Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
(09-07-2018, 12:42 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(09-07-2018, 11:29 AM)Renatus Wrote: the narrower the defile, within reason, the better. That way, the Britons trying to funnel into a relatively narrow gap would tend to bunch together and impede each other, presenting a solid target

Yes, that sounds absolutely right, and tactically I think that was exactly the purpose of the 'defile'.

If we go with my rough estimate above for Paulinus's force (8640 infantry and 1384 cavalry), the infantry drawn up in one unbroken line eight men deep would occupy 1080 metres - or just over half a mile. Ten deep they would cover 864 metres. Twelve deep would be 720 metres. Sixteen deep (two lines of eight ranks) would be 540 metres. Eighteen (three lines of six ranks) deep would be 480 metres. I would say this is the very minimum frontage possible.

Allowing for a few gaps in the line between units, this would give us a possible range of between 500 metres and 1100 metres (0.3 to 0.7 of a mile). This is assuming that the auxiliary infantry formed a line with the legionaries, and were not on the hill slopes to either side, and that the cavalry occupied the hills and were not in the defile. All these considerations would add variables to the calculation, of course.

I must say, I don't think I've seen any suitable sites, either by peering at topographical maps or suggested by other people, that fall much outside those general parameters. My proposed line at Newground is c.800-900 metres, but if turned obliquely into the valley below Wiggington it could be c.490. South-eastern and central England are quite short on narrower valleys with pronounced slopes - the higher the elevation on either side, the wider the valley tends to be. I'd be interested to see any you might have in mind though!
That number of infantry and cavalry can fight on battlefields up to 2-3km wide, but would prefer perhaps 1-1.5m wide. However that very much depends on how the cavalry are being used. If you don't intend using the cavalry, then anything less than 900m is going to start reducing your fighting effectiveness (not having enough men engaged).

And to put it simply, if Paulinus did chose to go "down a rabbit burrow" less than 500m wide, which was too difficult for the Britons to get into ... but was likewise difficult for Paulinus to get out of ... why bother going in after him? Just wait him out until he starves. He had to draw them in.

The standard tactics for defeating are large rabble are:

1. To draw them into battle in a way where they rush headlong at the Romans (so little point in it being too defensive)
2. To stop the front ranks dead in the water (using a combination of depth, order and brutal killing efficiency).
3. To shock them into sudden retreat and slaughter them as they flee in disorder (using the timely and targetted use of re-enforcements)

The best shock troops are calvary (or light infantry) which can quickly out-manoeuvre the enemy and attack them from the rear. But this requires space on the battlefield to allow the cavalry to get around the back. And space also gives the allusion of a poorly defended army.

1400 cavalry probably want around 1km of open space to launch an assault. I would be surprised if the cavalry were used in a single line, so if we assume two attacking waves of 700 horses that needs around 500m.

Anything less that 1km and you're going to start killing as many Romans as Britons when the cavalry charge.
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
(09-07-2018, 12:42 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I'd be interested to see any you might have in mind though!

It has long been my intention to go to Tring (which, after all, is not too far from where I live) to look at the sites in the area that have been suggested and any others that I may spot to see if there any that I particularly like the look of. I haven't managed it yet but I still hope to do so one day.
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
(09-07-2018, 05:30 PM)Renatus Wrote: It has long been my intention to go to Tring

Yes, somebody probably should! I've looked at most of the sites suggested here over the years on 'Street View', but it's often very deceptive, particularly regarding gradients and elevation.

I suspect Deryk's site might look more immediately appealing, with that big wooded ridge along Hastoe Hill. My suggestion over at Newground has probably been much altered by the canal, railway and road construction, but it might be possible to judge things approximately. I believe John had a look at the Dunstable site, as did the late Barry Horne and the 'Watling Street Project' people. I've never actually been to any of these places myself!
Nathan Ross
Reply
Renatus wrote:

It has long been my intention to go to Tring

Nathan wrote:

Yes, somebody probably should! I've looked at most of the sites suggested here over the years on 'Street View', but it's often very deceptive, particularly regarding gradients and elevation.


I suspect Deryk's site might look more immediately appealing, with that big wooded ridge along Hastoe Hill. My suggestion over at Newground has probably been much altered by the canal, railway and road construction, but it might be possible to judge things approximately.

Although I agree with Nathan that the area around Tring is probably where the Boudica battle was fought, it seems that although New Ground is possibly based on a Roman Road between Aldbury and Wiggington this is not the front line of the battle.


Tacitus description does not really suit this setting either (New Ground is at the end of the defile running from Berkhampstead, that in fact the Brythons would have had to have been in and not the Roman Army) so it is SP who is on the edge of the plain and advancing into the defile rather than bursting from it.



Also in AD60 it is likely that the Bulbourne river would have started at Bulbourne and not at Cow Roast as is the case today due to depletion from water usage and the canal system. In fact in 1642 it is mentioned that the River Bulbourne rose near Pendley Manor and therefore the river would have flowed through the middle of the valley at New Road which have made it a great place to camp along but not to fight in.



I do think however that the “killing fields” and slaughter could well have been between Tring Station and Cow Roast when the Brythons tried to flee but were prevented from doing so by the wagons.



So the question is where was the front line?



The small valley underneath Wiggington hill at rightangles to New Ground has been mentioned but again does not really fit the description of a “defile” or allow space for the refugees and the army.



My earlier supposition of the valleys under Hastoe and Chivery Top still hold true (in my opinion and I have visited the area) although the battle site is more undulating than flat.


I believe that in the dim and distant past Nathan suggested a front line that stretched from Aldbury village across to Aldbury Nowers and I do feel that this could be a good place for the front-line to have been as it is in an obvious defile, has a plain sloping down towards where the opposing army would be, is about 1600 meters wide which allows for the disposition of the army as Tacitus states with the cohorts at  8 rows deep and the river is a mile away, which is where the wagons may have camped, effectively on the edge of the “battle plain”.  It also has plenty of ”protected space” behind the front line for the baggage train and the refugees it also had water springs.



Once the Brythons started to flee the cavalry could hunt and cut them down along the river between Bulbourne and New Ground and Cow Roast where archeaology has been found including the Tring Helmet.


There are other options for a battle site along the Bulbourne Valley and there is a Roman Temple at the Berkhamstead Golf Course overlooking a defile into today’s Berkhamstead but doesn’t seem to be large enough to accommodate the army although others may feel that it is an option.



There was a lot of Roman activity in the area including a number of villas and the aforementioned temple and various settlements around Cow Roast, Aston Clinton, Northchurch, Berkhamstead and in  the nearby Gade Valley etc and also coinage found in the area as far back as Tasciovanus showing Brythonic occupation which centered around metal working for centuries near Cow Roast.



There are however two other possible sites in the local area where the battle could have taken place (see attachment) and perhaps it would be worthwhile to see if they are valid.



The first one is at the end of the Gade Valley at Ivinghoe Beacon which fits the description that Tacitus gives and has plenty of room for the combatants and access to St Albans. It is also close to the Upper Icknield Way. It allows for the classic formation with the Legionaries in the centre, the Auxiilliaries next and the Cavalry on the wings.


The final one is interesting and is above Pitstone on the Icknield Way. The frontage of the defile is much narrower than any other site at 600 yards but the battle site is quite steep downhill from the Roman frontline and also limited as it is more like a spur. It is however the only site that seems to work regarding a charge that creates immediate chaos without the Roman Army being enveloped. So can it work in reality utilising double depth rows etc.?


.pdf   Ivinghoe Map.pdf (Size: 1,015.65 KB / Downloads: 16)
.pdf   Aldbury Map.pdf (Size: 1.03 MB / Downloads: 12)
.pdf   Pitstone Map.pdf (Size: 1.23 MB / Downloads: 14)
Deryk
Reply
(09-15-2018, 09:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: New Ground is at the end of the defile... Brythons would have had to have been in and not the Roman Army... Bulbourne river would have started at Bulbourne and not at Cow Roast as is the case today

This is old ground for New Ground, I'd say! Definitions of defiles and plains etc are very open. River a chalk stream, upper reaches probably near dry in summer, 18th century (I think) map I added to a post way back showed the stream rising over to the east of New Ground. Sure there are difficulties with this site, but less so than others, I think.


(09-15-2018, 09:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: a front line that stretched from Aldbury village across to Aldbury Nowers

Yes, that was the one I suggested here. Although at the time you thought it was too easy to outflank?


(09-15-2018, 09:42 PM)Theoderic Wrote: Gade Valley at Ivinghoe Beacon... Pitstone on the Icknield Way.

Both nice looking sites, although neither look like the sort of 'throat shaped' valley that I think we're looking for. But that's open to interpretation, as are so many things about this topic!
Nathan Ross
Reply
Feeling a bit guilty that Northants HER takes the Thread of Doom so seriously, any other sites scored an HER ref yet?.....  

     

422312

Northants HER also throws up an additional feature that I have yet to locate at the Church Stowe site, a big heathen burial mound.... battlefield memorial?

   
Reply
When will people stop talking about the 'Battle of Watling Street' as if we were certain that that is where it took place?
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
Heart 
(09-22-2018, 12:18 PM)Renatus Wrote: When will people stop talking about the 'Battle of Watling Street' as if we were certain that that is where it took place?

well the only use  of "Battle of Watling Street" I see above was the document title from 2010, and too be fair I haven't used the term Battle of Watling Street on the thread for quite a while. Although if the emerging battle site at Church Stowe is proven as a battle of any period it could be referred to as the Battle of Watling Street but not necessarily anything to do with Boudicca or the Battle that was previously known as the Battle of Watling Street. But I think you are fighting and up hill battle if you think the term Battle of Watling Street, is going to be dropped in common culture anytime soon. Maybe the terms should be the Battle that may of may not have been fought on or near Watling Street, but that's not so catchy as Battle of Watling Street. I completely understand why advocates of other potential sites would dislike the use of Battle of Watling Street, but that's really a minority anywhere other than on this thread which is probably why the term Battle of Watling Street isn't used in the title, nor is Battle of Watling Street used much in the posts, probably to keep the debate open and not set off the paradistas who want to look anywhere other than Watling Street for the Battle of Watling Street. Me I think it might be time to end this pc nonsense and no longer accept any candidate sites for the Battle that may or may not have been fought near Watling Street unless they can demonstrate a HER reference to it's candidacy. that would limit the debate and candidates to Church Stowe and Mancetter, which, to be fair, are both close to Watling Street and might reasonably referred to as the Battle of Watling Street.

If we aren't going to use the Battle of Watling Street, which is the popular name for the engagement, what should we use? Should the Battle of Watling Street be Boudicas Last Stand? Paulinus Epic Victory? The Battle that may or may not have been fought at Tring, Church Stowe, Paulersbury, Dunstable, Virginia Water etc etc? These don't seem as catchy or brief as Battle of Watling Street.

Anway I'll continue to try and avoid the term Battle of Watling Street, but for brevity the Battle of Watling Street is usually the best when talking to non-thread members and to be blunt almost certainly the most geographically accurate....... lots of love John1 xxxxx

PS Wikipedia calls the Battle of Watling Street (my bad) the Battle of Watling Street, it would seem therefore that the term Battle of Watling Street is the accepted abbreviation for this Battle which involved Watling Street so I think your campaign to remove the term Battle of Watling Street from all discussions involving the Battle of Watling Street will have a hard task but I would recommend getting an alternative to the term Battle of Watling Street, accepted ans the title for the Battle of Watling Street page on Wikipedia.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street
Reply
(09-22-2018, 12:54 PM)John1 Wrote: I would recommend getting an alternative to the term Battle of Watling Street, accepted ans the title for the Battle of Watling Street page on Wikipedia.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

I wouldn't even know how to go about doing that. However, of the alternatives that you suggest, 'Boudica's Last Stand' is better than most and at least does not pretend to be geographically precise.
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
(09-22-2018, 12:54 PM)John1 Wrote:
(09-22-2018, 12:18 PM)Renatus Wrote: When will people stop talking about the 'Battle of Watling Street' as if we were certain that that is where it took place?

well the only use  of "Battle of Watling Street" ....

Twenty-six. Well played sir Wink
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
(09-22-2018, 12:54 PM)John1 Wrote:
(09-22-2018, 12:18 PM)Renatus Wrote: When will people stop talking about the 'Battle of Watling Street' as if we were certain that that is where it took place?

well the only use  of "Battle of Watling Street" I see above was the document title from 2010, and too be fair I haven't used the term Battle of Watling Street on the thread for quite a while. Although if the emerging battle site at Church Stowe is proven as a battle of any period it could be referred to as the Battle of Watling Street but not necessarily anything to do with Boudicca or the Battle that was previously known as the Battle of Watling Street. But I think you are fighting and up hill battle if you think the term Battle of Watling Street, is going to be dropped in common culture anytime soon. Maybe the terms should be the Battle that may of may not have been fought on or near Watling Street, but that's not so catchy as Battle of Watling Street. I completely understand why advocates of other potential sites would dislike the use of Battle of Watling Street, but that's really a minority anywhere other than on this thread which is probably why the term Battle of Watling Street isn't used in the title, nor is Battle of Watling Street used much in the posts, probably to keep the debate open and not set off the paradistas who want to look anywhere other than Watling Street for the Battle of Watling Street. Me I think it might be time to end this pc nonsense and no longer accept any candidate sites for the Battle that may or may not have been fought near Watling Street unless they can demonstrate a HER reference to it's candidacy. that would limit the debate and candidates to Church Stowe and Mancetter, which, to be fair, are both close to Watling Street and might reasonably referred to as the Battle of Watling Street.

If we aren't going to use the Battle of Watling Street, which is the popular name for the engagement, what should we use? Should the Battle of Watling Street be Boudicas Last Stand? Paulinus Epic Victory? The Battle that may or may not have been fought at Tring, Church Stowe, Paulersbury, Dunstable, Virginia Water etc etc? These don't seem as catchy or brief as Battle of Watling Street.

Anway I'll continue to try and avoid the term Battle of Watling Street, but for brevity the Battle of Watling Street is usually the best when talking to non-thread members and to be blunt almost certainly the most geographically accurate....... lots of love John1 xxxxx

PS Wikipedia calls the Battle of Watling Street (my bad) the Battle of Watling Street, it would seem therefore that the term Battle of Watling Street is the accepted abbreviation for this Battle which involved Watling Street so I think your campaign to remove the term Battle of Watling Street form all discussions involving the Battle of Watling Street will have a hard task but I would recommend getting an alternative to the term Battle of Watling Street, accepted ans the title for the Battle of Watling Street page on Wikipedia.   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street

Are you talking about Boudica's last stand or just Watling on?
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
I was wondering how the Romans disposed of their dead after a large battle at this time. Did they leave an as or other small coin in the victims mouths to pay the ferryman? If so, might there have been an unusual distribution of small pre-Nero Roman coin finds at the battle site?
Reply
(09-22-2018, 02:23 PM)Renatus Wrote: 'Boudica's Last Stand' is better than most

I find the idea of a 'Last Stand' a bit melodramatic and Victorian!

Most German scholars, I think, refer to the so-called 'Battle of the Teutoburg Forest' as the Varusschlacht (Varus Battle). Something similar might be worthwhile with this one, although it doesn't work quite so well in English - 'the Boudica Battle', or 'Boudica's Last Battle' could be ok, perhaps?

(Although I've just noticed that German wikipedia calls it Die Schlacht an der Watling Street - we can't win!)


(09-23-2018, 09:09 AM)kavan Wrote: I was wondering how the Romans disposed of their dead after a large battle at this time.

Mass cremation. Romans didn't bury their dead until the 2nd century, and burning would be the best way of disposing of heaps of bodies anyway.

I recall there was a discussion about battlefield remains (or 'cremains') somewhere earlier on this thread. The site suggested at Clifton-upon-Dunsmore also featured some sort of ash-filled mounds, or the possibility of them, I think.
Nathan Ross
Reply
(09-23-2018, 04:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote:
(09-22-2018, 02:23 PM)Renatus Wrote: 'Boudica's Last Stand' is better than most

I find the idea of a  'Last Stand' a bit melodramatic and Victorian!

I take your point (although that is in the title of this thread), particularly since it conjures up the notion of Custer's Last Stand, when Custer was overwhelmed by superior numbers. In this case it was Boudica who had the numbers. 'Boudica's Last Battle' is probably preferable.

(09-23-2018, 04:57 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I recall there was a discussion about battlefield remains (or 'cremains') somewhere earlier on this thread.

As I remember it, we were concentrating on the vast numbers of British dead, the conclusion being that, after the removal of the ironmongery, the bodies were left to be disposed of by the local wildlife, notably pigs!
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
(09-23-2018, 10:04 PM)Renatus Wrote: In this case it was Boudica who had the numbers.

Yes. And it also implies that she died fighting there, and the campaign ended at that point - neither of which is true (probably!)


(09-23-2018, 10:04 PM)Renatus Wrote: notably pigs!

Oh yes, I do recall that appetising discussion!
Nathan Ross
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: