Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
(08-10-2016, 10:26 AM)stevemalone Wrote: John1
[quote pid='338157' dateline='1470731428']
Is it possible that this set of ditches under the A1 directly south of Water Newton village is another camp? 

Yes. The cropmarks are known and have been plotted continuing north of the A1. If we could see more of it we might have a better idea, but an early camp seems quite possible.



[/quote]

I've been looking at numerous sites on google earth where you can see the camps on aerial photos and I have to say that almost without exception, it's impossible to see them on google earth. One problem is that the lines that show up are amazingly thin so that they are only visible on a PC screen when the camp fits the screen. A few other pointers are curved corners, gates and general "common sense" locations in terms of terrain.

Looking at this image, I see nothing in the crop marks that suggests a Roman encampment. Instead, when I look I see parallel lines all heading NNE plus some other parallel lines in the field heading W-E.

Looking at the elevation, google earth tells me the east "corner" is a mere 12m above sea level over 30 miles from open sea and that the river is 11m above sea level. That's a gradient of 1 in 4000, which means the area must be prone to flooding and extremely flat.

Then when I check, if I move ANY direction from the SE corner, Google Earth shows and INCREASE in height. This suggests that this SE corner would be a bog without man-made drainage to the river.

Given the parallel lines, the general terrain, the lack of features that would suggest a camp (Romans don't tend to build camps on low-lying bogging ground when there is a rise immediately to the west), I would say that there's no chance this is a Roman camp and it is very likely to be the result of drainage.
Oh the grand oh Duke Suetonius, he had a Roman legion, he galloped rushed down to (a minor settlement called) Londinium then he galloped rushed back again. Londinium Bridge is falling down, falling down ... HOLD IT ... change of plans, we're leaving the bridge for Boudica and galloping rushing north.
Reply
(08-10-2016, 11:13 AM)MonsGraupius Wrote: "I've been looking at numerous sites on google earth where you can see the camps on aerial photos and I have to say that almost without exception, it's impossible to see them on google earth." 
Yes funny that, the Windridge marks are not visible on Google Earth at all, nor Google Maps for the Mac, however they are present on the PC version of Google maps....

"I see nothing in the crop marks that suggests a Roman encampment." 
Always good to see an emphatic head on the block statement, all the fence sitting can get a bit much. I would obviously love to see a more rounded corner but not to be.

"Looking at the elevation, google earth tells me the east "corner" is a mere 12m above sea level over 30 miles from open sea and that the river is 11m above sea level. That's a gradient of 1 in 4000, which means the area must be prone to flooding and extremely flat." The site is pretty much on the 10m contour, same as the Durobrivae site and we're pretty confident the Romans felt the flood risk was ok there, maybe. The 10m contour doesn't actually cross the Nene until Stibbington well upstream, so I'm fairly relaxed about the bogginess at this point.

"I would say that there's no chance this is a Roman camp and it is very likely to be the result of drainage."

I always have a problem with drainage schemes doing 90 degree turns, tend to cause all sorts of erosion, overspill and silting problems but you may well be right.
Reply
To answer your earlier question, the cropmark plot can be found in Burnham and Wacher's Small Towns of Roman Britain. Dropping it over the lidar plot is something I put together.

Retreating slightly from 'camp' , I would have to concede that even if it were part of a double-ditched enclosure (of unknown date!), that wouldn't really fit in with the morphology of temporary marching camps. That said, the corner looks entirely convincing on the photos (and as plotted on the cropmark plot) so I don't think it can be dismissed as drainage, nor is there any reason to think that area boggy. As you point out, the town itself (and the south-east corner of the fort) are at very similar elevations and there's plenty going on outside the walls of the town on lower lying ground.
Reply
(08-10-2016, 12:51 PM)stevemalone Wrote: To answer your earlier question, the cropmark plot can be found in Burnham and Wacher's Small Towns of Roman Britain. Dropping it over the lidar plot is something I put together.

Retreating slightly from 'camp' , I would have to concede that even if it were part of a double-ditched enclosure (of unknown date!), that wouldn't really fit in with the morphology of temporary marching camps. That said, the corner looks entirely convincing on the photos (and as plotted on the cropmark plot) so I don't think it can be dismissed as drainage, nor is there any reason to think that area boggy. As you point out, the town itself (and the south-east corner of the fort) are at very similar elevations and there's plenty going on outside the walls of the town on lower lying ground.

To give you an example of what Roman camps look like, I suggest you have a look at this site at Durno:
https://canmore.org.uk/site/18107/logie-durno

The first image clearly shows the line (joke).

To find the line, look at the buildings on the left and about a building's distance in front there is a thin line going directly across. You can follow this across the trees (a small track) to the other side where there it turns and then runs parallel to the edge of the wood. Once you have located this line, you can then spot the gates: one in front of the farmbuildings and the other just below the corner.

Another example is this: https://canmore.org.uk/site/47720/castledykes which shows the characteristic corners.

Again if you look at Masada you'll find the same basic construction with rounded corners: http://www.womeninthebible.net/wp-conten...n_camp.jpg

Indeed, just checking Jones (Roman Camps in Britain) I cannot see any without rounded corners.
Oh the grand oh Duke Suetonius, he had a Roman legion, he galloped rushed down to (a minor settlement called) Londinium then he galloped rushed back again. Londinium Bridge is falling down, falling down ... HOLD IT ... change of plans, we're leaving the bridge for Boudica and galloping rushing north.
Reply
Oh, I see. It's the 'roundedness' (or lack thereof) you object to. Yes, fair enough. Too sharp a corner for comfort. And I guess that does for John1's Windridge Farm site as well.
Reply
(08-10-2016, 04:04 PM)stevemalone Wrote: Oh, I see. It's the 'roundedness' (or lack thereof) you object to. Yes, fair enough. Too sharp a corner for comfort. And I guess that does for John1's Windridge Farm site as well.

I wouldn't go as far as to say, that sharp corners disprove a structure being Roman, because, e.g. I was reading only yesterday about Bearsden fort being subdivided by building a wall across the then current structure. Also there are many oddly shaped encampments so it's not impossible one of them has a sharp corner - but the oddly shaped ones can be explained by difficulties fitting a rectangular structure onto the terrain. In contrast, the terrain where these crops marks are, is nearly flat and so I would expect an almost perfect rectangle with nice curving corners.

However, I read someone on this discussion that it was being suggested the Romans built a defensive wall. The only example I've seen of a standing structure to suggest what this may have been like this is at Masada https://bible.org/assets/images/Stiles_Masada.004.jpg


This is a single wall, which if typical suggests that if the Romans did build a wall at the battle with Boudicca, then (when built of earth in a hurry) it is likely to be a single ditch and bank with some form of "barb wire fence"/palisade equivalent on top.
Oh the grand oh Duke Suetonius, he had a Roman legion, he galloped rushed down to (a minor settlement called) Londinium then he galloped rushed back again. Londinium Bridge is falling down, falling down ... HOLD IT ... change of plans, we're leaving the bridge for Boudica and galloping rushing north.
Reply
If we had a bit more roundness it would be a Roman no-brainer, so the conversation is about the degree of acceptable roundness.  The Water Newton site has "roundness" described in the finer outer ditch (IMHO) but the inner one seems unfeasibly angular. So I'm fishing for less round corners than is the cliche (or immutable fact) in order to explore Windridge better.

However the the Windridge NMR shot is really good, well worth my monthly allowance. A four sided rectangular enclosure (with an oblique northwest side) apparent central entrances, possible gate structures, double ditches, parallel to the alignment of the adjacent Roman road, immediately adjacent to a significant Roman settlement, on an important marching route without the capacity to house a large body of troops on the march, AND several cart loads of first century sling shot (rumour is there were thousands of them). All the circumstantial evidence you would need for a Roman camp but the corners are just TOO angular...... if it's not a Roman camp what could it be? to be drainage it would have to have a certain Escheresque quality to it, so sparing those pesky corners it's still in the Roman box, until a better specific alternative is advanced.

If either could be conclusively dated Windridge might prove Water Newton to be Roman, or Water Newton might prove Windridge to be Roman......

As it stands we have two very similar ditches, appearing to be parts of distinct rectangular enclosures, fairly close to significant Roman settlements. Working hypothisis is Paulinus' straight line surveyor laid out the camps but his mate, the surveyor in charge of elegant curved corners, got knocked off by Boudiccas lot..... 

This sample seems suitably angular, in Qreiyeh, Syria;

   
http://www.arup.cas.cz/wp-content/upload...vities.pdf
http://www.nsgg.org.uk/meetings/old/nsgg...G2012p.pdf

The justification for this discussion to be in this particular thread is that if this "angular ditch" typology is Roman military we may be seeing the camps of Paulinus' sweeping up operation which may help us hone in on the battle site. Moderators are free to bump this to another thread if it is too oblique for the thread definition, someone will bitch about it sooner of later.

126943
Reply
(08-10-2016, 04:32 PM)MonsGraupius Wrote: I read someone on this discussion that it was being suggested the Romans built a defensive wall.

I think that was just a rather 'creative' translation alluding to the slope being 'like a rampart'. Neither Tacitus nor Dio mention actual Roman walls or fortifications of any kind at the battle.


(08-10-2016, 04:39 PM)John1 Wrote: if this "angular ditch" typology is Roman military we may be seeing the camps of Paulinus' sweeping up operation which may help us hone in on the battle site.

Aha, thanks - I did wonder where you were going with this! [Image: wink.png]
Nathan Ross
Reply
(08-10-2016, 04:39 PM)pid=\338210 Wrote:If we had a bit more roundness it would be a Roman no-brainer, so the conversation is about the degree of acceptable roundness.  The Water Newton site has "roundness" described in the finer outer ditch (IMHO) but the inner one seems unfeasibly angular.
It's not just a question of "roundness". Take e.g. the following example. Depending on how you interpret the aerial photo this is either a double ditch or a single ditch (it's particularly clear on the left). It is approximately the right size (600x400), we have two clear "corners" it is located as you would expect on a slight rise, near a good stream, located to make best use of slopes (to the bottom). The upper limit is shown on old maps as a fence. It is orientated toward a notable feature in the landscape (a local hill which at the time of the Romans would have been the only way forward.

[Image: newEvidence.png]

However ... at around 24hectares it is larger than Inchtuthil  and if it were a fort, would be the largest in Scotland. But as a Roman camp at 24 hectares it doesn't fit in with the 15 and 40 hectare sites in the area in which it was found.

Here is another crop mark I found:
[Image: qfort.png]

Now compare with sites known to be Roman camps. The first at Muirhouses:
[Image: SC00354356.jpg]
This one at Stracathro is very nice as it shows both a camp and a fort (double ditch)
[Image: SC01013789.jpg]

You can't dismiss these sites from Google earth (particularly the top one) - but neither can you say they look like the aerial photos of Roman camps.

Addendum:
Here's another:
[Image: qfort1.png]
And another:
[Image: qfort2.png]
And another site which is not recorded as being Roman:

[Image: qfort3.png]
Oh the grand oh Duke Suetonius, he had a Roman legion, he galloped rushed down to (a minor settlement called) Londinium then he galloped rushed back again. Londinium Bridge is falling down, falling down ... HOLD IT ... change of plans, we're leaving the bridge for Boudica and galloping rushing north.
Reply
Sorry, first post here but I was advised to have a look at this topic. The great research here has persuaded me that the battle must have taken place in the south or south-west of Britain. However, I just came across this :
II Augusta – Caerleon Capricorn pre 9 BC - failed to engage Boudica 60. C 395 at Rutupiae (Brit)
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_legions (a few sources are given on Wiki but haven't yet looked at them)
I used to live in Caerleon, so took an interest in the IInd. I also read years ago in another Wiki entry that this legion had twice lost its eagle. This was at a well-reported battle where I think they were fighting for Marcus Antonius - around 43 BC - but having read reports of that battle - it went on for two days and the loss of the eagle was given as being on successive days!
However, as this was also from an article in Wikipedia I'm trying to find it.
Rutupiae is the first time I've seen that location mentioned, I take it the source must be from 395 AD, whoever that might be.
Reply
My reading of the Wikipedia entry is that it is two separate lines and two separate statements;
1, commenting on the failure to engage Boudicca 
2, in 395AD they were stationed at Richborough.

   

so I suspect there is no intended relationship between Richborough and the battle in my view, but as a Midlander I would say that wouldn't I.
Reply
(08-30-2016, 02:02 PM)Alecto Wrote: Rutupiae is the first time I've seen that location mentioned, I take it the source must be from 395 AD, whoever that might be.

It's a reference to the Notitia Dignitatum, a late Roman (4th-5th century) list of offices:  "Praefectus legionis secundae Augustae, Rutupis"

The base of the Second in AD61 is unknown - it could have been at Exeter, or Gloucester, or divided among several smaller locations. I still like Michael's suggestion from some time ago, that Poenius Postumus was commanding a detachment of veterans left to hold the fort while the main legion was away in North Wales under its legate.


(08-30-2016, 02:02 PM)Alecto Wrote: the battle must have taken place in the south or south-west of Britain.


Or south-east? [Image: wink.png]
Nathan Ross
Reply
Kaims Castle is another one with very angular corners, I accept it is on a much smaller scale than the St Albans & Water Newton. But is is another example of the inner bank being very angular and only the outer ditches describe the accentuated curve;

canmore.org.uk/site/25365/kaims-castle
Reply
Thank you for all that information, As for the South-East, I don't know. Richard Hunt, whose take on the rebellion I like a lot - suggests near Letherhead, A 24 Box hill country.(Queen Boudica's battle of Britain' )

I was rather taken aback to read in 'Defying Rome' by de la Beyodere that he adheres to the cavalry dash and has a rather strange idea. That Boudica may never have existed. Both books are from 2003.

Well, thanks for moving Rutupiae is off the menu. South is much more likely than Watling street.
I had now. Better start on page one here now.
Reply
(08-31-2016, 04:36 PM)Alecto Wrote: Better start on page one here now.

Good luck! [Image: smile.png]
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: