Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Quote:I did not mistake the Grand Union Canal for a river.

Me neither - the river Bulbourne is a river though, surely?



Quote:I penalise those potential battle-sites that have rivers flowing through the front-line.


Yes, I noticed that, and yet several of your top sites still have this river feature - Bradley Lane Dorking (1 and 2) has the Mole on the right flank of the line, while Alyngton (3 and 7) and Bank Mill Lane, Berkhamsted (5) are both bisected by the Bulbourne. Since our original source description does not mention a river, I would have increased the penalty.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Here are a couple of rough diagrams to explain what I meant about the eastern candidates. These are just sketches, the distance bands aren't measured but they seem to be about 30km. The Base is Steves figure 12 for reference to the paper in hand, (Steve I hope it's ok with you let me know if using this base is a problem and I will pull the diagrams, it is very useful to keep a relevant reference in there).

Steve weights the sites (Page 19 & table 2) in a reasonable manner. However if I were to re-run the weighting, and beware I am very biased, I might bring the geographies illustrated below into play.

Both plans show Iceni and Trinovante territory in green, I assume this to be the jumping off point for the Iceni forces. I show the Wash and some of the Thames Estuary as blue assuming it to be an unlikely route for a substantial Iceni force. This gives us a front from which the Iceni campaign may have moved forward approximately on a line between Great Chesterford to the Dartford Crossing.

The Yellow represents a short campaign distance, the orange a medium campaign distance, beyond the orange is a long.......long campaign distance. I would contend that the weighting should reflect this distance travelled even more overtly than is the case in Steve rather brilliant paper.

An advance from the Iceni centre has a very different result from an advance from the northern edge of the front around Great Chesterford, hence the 2 versions of the diagram;

[attachment=11906]Icenibreakoutcentre.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=11907]Icenibreakoutnorthcopy.jpg[/attachment]

Obviously I favour the northern jumping off point, as the Iceni may have been trying to interdict a Roman Force approaching from the North (and I like to justify CS where possible). But it is very interesting to note how few candidate sites there are on the eastern edge of the Fig 12 cluster in Steves paper.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Reply
Hi All

Perhaps we need to include other tribes? The Coritanni, disaffected Catavellauni, Cornovii etc. The writers do mention "other tribes" apart from the Iceni and the Trinovantes and those north of the Thames would seem to fit the bill especially if this had become a full blown uprising once it was seen that SP was withdrawing from London and St Albans with his "small army".

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
I can't claim any expertise in the tribal stuff, I know it has been discussed. My main point is the narrowing of approach direction which the Wash provides. There is a bit of hearsay floating around that the Iceni may have been ethnically different to the rest of the Britains, cut off by the Wash maybe they were proto-Anglo Saxons. At the Warwick conference someone did mention that funerary practices showed a distinct difference between East and West. That kind of division may have meant the Easterners were out on their own, but I am way out of my depth with that stuff.
Reply
Hello John,

No problem with you using figures from essay.

If I understand correctly, what you are asking is for an attribute entitled 'distance from tribal borders to the prospective battle-site' to be either added to the list of attributes or replace 'distance from London'.

I'd guess we can leave aside for now the question of weighting for this new attribute.

As you say, the applied weightings are carefully balanced and don't shift the base GIS calculations, i.e. the attribute values, too much. This was a deliberate policy to try and avoid too many people claiming I'd skewed the results using the weightings. So, your Church Stowe (CS) has a weighted rank of 49 but without the weighting comes in at 55. If I calculated a weighting called 'distance from tribal borders ...' then CS would not climb very much above 49. But without doing the calculations I cannot be precise.

To be clear, I did consider adding your attribute when working on the data but decided not to because:

1) the borders are not really known (largely based on single coins and hoards of same)

2) we don't know much about the population densities within the tribal areas - so, to where would the tribespeople return? Would there have been many different routes 'home' for the Iceni?

3) and what about the Trinovantes?


Using the western borders as a distance attribute would have been messy.

Plus, Tacitus and Dio tell us that London was destroyed. So we know the horde - or one of them? - was in that location. We know Suetonius was there too and that he marched away to eventually 'turn and fight'. We know the horde followed him because of the large reported number of men, the presence of wagons etc., and because Tacitus makes the point of telling us that Suetonius was clever enough not to have any enemy to his rear.

So, all-in-all, I chose to use the 'distance to London' attribute. Much more simple.

However, the 'distance from tribal borders ...' attribute might have merit. But, that merit depends on the starting conditions and how + what sort of units are crossing that border. Put another way: are you advocating, 1) a general flow of tribespeople across the border, or 2) two or more hordes of tribespeople moving across the border, and 3) that we place too much reliance on Tacitus saying Colchester and London were destroyed, and that we falsely assign a large horde to this undertaking?

As you can see, I'm unsure of your reasoning for having the attribute 'distance from tribal borders ..'.


Regards, Steve
Reply
Quote: Perhaps we need to include other tribes? The Coritanni, disaffected Catavellauni, Cornovii etc.

I had a shot at this in my essay - section beginning Page 54, second paragraph on Academia.edu .

I wouldn't put my mortgage on what I scribbled but it is an interesting topic. Still scratch my head over the reported burning of part of Winchester - who did that and when?

Regards, Steve
Reply
Quote:Still scratch my head over the reported burning of part of Winchester - who did that and when?
Someone accidentally tipping over a brazier, perhaps? Not all fires need be caused by hostile action. If we did not know better, we might think that the Fire of London was caused by the Dutch sailing up the Thames.
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
On balance I would favour the replacement of the “distance from London” attribute. We know something unsavoury happened at London, but we don’t know if it was the full horde that later assembled for the “last stand”.

“1) the borders are not really known (largely based on single coins and hoards of same)”
My view is that the southward penetration of the Wash implies the land unit most associated with the revolt was an isolated East Anglia. There is lots of wiggle room about where the southern boundary might be but the southern pinch point (Great Chesterford/Thames) makes for a good physical definition. I think this makes the definition of a Western boundary less messy than you suggest.

“2) we don't know much about the population densities within the tribal areas - so, to where would the tribes people return? Would there have been many different routes 'home' for the Iceni?”
As with 1 I think there are many routes for small bands but I think for a horde the Great Chesterford area would make a pretty good common bottle neck for most.

“3) and what about the Trinovantes?”
I’m assuming the Great Chesterford – Thames line is as good a southern boundary for them as any. The sack of Colchester implies they weren’t standing in the way of the Iceni, so I would assume both tribes were acting together to some extent. With a geography defined by the Wash penetration, maybe there were strong political/kinship links between the Iceni and Trinovanti. The isolation provided by the Wash does give a different spin to the geography of political relationships and the campaign.

“We know the horde followed him”. Well we might have to differ here, we know he was harried, this need not have been a horde as this would have been too slow harry effectively and we don’t know the threat was from the South, it may have been from the East. (unleash the Cavalry dash argument)

“However, the 'distance from tribal borders ...' attribute might have merit. But, that merit depends on the starting conditions and how + what sort of units are crossing that border. Put another way: are you advocating, 1) a general flow of tribes people across the border, or 2) two or more hordes of tribes people moving across the border, and 3) that we place too much reliance on Tacitus saying Colchester and London were destroyed, and that we falsely assign a large horde to this undertaking?”

I was thinking a general flow of hordes from an area that would have been compelled to move across the Great Chesterford/Thames neck. My fantasy is that the revolt originated in an unplanned angry strike at Colchester, a period of celebration and reflection followed, then a re-massing of a horde to a bigger goal whilst the “Inter City Firm” destroyed London and St Albans from the East.

“As you can see, I'm unsure of your reasoning for having the attribute 'distance from tribal borders ..'.”

My reasoning is that the closer to the geographic area we know the protagonists to be, the more likely the site, significantly more. We know the Iceni were in Iceniland. We know the Romans were on Watling Street so the further we go from that potential overlap the less likely the site.

Some of the Iceni may have been in London and St Albans, but we can’t say the horde was, we can say the horde originated somewhere Northeast of the Great Chesterford line. We don’t know a cavalry dash took place, but we know the Romans approached the conflict zone along Watling Street from the North West. These are the only 2 campaign geographies we really “know”.

I personally speculate the horde went west/north from Great Chesterford, but this is only a speculation I happen to like, I cannot write off the southern or direct west routes, but they seem significantly less likely to me.

I would anticipate a weighting to significantly favour any site close to the known positions of the protagonists. So the sites around Ilchester, Chichester and Gloucester would seem so far away from the forces “common ground” that the likelihood of there candidacy being correct should be an "outside chance" rather than "more likely" than the eastern sites. So significantly downrating the sites more than 75km from known locations would seem to be reasonable and take out a number of the top 48 candidates. I'd also downgrade sites simply for being South of the Thames, bridging/fording/ferrying that just seems a step too far.

I hope that’s clear, I am making it up as I go, I’m happy to do this on email or phone if you prefer, and thanks for getting the grey cells going on this again,
Reply
I used Great Chesterford as a reference due to it's promenance on the map not because of any particular finds.But just looking at it now I realise it is only 5km from Bartlow Hills the site I nominated for the ambush of the ninth back when the page numbers were in single digits;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartlow_Hills

Obviouly I think we have been underplaying the coastline of the Wash as a determinant in this debate. Does anyone know of any good papers on this area regarding the early Roman era?

In looking in detail and the drainage of the area, maybe I could make the case for the Great Chesterford point to be shifted North to Cambridge, that would really open up the options for sites on Watling Street to the North West.
Reply
Here's another quick strategic sketch, apologies to Dad's Army. The red being the Roman advance from Mona from the NW along Watling Street, the expectation to Legio II coming up the Fosse Way. The smaller ones are regrouping of IX from Longthorpe in the East and the return of a recce party up Watling Street.

The ominous threat is in green and deliberately vaguely broad arrow, as Paulinus would have had an idea of their geographic origin and a general direction of travel. High Cross comes into play as a key point to hold but it's topography is weak as a crossroads clearly it has open flanks. So the RV should be in easy reach of the communications for an assembly but defensible, securing High Cross and the recently garrisoned stations to Mona.

The other option is all Roman parties try to safely head towards London, we know this was easily rejected as a defendable site by Paulinus so it is unlikely to have been the RV arranged with Legio II and to get to it along Watling Street the main columns Eastern flank is open to an unknown threat all the way. So why bring your whole lumbering column south of an obvious RV for Legio II. Cavalry recce of London still looks a good one for me, the commander getting an exciting feel for the situation rather than supervising a big dull logisitcs move to a pre-selected RV, was the recce party even the bait to bring the Iceni to the chosen battle site?

[attachment=11916]RomanAssembly1.jpg[/attachment]

Does this indicate that Dunstable is just too close to the enemy. Is it an RV established so close to the enemy territory and slap bang opposite their front door that it stands a good chance of being overrun before the Roman forces can be assembled? In this scenario the Iceni would be coming from the East along the ridge top and the valleys to the north and the south making this site look like a very risky proposition indeed.

This would make the orange bands above the preferred search zones (weighting favoured), not too close to the enemy to preclude a drawn out assemble period, yet not so far away to make a battle unlikely.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
just one more, I promise.

This is Steves fig 6 the top 826 candidate sites in red, the rest of the 2700 in pale purple/girly pink.
I would contend that the orange is the best area to be looking, not too close, not too far away.

In addition I would scratch/hobble sites south of the Thames, and that giant cluster in the Chilterns well away from any obvious communication routes. So the search range is significantly reduced. Note this is based on an Iceni advance from the northern edge of the Great Chesterford/Thames line, for the reasons previously stated.

[attachment=11917]826filter1.jpg[/attachment]

foot note on Church Stowe showing complete bias.
IF Cambridge were to be accessible then an Iceni approach to CS would be due West. Picking up the Nene Valley thereby making perfect sense of the Hunsbury Hill assembly point and the Eastern approach into the valley of Church Stowe previously outlined. I leave it to others to twist the variables to suit their own sites.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
Quote:The Yellow represents a short campaign distance, the orange a medium campaign distance, beyond the orange is a long.......long campaign distance.

Your first map looks good - although I prefer the one on p.58 of Steve's paper, that shows the greater distances along the line of the roads from London. I'm afraid I don't really see why you've moved your centre on the second map so far north, except for the obvious reason...



Quote:(unleash the Cavalry dash argument)

Ach, no! In all these years and through all this debate, really the only firm belief I maintain is that there was no 'cavalry dash' for which we have no evidence, which completely contradicts what we know of Paulinus, and which is contrary to Roman military practice... Really, this is no longer admissible - unless you have some spectacular evidence to the contrary... And that, I promise, is the last time I will mention this! :-D



Quote:Some of the Iceni may have been in London and St Albans

Most of them, surely, in London, if Paulinus felt unable to face them there with ten thousand men?



Quote:I'd also downgrade sites simply for being South of the Thames, bridging/fording/ferrying that just seems a step too far.

I wouldn't, actually - I'm quite convinced by Steve's idea of using the river as a delaying tactic. And the more I look at Dorking, the more plausible it becomes. Definitely one of my top three or four sites now, although I'm still bothered by the river...



Quote:I think we have been underplaying the coastline of the Wash as a determinant in this debate.

Doesn't this counter your idea of a second westward advance from the Iceni territory against a Roman force in the midlands?



Quote:Does this indicate that Dunstable is just too close to the enemy... In this scenario the Iceni would be coming from the East along the ridge top and the valleys to the north and the south making this site look like a very risky proposition indeed.

Along the ridgetops... in carts? Almost as bad as trying to put them in boats! Wink

It's only 'close' to the enemy if you imagine the Iceni moving as a vast green arrow, a human tidal wave sweeping across the land... If, on the other hand, you see them as a large number of people moving in the general direction of certain objectives (Colchester, then London, then perhaps Paulinus/St Albans/both) there's plenty of ground to cover. I don't think a battle site within a day or two's march of London is at all unlikely - in fact (as I've said), I'd argue the opposite...
Nathan Ross
Reply
John 1 wrote: I think we have been underplaying the coastline of the Wash as a determinant in this debate.

I think that the extent of the Wash is extremely important and Tacitus refers to it later after the battle regarding SP losing ships etc. which was used as an excuse to have him replaced.

Interestingly in the same programme that “Tim” was in there was an article concerning a new archaeological dig in this area where a large amount of swords and fish traps were found indicating a sizeable population in these marsh areas which adds another dynamic.

If I remember correctly Roman engineers started to drain the areas around the Wash but not until after this period.

John wrote: I used Great Chesterford as a reference due to it's promenance on the map not because of any particular finds.But just looking at it now I realise it is only 5km from Bartlow Hills the site I nominated for the ambush of the ninth back when the page numbers were in single digits; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartlow_Hills

Of course the area that you describe around Great Chesterford is very close to the Icknield Way, which is a direct route to both Dunstable and Tring and of course Watling Street.

I am not convinced that the Bartlow Hills burials are contemporary with the period but do think that perhaps the fort at Wixoe played an important part.

Regarding the “Horde” it has yet to be established that it was exactly the same army that destroyed Colchester that destroyed London and St Albans or was beaten by Seutonius Paulinus.

Nor where it / they mustered. If the battle site were known before hand surely the “troops” would have mustered at the site.

Also you would expect there to be warbands in chariots and cavalry which travelled swiftly and were more than capable of harrying a Roman Column whilst on the move.

Caesar mentions that a century before he came against 4,000 chariots when the levy had been dispersed in his BC54 progress by his success in using his cavalry against the infantry.

These were probably the warrior class as opposed to the average man skilled in warfare. Boudica herself road in a chariot with her daughters prior to the battle, so it appears that these were still being used in AD61

John wrote: (Unleash the Cavalry dash argument)

Please don’t!!! :woot:

You would have thought that a general of his calibre having already been in Britannia for 2 years would know which of his ports / towns could or could not be defended.

Once he crossed the Icknield Way he would have been at risk of being cut off from his main army by the Iceni.....

Nathan Ross wrote: And the more I look at Dorking, the more plausible it becomes. Definitely one of my top three or four sites now, although I'm still bothered by the river...

I don’t like the idea of the river either as it winds across the battlefield area – this is a bit like the “Cavalry Dash Argument” – looks good on the surface but ....... :oops:
Deryk
Reply
"I don't really see why you've moved your centre on the second map so far north, except for the obvious reason " the obvious reason being because it's the closest point from Iceni world to intercept Roman forces heading South on Watling Street I assume. A London centric one makes the assumption the horde was there, Pauinus decided it was un-defendable and left, doesn't mean the horde ever got there. :razz:

"I promise, is the last time I will mention this!" ohhh no it not! (in best panto voice) :-P

"Doesn't this counter your idea of a second westward advance" or more likely refines it to a more precise line. :-P

"Along the ridgetops... in carts?" Jeez ! I gave you two vallies as well, how many options do you want.... :-P

"I don't think a battle site within a day or two's march of London is at all unlikely" I don't disagree, but don't you think a day or twos march from Great Chesterton is valid too? Or are you absolutely certain the horde was in London, that's the point of the posts above. What if they weren't, and what if they didn't feel compelled to use Roman Roads. Then the East West route makes all the roman road marching calculations a bit redundant. If you have faith in London and the roads, then who am I to challenge that faith in the parade. :razz:

"Please don’t!!! :woot:" I thought I'd been careful to use the word recce, 'cos those must have been happening all the time, a dash seems somewhat less controlled and more manic. otherwise I don't think we disagree a great deal. Wink



.
Reply
Quote:And the more I look at Dorking, the more plausible it becomes. Definitely one of my top three or four sites now, although I'm still bothered by the river...
The problem with Dorking and the Stane Street hypothesis generally is that (I'm sorry; I'm on my hobby-horse again!) it takes Paulinus away from his sources of reinforcement. As far as we know, there were few troops in the south. He would be nearer to the South Coast ports but it would take weeks for reinforcements to be summoned and to arrive from the Continent. It would be no easier for whatever elements of the Second Legion remained at their base to reach him than would be the case if he had gone west. On the other hand, if he had gone west along the Portway or, as I am becoming more convinced, north up Watling Street and then west along Akeman Street, it would have been bringing him nearer to the western military zone and, ultimately, to a possible rendezvous point on the Fosse Way, where troops from the north, west and south-west could reach him with comparative ease. If, as I also think likely, he halted at the junction of Akeman Street with the Icknield Way to observe the movements of the enemy force, his reinforcements could divert on to Akeman Street at Cirencester and march from there to join him.
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 3,483 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: