sources of support.

That is true. I was envisaging that the eastward move would happen after Paulinus had delayed for some time at St Albans and already decided that further reinforcements would not be arriving quickly enough. An eastward outflanking move would fit with the idea of him being a 'skilfull' general who outmanoeuvres his opponents. Which isn't to say that several of our other ideas wouldn't work in the same way!

(There's also the possibility that Paulinus was trying to trap the Britons between his own force and reinforcements moving down Watling Street from Wales, or even the long-awaited Second, if they were expected in any numbers...)
Nathan Ross
Reply
Mio wrote:
There needs to be a balance of experience within the fighting troops, so I wonder what the deciding factors were on who remained behind as the garrison. The oldest and the newest, perhaps?

Blasphemer….blasphemer. :grin: :grin: :grin: On a serious note….it is always the oldest troops who guard the camp and the primary sources do support this. First reference is the battle of Silva Arsia in 509 BC (Dionysius 5 15). Dionysius calls them the triarii. In 486 BC, Dionysius (8 86) mentions the triarii being the oldest guarded the camp and fought in close order as a reserve force. What Dionysius is saying is the oldest of the old troops are the camp guards and he is right (Livy 2 47), (4 19). The triarii and the artificers are mentioned guarding the camp during the battle of Veii in 480 BC (Dionysius 9 12). On another occasion Dionysius (9 61) mentions the veterans of the reserve as guarding the camp.

I believe Dionysius and Livy use of the term triarii is correct. The triarii was not a term introduced with the maniple legion but like the term principes was in use before the introduction of the maniple legion. It has been modern academics that have incorrectly associated the term triarii with the introduction of the maniple legion. There are also references to the triarii guarding the baggage camp, and according to Livy (44 38 6) "they are not the worst of the soldiers who are left in custody of the baggage."

So we have references to the oldest men guarding the camp and we still find references to this happening up to Pharsalus and beyond. Then we come to another doctrine as old as time and not readily recognised by academics. In 455 BC, Livy mentions a cohort of volunteers past the military age being present on the battlefield. Then we have Paterculus and Tacitus mentioning during the principate veteran soldiers and veteran cohorts. Nothing has changed, the doctrine continues. So the veterans of the XXth legion, because Tacitus does not mention them as being cohorts, means they are the oldest troops of the XXth legion and not veterans or evocati cohorts attached to the XXth legion.

Therefore, it is the oldest troops that are left to garrison the camp. And Michael could be right with his theory they were under the command of the junior centurions of the legion. Most of the varying legion numbers found in Tacitus omits part of all of the oldest troops. Another doctrine I have found is half the oldest troops are left to garrison the fort, and the other half went on campaign. While on campaign, the remainder of the older troops were assigned to guard the baggage camp.

I also believe the auxiliaries follow the same organisation and age divisions as the legionaries. This is so the auxiliaries can deploy with the same depth as the legionaries. So if the oldest legionaries are left to guard the camp, I believe the oldest auxiliary infantry do the same.

I have found the Romans are sticklers for protocol and nothing they did came out of vacuum. What they do in later time periods had been done before. The legion size that was present at the Allia (6000 men per legion), is the same legion at Zama and is the same legion Livy is describing for 340 BC. Most of these legion sizes and doctrines were established with the introduction of the Servian constitution.

Michael wrote:
I was speaking in purely legionary terms but I have no doubt that he had cavalry as well, at the very least for scouting and screening purposes. I wouldn't confine it to one ala, though, and I wouldn't rule out his having auxiliary infantry too.

You are quite right about the presence of auxiliaries. My methodology is to follow Roman doctrine to determine the size of the Roman contingent, then after doing this, subtract this from the figure of about 10,000 men to try and determine the number of auxiliary troops. However, as Tacitus gives no cavalry numbers as he did at Mons Graupius and as there are no other sources giving army numbers, it is all conjecture and all I am doing is playing with numbers.

Michael wrote:
Hence my suggestion that he called up the veterans of his three campaigning legions. This explains the presence of the veterans of the Twentieth and the order to Postumus to bring up the element of the Second under his command. The veterans of the Fourteenth would simply have joined their parent legion and, accordingly, do not get a separate mention

Good point. It made me realise that Tacitus by including the story of Postumus not to send his veterans, means the veterans of the 14th legion were with Paulinus, otherwise the story of the 14th veterans not turning up would be included. So the number of legionaries grows and from the about 10,000 men in Paulinus’ army, the number of auxiliaries gets smaller.
Reply
Quote:So the veterans of the XXth legion, because Tacitus does not mention them as being cohorts, means they are the oldest troops of the XXth legion and not veterans or evocati cohorts attached to the XXth legion.

Therefore, it is the oldest troops that are left to garrison the camp.
I don't think we could expect Tacitus to be that specific. Nevertheless, this seems to tie in with his account of the concessions extracted from Germanicus by the mutinous legions of Germany on the death of Augustus (Ann. 1. 36):

' . . . that all men who had served twenty years should be finally discharged; that any who had served sixteen should be released from duty and kept with the colours (sub vexillo) under no obligation beyond that of assisting to repel an enemy . . .' (Loeb translation)

So, those that we are calling 'veterans' (vexillarii) are likely to be those who had served sixteen years and who were exempted from fatigues and other duties except defending the camp and, presumably, as in this case, helping to resist an enemy attack. If, as seems to be the case, they were not evocati but still serving soldiers, I wonder if calling them 'veterans' (although convenient) is entirely correct or whether we should consider using another term - 'senior soldiers', perhaps. Incidentally, they appear, in defending the camp, to have similar duties to the old triarii and triarii were organised in vexilla (Livy, 8. 8. 8). It is interesting to see similar terminology persisting.


Quote:And Michael could be right with his theory they were under the command of the junior centurions of the legion.
Did I say that? If I did, I did not mean to. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Could you point me to the relevant post?
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
Mio????? :o
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
So, my military intuition is correct then, despite being a blasphemer?
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
Sorry about the delay, but I have been busy revising the book.

Michael wrote:
I don't think we could expect Tacitus to be that specific.

I beg to differ.

Tacitus (Annals 13 37) “Corbulo, therefore, frustrated in his persevering quest for battle, and forced to imitate the enemy by carrying his arms from district to district, divided his strength, so that the legates and prefects might deliver a simultaneous attack at widely separate points.”

Tacitus (Annals 13 38)
“First in the field on the appointed day, Corbulo stationed on the flanks the allied infantry and the auxiliaries furnished by the king; in the centre, the sixth legion, with which he had embodied three thousand men of the third, summoned from another camp during the night: a solitary eagle produced on the spectator the impression of a single legion. The day was already declining when Tiridates took up his position at a distance from which he was more visible than audible: the Roman commander, therefore, without conference, ordered his troops to draw off to their various camps.”

This is an example of leaving the pilani of the sixth legion as garrison troops for the fort and having to reinforce them with 3000 men from the third legion to bring the sixth legion up to full strength. The remainder of the sixth legion had to have been somewhere else.

Michael wrote:
So, those that we are calling 'veterans' (vexillarii) are likely to be those who had served sixteen years and who were exempted from fatigues and other duties except defending the camp and, presumably, as in this case, helping to resist an enemy attack. If, as seems to be the case, they were not evocati but still serving soldiers, I wonder if calling them 'veterans' (although convenient) is entirely correct or whether we should consider using another term - 'senior soldiers', perhaps.

I see those who had served sixteen years as evocati and are organised into their own distinct cohorts or vexillations. The term cohort and vexillation is one and the same and depends on the style of the ancient author. However, the pilani are also termed veterans. So it can get confusing. I have references that show the pilani still served in the field. For the campaign of 6 AD, Paterculus (2 113) has ten legions levied and 10,000 veterans. This allocates each legion 1000 veterans (960 men rounded), and each legion will now consist of 12 cohorts. This is where to double first cohort comes into play. When in camp, and only when in camp, cohort 12 of the evocati (480 men) are billeted next to the first cohort (480 men), thereby making the so called double cohort. Cohort 11 (evocati) of 480 men is distributed in the camp among the sixty centuries of the legion. In this manner, the other sixty centuries increase from eighty men to eighty eight men (or one extra tent arrangement). This only happens when the evocati are present. It does not happen to the pilani of the legion.

That is my take on the evocati.

Michael wrote:
Incidentally, they appear, in defending the camp, to have similar duties to the old triarii and triarii were organised in vexilla (Livy, 8. 8. 8). It is interesting to see similar terminology persisting.

That is because most of these organisations were established with the Servian constitution and hadn’t changed except the name in some cases. Cohorts, maniples, centuries and vexillations were all part of the Servian constitution. Everything established then, can be found in the late Roman army.

Michael wrote:
Did I say that? If I did, I did not mean to. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Could you point me to the relevant post?

I cannot remember what posting, but you did mention on this forum about the commands of the junior centurions and also sent me your paper offline.

Mio wrote:
So, my military intuition is correct then, despite being a blasphemer?

The blasphemer was a joke, that’s why I put funny faces next to it. The blasphemer was your reference to the young troops could be left to guard the camp. That’s what I was poking fun at. The sacred text declare that only the older troops guarded the camp, and all ye must obey the sacred text. And come on, we all know you got that head injury bowing to that pagan altar. But the falling off the horse story, yeah that would sound good after six pints at the pub.

About your intuition, I think Michael is right that Paulinus was planning to link up with the ninth legion (without their pilani) but when he was informed of their ambush, it became a matter of getting all troops he could. Whatever the size of Paulinus’ force, it was in three strong divisions, and this means of equal strength for each division. That is why I believe it is the infantry that is being discussed. However, as there are no other sources for comparison, all interpretations are conjecture, and because of that, as much as I love this campaign, it has been omitted from the book.
Reply
Quote:Michael wrote:
I don't think we could expect Tacitus to be that specific.

I beg to differ.
What I was thinking of was that we should not necessarily expect Tacitus to state explicitly that the vexillarii served in cohorts.


Quote:I see those who had served sixteen years as evocati and are organised into their own distinct cohorts or vexillations.
I have thought of evocati as soldiers who had been discharged and then recalled to the colours. That this would be after sixteen years would certainly be so in the case of Praetorians but I would assume it to be later in the case of legionaries.


Quote:I have references that show the pilani still served in the field.
Under the Republic and during the reign of Augustus maybe but is the same the case after the concessions wrung from Germanicus? I wonder whether this might be another reason for Postumus' inaction that, as his fortress was not under immediate attack, he did not think it appropriate for his veterans to be called to fight elsewhere.


Quote:Michael wrote:
Incidentally, they appear, in defending the camp, to have similar duties to the old triarii and triarii were organised in vexilla (Livy, 8. 8. 8). It is interesting to see similar terminology persisting.

That is because most of these organisations were established with the Servian constitution and hadn’t changed except the name in some cases. Cohorts, maniples, centuries and vexillations were all part of the Servian constitution. Everything established then, can be found in the late Roman army.
What I was thinking was that, as the triarii served in vexilla, they could reasonably be called vexillarii and we find this term being used in relation to veterans during the Empire.


Quote:Michael wrote:
Did I say that? If I did, I did not mean to. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Could you point me to the relevant post?

I cannot remember what posting, but you did mention on this forum about the commands of the junior centurions and also sent me your paper offline.
I see what you mean. The thread in question is probably 'AE 1981 777' in which we discussed the career of Aurelius Gaius during the reign of Diocletian in which the post of optio triarius appeared to be the most junior of those that he held. I mentioned there and in the paper that you refer to that Vegetius' triarius prior appeared to be the most junior centurion in his First Cohort. I was not necessarily thinking that these late-period triarii were still the oldest soldiers in the legion (in fact, rather the opposite) but, given the apparent tendency to preserve the forms of earlier times, I suppose that this could be so.
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
Michael wrote:
I wonder whether this might be another reason for Postumus' inaction that, as his fortress was not under immediate attack, he did not think it appropriate for his veterans to be called to fight elsewhere.

Now this depends on whom the veterans you refer to are. I think Tacitus is referring to the third line men of the Second legion. The job of the evocati was to defend the camp, that is their charter. Therefore, it is the third line men of the Second legion that Postumus was worried about sending. Once they left, he would be left with the oldest troops of the auxiliary. Yes, like the Roman legion, my research shows the auxiliary are organised in the same manner as the Romans. If they leave behind the third line men of the legion, those auxiliary in the same age bracket also remain behind. In this manner, when on the field, the auxiliary can always deploy with the same depth as the legionaries.

Michael wrote:
What I was thinking was that, as the triarii served in vexilla, they could reasonably be called vexillarii and we find this term being used in relation to veterans during the Empire.

My findings give a slightly different outlook. I’ve been hesitant to go into this because of my poor understanding of Latin singular and plural. Basically I’m not interested in learning it as I am too preoccupied learning to read and write Thai. When it comes to the Latin in the book the professor takes care of that. Here is my take on the subject. In a legion there are six organisation levels:

The military tribune cohort organisation (horizontal)
The vexillation organisation (vertical)
The senatorial cohort organisation (horizontal)
The ordo organisation (vertical)
The maniple organisation (horizontal)
The century organisation (vertical)

Originally there were five organisations to a legion, with the ordo system added at a later date when the size of the legion was increased. The vexillari of triarii Livy mentions are relate to the military tribune cohort organisation, as are the rorarii and accensi. Then for reasons unknown, Livy erroneously organised the three military tribune cohorts into fifteen ordines. The triarii Livy describes are not part of the vexillation organisation of the legion. During the Empire, evocati are organised into their own vexillations, not the thrd line men. Unfortunately, it does not help us when an ancient author describes anything separated from the legion as a vexillation, or a vexillation is termed a cohort. Fortunately, when they provide numbers it becomes clear as to what organisation they are referring to.

For what it is worth, if Paulinus had followed Roman doctrine, and I believe he did because he had no reason not to, his force consisted of nine vexillations, organised into three bodies of three vexillations, and with the appropiate cavalry allocated to a vexillation (minus his bodyguard cavalry), his army should number 9720 men.

Michael wrote:
I see what you mean. The thread in question is probably 'AE 1981 777' in which we discussed the career of Aurelius Gaius during the reign of Diocletian in which the post of optio triarius appeared to be the most junior of those that he held.

And here I was quietly thinking because of your age you could be senile. Sick Well that has straightened me out.

Michael wrote:
I mentioned there and in the paper that you refer to that Vegetius' triarius prior appeared to be the most junior centurion in his First Cohort. I was not necessarily thinking that these late-period triarii were still the oldest soldiers in the legion (in fact, rather the opposite) but, given the apparent tendency to preserve the forms of earlier times, I suppose that this could be so.

I have the triarius prior as the second oldest, with the oldest being the triarius posterior. And let’s not forget Vegetius has the triarius prior listed last. Taking into account the oldest troops guarded the fort of baggage, by allocating the junior centurions to the triarii or the third line men would be a good way of introducing them into military service. Eventually they could be promoted to command the hastati. So you theory has merit.
Reply
Quote:Now this depends on whom the veterans you refer to are. I think Tacitus is referring to the third line men of the Second legion. The job of the evocati was to defend the camp, that is their charter. Therefore, it is the third line men of the Second legion that Postumus was worried about sending.
It depends upon who you say are the evocati and who you say are the 'third line men'. I believe evocati
are those who have completed their service and been discharged and then have, in effect, re-enlisted; you, I think, believe them to be those who have completed 16 years' service but have not been discharged. Actually, I do not think that we are too far apart on this point. I see the vexillarii as being the 16-year men plus my evocati. Their role is essentially defensive, to guard the camp but, if required, to take the field to repel an attacking enemy. On the other hand, I am not sure what you mean by the 'third line men'. I would see the entire legion going on campaign, leaving only the vexillarii behind at base.


Quote:I’ve been hesitant to go into this because of my poor understanding of Latin singular and plural.
I could give you a crash course on singulars and plurals, if you like.


Quote:Taking into account the oldest troops guarded the fort of baggage, by allocating the junior centurions to the triarii or the third line men would be a good way of introducing them into military service. Eventually they could be promoted to command the hastati.
Do you mean 'military service' or 'military command'. Normally, a centurion, however junior, would have seen several years' service in the ranks.


Quote:And here I was quietly thinking because of your age you could be senile.
Not yet, Ant . . ., Stev . . . What did you say your name was, again?
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
Sorry about the lapse in responding…I had another eureka moment with the book.

Michael wrote:
It depends upon who you say are the evocati and who you say are the 'third line men'. I believe evocati
are those who have completed their service and been discharged and then have, in effect, re-enlisted; you, I think, believe them to be those who have completed 16 years' service but have not been discharged. Actually, I do not think that we are too far apart on this point.


Oh we are one and the same on this issue.

Michael wrote:
I see the vexillarii as being the 16-year men plus my evocati. Their role is essentially defensive, to guard the camp but, if required, to take the field to repel an attacking enemy. On the other hand, I am not sure what you mean by the 'third line men'. I would see the entire legion going on campaign, leaving only the vexillarii behind at base.

However, I think there may some confusion about how we interpret what a legion was for this period. I have it deployed in three lines, so the pilani are the third line men. Sometimes the pilani campaign with the legion, other times half the pilani campaign with the legion, and other times the pilani stay behind and guard the fort. However, if the evocati are with the legion, the evocati guard the camp, and the pilani campaign with the legion. So basically, most of Paulinus legions were at Mona with only two lines, with the pilani guarding the fort.

Michael wrote:
I could give you a crash course on singulars and plurals, if you like.

Now that would be greatly appreciated and would take some of the burden off the old professor. However, maybe offline so we don’t bore everyone.

Michael wrote:
Do you mean 'military service' or 'military command'. Normally, a centurion, however junior, would have seen several years' service in the ranks.

Ooops, excuse my lack of clarification. I meant military command experience.

Michael wrote:
Not yet, Ant . . ., Stev . . . What did you say your name was, again?

Ha, I knew it…..you are senile. :wink: :wink: :wink:
Reply
Is this all OTT? Off the topic?
If not, where are we going? Up the A5 or A4?
Has everything been said that can be said, or am I getting senile too?
Davidus
Reply
Quote:Oh we are one and the same on this issue.
If your 'pilani' and my '16-year men' are the same, indeed we are.


Quote:Michael wrote:
I could give you a crash course on singulars and plurals, if you like.

Now that would be greatly appreciated and would take some of the burden off the old professor. However, maybe offline so we don’t bore everyone.
Give me a day or two and I'll e-mail something to you.
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
Fantastic original Boudican art work by Prof. Sumner is up for auction;
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/23-events/3...-2015.html
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/7-off-topic...ction.html
Reply
a categorical statement that Boudiccas defeat was in fact at a site in the West Midlands @ 20:50 by Tim Sad ;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05...s-3-1-east

and she is invoked again in a Silchester context at 56:30
Reply
Quote:a categorical statement that Boudiccas defeat was in fact at a site in the West Midlands @ 20:50 by Tim Sad
That's it, then! No need for further discussion!
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: