Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

That does not fit what Ptolemy tells us:
[quote pid="352858" dateline="1663014237"]

then the Atrebati and their town Caleva
Next to these, but farther eastward, are the Canti among whom are the towns:Londinium

There is no room for the Catuvellauni south of the Thames.

Looking at the evidence from the distribution of Celtic coins, by 43AD Catuvellauni currency was in use west of London and south of the River Thames. Things changed rapidly after Caesar left.
[/quote]

The Celts lived in NW Gaul and no historian until very recently even vaguely hints of any Celts in Britain. In contrast, Caesar and Tacitus tell  us of an invasion of Belgae from NE Gaul, whose name is given to one tribe at the time of Ptolemy's map. So, they were not Celtic coins, they were Belgae coins, which came into widespread use, both in the Belgae controlled areas (the nearer shores as I think Caesar puts it) and clearly beyond.

If we look at the distribution of what modern historians falsely call "Celtic" artefacts, what we find, is that they do not go much beyond the border between the Belgae and Celtae and totally disappearing in the Celtae heartland. So, "Celtic" items are nothing of the sort. However, what it does show, is that even where we have a clear boundary between the Belgae and Celts, that the Belgae artefacts do migrate over the border.

Just for interest, all the iconic and clearly misnamed "Celtic" hoards (La Tene and Hallstat) have been found in modern Germanic speaking areas, ironically including "La Tene", which was found by a German speaking Swiss, in the German speaking area, but then taken to the nearest town which was La Tene. And, as modern France has much the same borders as Gaul, these "Celtic" artefacts are probably not even Gaulic.

Instead, we do see the rise of a new elite in the SE of England about 150BC. That can be equated to the invasion of Belgae Gauls. So, the fantastic Battersea shield etc., which seem to appear with the Belgae Gauls in SE England, can be reasonably linked to the Belgae Gauls ... or French as we might now call them.

In other words, the first French invasion .... long before William the Bastard.

[Renatus]

most of Roman Southwark was destroyed by fire at the same time as the main city. So the rebels did cross south of the river, either by bridge or by ford, and the Thames was not an impassable barrier or a moat, and anyone hoping for safety on the southern bank would have been sorely disappointed!

Well said.  I couldn't agree more.

---

And, I do hope, on reflection, that you will change the "is entirely irrelevant to the movements and actions of Suetonius." because you've already admitted that he would be under political pressure from those escaping south.

I have done nothing of the sort.

If we look at the Wash-Dee line, which would have been the "front line" before Boudica (~50AD), we see that Lincoln is the main fort, toward the east where it is easy to supply from Gaul, but there is no obvious development of a line.

The next narrowing of Britain with a major river is the Humber (If I remember corrected, derives from old English for border). This would have been the "frontline" some time after the Boudican revolt. The major fort here is at York (~71AD), on a major river tributary of the Humber, this is also the most southerly Brigantes settlement as listed by Ptolemy. West of here is a line of forts heading to the river Ribble (Preston).

Before the period of consolidation under Hadrian, these would represent jumping-off points for further expansion.

[MonsGraupius]

most of Roman Southwark was destroyed by fire at the same time as the main city. So the rebels did cross south of the river, either by bridge or by ford, and the Thames was not an impassable barrier or a moat, and anyone hoping for safety on the southern bank would have been sorely disappointed!

Well said.  I couldn't agree more.

Might you care to substantiate that claim that all of Roman Soutwark was destroyed AT THE TIME of the fire.

All I can find is a single article in Current Archaeology with no dating:

Here, an archaeologist is seen drawing the layers of burning found  in one of the buildings flanking the Roman road at London Bridge. This provides the evidence that Boudica crossed  to the south bank and burnt Southwark too: thus Southwark must have existed by this time – and does this mean that the London bridge had also been constructed?

A Roman lamp

One of the most remarkable finds was this pottery foot which is in fact a lamp – the wick burnt in the big toe.

So, as far as I can tell, a single property in a single fire, burnt down where the main artefact which was found: a novelty Roman  lamp in the shape of a foot, had clear burning over the edge and down the side of the big toe which looks like a clear fire hazard to me  ... so might I suggest it was in the middle of the fire ... and was a single isolated event that had nothing to do with Boudica.

Addendum
Two things strike me about this novelty Roman foot oil lamp. The first is that almost no other Roman oil lamps show the burning. That indicates that normally, the oil lamp burn cleanly. Instead this oil lamp, was clearly burning with thick brown smoke that massively stained BELOW the level of the oil and as far as I can see right down to the supporting surface. It was clearly burning with a sooty flame ... just before whatever it was on collapsed onto the ground where the lamp was sealed from further changes.

The second thing, is that most Roman lamps were made with a platform at the front, and or an upward tilt so that the wick stood upright rather than hanging down, and likely syphoning oil, down onto the supporting table. So, basically this is an extremely bad novelty design almost tailor made to catch on fire.

Image of novelty foot lamp that appears to have caused the fire.

[Owein Walker]

That does not fit what Ptolemy tells us:
[quote pid="352858" dateline="1663014237"]

then the Atrebati and their town Caleva
Next to these, but farther eastward, are the Canti among whom are the towns:Londinium

There is no room for the Catuvellauni south of the Thames.

Looking at the evidence from the distribution of Celtic coins, by 43AD Catuvellauni currency was in use west of London and south of the River Thames. Things changed rapidly after Caesar left.

The Celts lived in NW Gaul and no historian until very recently even vaguely hints of any Celts in Britain. In contrast, Caesar and Tacitus tell  us of an invasion of Belgae from NE Gaul, whose name is given to one tribe at the time of Ptolemy's map. So, they were not Celtic coins, they were Belgae coins, which came into widespread use, both in the Belgae controlled areas (the nearer shores as I think Caesar puts it) and clearly beyond.

If we look at the distribution of what modern historians falsely call "Celtic" artefacts, what we find, is that they do not go much beyond the border between the Belgae and Celtae and totally disappearing in the Celtae heartland. So, "Celtic" items are nothing of the sort. However, what it does show, is that even where we have a clear boundary between the Belgae and Celts, that the Belgae artefacts do migrate over the border.

Just for interest, all the iconic and clearly misnamed "Celtic" hoards (La Tene and Hallstat) have been found in modern Germanic speaking areas, ironically including "La Tene", which was found by a German speaking Swiss, in the German speaking area, but then taken to the nearest town which was La Tene. And, as modern France has much the same borders as Gaul, these "Celtic" artefacts are probably not even Gaulic.

Instead, we do see the rise of a new elite in the SE of England about 150BC. That can be equated to the invasion of Belgae Gauls. So, the fantastic Battersea shield etc., which seem to appear with the Belgae Gauls in SE England, can be reasonably linked to the Belgae Gauls ... or French as we might now call them.

In other words, the first French invasion .... long before William the Bastard.
[/quote]

And all this changes nothing.
Both north and south of the Thames were unified by Cunobellinus, son of Tasciovanus around 20AD.
Coins minted in Camulodunum.

This feels like I'm trying to help you, but you aren't listening. You either don't want to know or choose to ignore them, but I don't understand why. I assume you know what you know and that's final, but if that's the case then I'd expect you to have a final battlefield in mind ,so where is it?

I was going to mention the Fosse Way, but you are nowhere near there and have ignored it completely until now, so let's move on.

[MonsGraupius]

Re supposed Boudican fire South of Thames

It is codswallop!

It is in one of these pits – just yards from passageways used by thousands of commuters each day [At London Bridge station] – where the team has discovered the remains of one of the earliest buildings in Roman Southwark. Dendrochronological analysis shows that the 17 timber piles were made from trees felled between AD 59 and AD 83.

Not a single mention of burning ... timbers throughout the Boudican period and no burnt layer between 59-83AD
Remains of Roman Southwark found below London Bridge Station

---

This feels like I'm trying to help you, but you aren't listening. You either don't want to know or choose to ignore them, but I don't understand why. I assume you know what you know and that's final, but if that's the case then I'd expect you to have a final battlefield in mind ,so where is it?

I was going to mention the Fosse Way, but you are nowhere near there and have ignored it completely until now, so let's move on.

Someone on here gave some plausible evidence for somewhere .. near I think it was Aylesbury ... Tring rings a bell (LOL) ... however, since I've not looked at any sites in the area, I'm too far away to visit and look and I don't don't know where they got the battlefield evidence I don't want to push any particular site... and frankly it was a long time ago and there have been so many sites ... and I got confused, I was hoping that if I kept posting stuff that eventually they would pop up.

However, there are numerous valleys along the Chilterns which would fit a general movement from around Dorchester heading toward the Iceni

Also, ... to be frank ... I want whoever found the site to take the credit ... if as I seem to remember it had finds indicative of a Roman battle site and was the right size for the battle they deserve the credit. And, maybe there were more than one site?

And maybe it wasn't the Chilterns. Starting at Dorchester, it might be possible to suggest a more northern route ... perhaps linking up with the Ninth ... but I've forgotten where they are supposed to be ... and I've forgotten where someone suggested battle sites.

But, it is also possible to suggest that Boudica has taken over St.Albans, but again, I think others are far better placed to know whether the evidence supports that ... and I would bow to their better knowledge.

Also, I'm not that clear on where the Boudican side would be ... so, I don't know how Suetonius goes from the defensive line of the Thames, to one where he is forcing Boudica's hand to engage him in battle at a site of Suetonius' choosing.

There are some incredible experts here ... I am only an expert on fording the Thames**, the Mons Graupius campaign and with a dabbling interest in Roman walls. All I have done, is to say that the Thames cannot be ignored, and the military logic them pushes Suetonius to the west and toward Calleva as his seat of war. But ... it isn't much, because we end up heading toward Watling st where it crosses the Chilterns. So, it's a long way around to get to the same place.

Unfortunately, there are no line of forts to mark Suetonius' campaign as there is in the Agricolan campaign. From (approx) Dorchester NE toward the Iceni is a land advance ... which seems like any other Roman campaign and there are better experts than me on how that might go.

**To put it in context, I have forded every major river from the Forth to the Spey on the Agricolan advance to Mons Graupius including the Clyde and Tay. I have also forded numerous small rivers and large rivers such as the Tyne at Corbridge. I have also tracked several Roman roads, looking for evidence of Fords and studied in detail about a dozen rivers including the Tiber (which is perhaps fordable at Rome in exceptional circumstances - although the hydrology is complex - and there is evidence it was different at the time of Rome and that might have made it temporally fordable)

And all this changes nothing.
Both north and south of the Thames were unified by Cunobellinus, son of Tasciovanus around 20AD.
Coins minted in Camulodunum.

I'm not sure of the importance, but let's give it a whirl as it's interesting.

I was trying to work out what evidence you have. By their very use as a means of exchange, coins get moved about, so I was wondering whether it could be explained by the normal movement of coins. The Britannica article on Cunobelinus says:

Cunobelinus succeeded his father, Tasciovanus, as chief of the Catuvellauni, a tribe centred north of what is now London. Tasciovanus’s capital was Verlamio, above the later Roman site of Verulamium (modern St. Albans). Either shortly before or shortly after his accession, Cunobelinus conquered the territory of the Trinovantes, in modern Essex. He made Camulodunum (modern Colchester) his capital and the seat of his mint. The many surviving coins from the mint are stamped with Latin slogans and figures from mythology. His power and influence were so extensively felt in Britain that the Roman biographer Suetonius referred to him as Britannorum rex (“King of the Britons”) in his life of the emperor Caligula.

Looking for the source of this, I found a short mention in:

 All that he accomplished was to receive the surrender of Adminius, son of Cynobellinus king of the Britons, who had been banished by his father and had deserted to the Romans with a small force; yet as if the entire island had submitted to him, he sent a grandiloquent letter to Rome, commanding the couriers who carried it to ride in their post-chais

Latin Suet. Cal. 44.2

English

Looking through Wokepedia on the Trinovantes all I found was this:

For a brief period c. 10 BC Tasciovanus of the Catuvellauni issued coins from Camulodunum, suggesting that he conquered the Trinovantes, but he was soon forced to withdraw, perhaps as a result of pressure from the Romans, as his later coins no longer bear the mark "Rex", and Addedomarus was restored.

[Owein Walker]

Re supposed Boudican fire South of Thames

It is codswallop!

It is in one of these pits – just yards from passageways used by thousands of commuters each day [At London Bridge station] – where the team has discovered the remains of one of the earliest buildings in Roman Southwark. Dendrochronological analysis shows that the 17 timber piles were made from trees felled between AD 59 and AD 83.

Not a single mention of burning ... timbers throughout the Boudican period and no burnt layer between 59-83AD
Remains of Roman Southwark found below London Bridge Station

---

This feels like I'm trying to help you, but you aren't listening. You either don't want to know or choose to ignore them, but I don't understand why. I assume you know what you know and that's final, but if that's the case then I'd expect you to have a final battlefield in mind ,so where is it?

I was going to mention the Fosse Way, but you are nowhere near there and have ignored it completely until now, so let's move on.

Someone on here gave some plausible evidence for somewhere .. near I think it was Aylesbury ... Tring rings a bell (LOL) ... however, since I've not looked at any sites in the area, I'm too far away to visit and look and I don't don't know where they got the battlefield evidence I don't want to push any particular site... and frankly it was a long time ago and there have been so many sites ... and I got confused, I was hoping that if I kept posting stuff that eventually they would pop up.

However, there are numerous valleys along the Chilterns which would fit a general movement from around Dorchester heading toward the Iceni

Also, ... to be frank ... I want whoever found the site to take the credit ... if as I seem to remember it had finds indicative of a Roman battle site and was the right size for the battle they deserve the credit. And, maybe there were more than one site?

And maybe it wasn't the Chilterns. Starting at Dorchester, it might be possible to suggest a more northern route ... perhaps linking up with the Ninth ... but I've forgotten where they are supposed to be ... and I've forgotten where someone suggested battle sites.

But, it is also possible to suggest that Boudica has taken over St.Albans, but again, I think others are far better placed to know whether the evidence supports that ... and I would bow to their better knowledge.

Also, I'm not that clear on where the Boudican side would be ... so, I don't know how Suetonius goes from the defensive line of the Thames, to one where he is forcing Boudica's hand to engage him in battle at a site of Suetonius' choosing.

There are some incredible experts here ... I am only an expert on fording the Thames**, the Mons Graupius campaign and with a dabbling interest in Roman walls. All I have done, is to say that the Thames cannot be ignored, and the military logic them pushes Suetonius to the west and toward Calleva as his seat of war. But ... it isn't much, because we end up heading toward Watling st where it crosses the Chilterns. So, it's a long way around to get to the same place.

Unfortunately, there are no line of forts to mark Suetonius' campaign as there is in the Agricolan campaign. From (approx) Dorchester NE toward the Iceni is a land advance ... which seems like any other Roman campaign and there are better experts than me on how that might go.

**To put it in context, I have forded every major river from the Forth to the Spey on the Agricolan advance to Mons Graupius including the Clyde and Tay. I have also forded numerous small rivers and large rivers such as the Tyne at Corbridge. I have also tracked several Roman roads, looking for evidence of Fords and studied in detail about a dozen rivers including the Tiber (which is perhaps fordable at Rome in exceptional circumstances - although the hydrology is complex - and there is evidence it was different at the time of Rome and that might have made it temporally fordable)

And all this changes nothing.
Both north and south of the Thames were unified by Cunobellinus, son of Tasciovanus around 20AD.
Coins minted in Camulodunum.

I'm not sure of the importance, but let's give it a whirl as it's interesting.

I was trying to work out what evidence you have. By their very use as a means of exchange, coins get moved about, so I was wondering whether it could be explained by the normal movement of coins. The Britannica article on Cunobelinus says:

Cunobelinus succeeded his father, Tasciovanus, as chief of the Catuvellauni, a tribe centred north of what is now London. Tasciovanus’s capital was Verlamio, above the later Roman site of Verulamium (modern St. Albans). Either shortly before or shortly after his accession, Cunobelinus conquered the territory of the Trinovantes, in modern Essex. He made Camulodunum (modern Colchester) his capital and the seat of his mint. The many surviving coins from the mint are stamped with Latin slogans and figures from mythology. His power and influence were so extensively felt in Britain that the Roman biographer Suetonius referred to him as Britannorum rex (“King of the Britons”) in his life of the emperor Caligula.

Looking for the source of this, I found a short mention in:

 All that he accomplished was to receive the surrender of Adminius, son of Cynobellinus king of the Britons, who had been banished by his father and had deserted to the Romans with a small force; yet as if the entire island had submitted to him, he sent a grandiloquent letter to Rome, commanding the couriers who carried it to ride in their post-chais

Latin Suet. Cal. 44.2

English

Looking through Wokepedia on the Trinovantes all I found was this:

For a brief period c. 10 BC Tasciovanus of the Catuvellauni issued coins from Camulodunum, suggesting that he conquered the Trinovantes, but he was soon forced to withdraw, perhaps as a result of pressure from the Romans, as his later coins no longer bear the mark "Rex", and Addedomarus was restored.

I have this from 'London city of the Romans'by Ralph Merrifield .

BRITAIN BETWEEN THE INVASIONS P18

Developments that might have led to the establishment, or re-establishment, of an emporiumon the Thames did in fact take place in the 97 years that elapsed between the departure of Caesar and the invasion of Claudius in AD 43. The process of absorption of minor tribes into greater kingdoms, which seems to have been at an early stage in Caesar's time--certainly south of the Thames--continued, so that the south bank became the northern limit of the two Kingdoms of the Cantiaci and Atrebates only, while the north side of the river was shared between two peoples, the Trinovantes and the Catuvellauni, who are difficult to distinguish from one another politically or culturally. The Cantiaci do not appear to have been a completely unified kingdom, but the Atrebates further west were ruled by a powerful dynasty founded by Commius, whose princes were proud to call themselves 'sons of Commius', perhaps even in the second generation. North of the Thames, an even more powerful dynasty had been founded by Tasciovanus, a Catuvellaunian by the conventional view, although Dr Kent suggest that he may have been a Trinovantian. In view of the mobility of these rulers, who on occasion seem to have been able to take over a new kingdom when driven out of the old,it may be wiser to consider the conflicts of this period as dynastic rather than tribal struggles, in which case the tribal label perhaps doesn't matter very much. What little we know about these rulers is based almost entirely on their coins, which are fortunately inscribed with abbreviations of their names, sometimes with an indication of their parentage, and occasionally with an abbreviation of the name of the place where they were minted. The chief mint of Tasciovanus was at Verulamium, where the pre-Roman settlement, which lay south-west of the later Roman city, commenced about 15 BC, probably as a successor to the Wheathampstead oppidium. For a brief period he also issued coins at Camulodunum, and his coins are widely distributed in Essex. If the spread of coins is an indication of political influence, as is usually assumed, Tasciovanus seems to have exercised some measure of control over a fair part of eastern Britain north of the Thames and south of the Fens, and also in north Kent. It seems that a powerful kingdom consisting of a federation of tribes north of the Thames was established, and an extension of its power south of the river had been achieved over the peoples of north Kent. The rule of Tasciovanus was contested by a rival named Athedomarus, however, whose coins are found extending over much of the same area north of the Thames. A successor or conqueror of Athedomarus was Dudnovellaunus,a Kentish king who also ruled in Essex.
         In this confusing struggle for power, Cunobelinus, the son of Tasciovanus, finally emerged as the victor, and from the distribution of his coins recovered control over all the territory north and south of the Thames that was ever ruled by his father. He made Camulodunum his capitol, and it was here that his coins were minted.
        Until the reign of Cunobelinus, the southern bank of the Thames to the west of the Kentish tribes had remained the northern boundary of the Atrebatic kingdom established by Commius, which extended to the south coast in Hampshire and West Sussex. This dynasty was weakened by internal dissension, and Cunobelinus gained control of the Thames in this western area also, where soon after 20 AD his brother Epaticcus was established as ruler in the northern tribal centre of the Atrebates at Calleva(Silchester)............IT GOES ON

This also begs the question of how safe was Silchester?

I recommend this book and the author,Ralph Merrifield, 'father of London's modern archaeology ', and thank him for the work he did .

[Nathan Ross]

Not a single mention of burning ... timbers throughout the Boudican period and no burnt layer between 59-83AD

Given the nearly quarter-century date range, these would most likely be timbers from construction or reconstruction after the fires.

The Southwark destruction layer, dated to the same AD55-70 range as the other sites in London, is well attested. There's no 'Boudica did this' label, of course,  but it's as convincing as these things get (see Drummond-Murray et al 'Settlement in Roman Southwark: Archaeological Excavations (1991-8) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project', MOLA 2002, p.41, for example).

Richard Hingley, meanwhile, is one of the few decent archaeologists to have written about the Boudica revolt; this is from his 2018 'Londinium: A Biography':

   

if as I seem to remember it had finds indicative of a Roman battle site and was the right size for the battle

Newground, 1.7 miles southeast of Tring: c.900m 'defile', 13 miles from St Albans on Roman road leading to vexillation fortress in occupation c.AD60, adjacent site at Cow Roast has Roman pilum shank, bone gladius grip, fragment of cupric alloy scale armour; site itself has unverified detector finds of arrowheads, sling bullets and/or hobnails; 1st-C bronze Coolus helmet found 1km distant.

[Owein Walker]

Not a single mention of burning ... timbers throughout the Boudican period and no burnt layer between 59-83AD

Given the nearly quarter-century date range, these would most likely be timbers from construction or reconstruction after the fires.

The Southwark destruction layer, dated to the same AD55-70 range as the other sites in London, is well attested. There's no 'Boudica did this' label, of course,  but it's as convincing as these things get (see Drummond-Murray et al 'Settlement in Roman Southwark: Archaeological Excavations (1991-8) for the London Underground Limited Jubilee Line Extension Project', MOLA 2002, p.41, for example).

Richard Hingley, meanwhile, is one of the few decent archaeologists to have written about the Boudica revolt; this is from his 2018 'Londinium: A Biography':

if as I seem to remember it had finds indicative of a Roman battle site and was the right size for the battle

Newground, 1.7 miles southeast of Tring: c.900m 'defile', 13 miles from St Albans on Roman road leading to vexillation fortress in occupation c.AD60, adjacent site at Cow Roast has Roman pilum shank, bone gladius grip, fragment of cupric alloy scale armour; site itself has unverified detector finds of arrowheads, sling bullets and/or hobnails; 1st-C bronze Coolus helmet found 1km distant.

I have to say, I've always liked the area and its proximity to St Albans, Watling Street, and Akeman Street, but the topography doesn't match, in my opinion. I wish you were right, but feel someone would have found signs of mass cremations by now. Find them and it's done.

[MonsGraupius]

[quote pid="352868" dateline="1663100306"]
I have this from 'London city of the Romans'by Ralph Merrifield .

BRITAIN BETWEEN THE INVASIONS P18

For a brief period he also issued coins at Camulodunum, and his coins are widely distributed in Essex. If the spread of coins is an indication of political influence, as is usually assumed, Tasciovanus [died c. 9 AD] seems to have exercised some measure of control over a fair part of eastern Britain north of the Thames and south of the Fens, and also in north Kent. It seems that a powerful kingdom consisting of a federation of tribes north of the Thames was established, and an extension of its power south of the river had been achieved over the peoples of north Kent. The rule of Tasciovanus was contested by a rival named Athedomarus [died ?? <5BC], however, whose coins are found extending over much of the same area north of the Thames. A successor or conqueror of Athedomarus was Dudnovellaunus,a Kentish king who also ruled in Essex.
         In this confusing struggle for power, Cunobelinus, the son of Tasciovanus, finally emerged as the victor, and from the distribution of his coins recovered control over all the territory north and south of the Thames that was ever ruled by his father. He made Camulodunum his capitol, and it was here that his coins were minted.
        Until the reign of Cunobelinus, the southern bank of the Thames to the west of the Kentish tribes had remained the northern boundary of the Atrebatic kingdom established by Commius, which extended to the south coast in Hampshire and West Sussex. This dynasty was weakened by internal dissension, and Cunobelinus gained control of the Thames in this western area also, where soon after 20 AD his brother Epaticcus was established as ruler in the northern tribal centre of the Atrebates at Calleva(Silchester)............IT GOES ON

This also begs the question of how safe was Silchester?

I recommend this book and the author,Ralph Merrifield, 'father of London's modern archaeology ', and thank him for the work he did .
[/quote]

First the print was 1983 ...second ... don't tell my wife I ordered a copy because the bookcases are already overflowing.

I've read so much rubbish about "Celtic" Britain, however, it actually sounds like this guy did some research and is using actual evidence to form his views ... how refreshing ...I didn't know there were real historians of the British in this period.

Some really useful information. I think I can develop that a bit.

We are told by Caesar that there was an invasion ... I think "within living memory" or something like, and Tacitus I think it is that tells us there was a Belgae invasion of the nearer shores. And, archaeology shows a set of new artefacts and burial rights appearing in the SE around 100-200BC, from which I put the Belgae invasion as 150BC.

Commius and the Atrebates are clearly Belgae, as are the Belgae, not much is known about the Regni, but I suspect they are also Belgae elites. The Cantiaci are "The most like Gauls" ... so, probably the highest influx of Belgae Gauls.

I think Cunobelinus and Boudica are British, which means there was British control North of the Thames and in North Kent. So, the Gallic coins are used by both Belgae and British elites, which allows me to suggest the Catuvellauni & Corieltauvi are in the same British group as the Iceni and Trinovantes. Gallic coins are not used in Wales, Devon and Cornwall or by the Brigantes. These groups correspond in area to the later Welsh areas (Strathclyde, Cumbria, Wales Domnonia) and non-Welsh Northhumbrians.

Pœnius Postumus was presumably in Exeter near the Damnonii ... who are presumably related to the other western tribes in Wales who Suetonius had been fighting and perhaps overtly hostile to Romans. This leaves the Durotriges & Dobunni. If Postumus feels unable to leave the SW Exeter? That might suggest that the Durotriges & perhaps Dobunni are not pro-Roman - or at least, like Brigantes, willing to take the opportunity presented by the revolt and attack Romans.
[quote pid="352868" dateline="1663100306"]
This also begs the question of how safe was Silchester?
[/quote]
I think Suetonius could rely on support from the Belgae elite meaning: Atrebates, Belgae, Regnii, and south Cantiaci. I think the north Cantiaci may have been suspect and the Durotriges very suspect (to keep Postumus pinned down).

I think Suetonius can rely on the tribes north of the Thames being hostile, as well as all the tribes of the west (Wales, Cornwall). However, these were probably not allies with the Iceni, so no coordinated attack.

I suspect the Brigantes were hostile to Rome, but there is little evidence of the Corieltauvi being hostile.

As a result, I think Suetonius has even more problems than I first suggested. He cannot afford the Iceni to bring in the North Cantiaci into the revolt, so he first has to deal with the N.Cantiaci to secure the south of Britain.

Likewise, he cannot afford to lose the SW ... so he needs Postumus to stay in the SW to secure his western flank. I would suggest Postumus needs to be controlling the area right up to Gloucester and even into the lower Severn valley.

Having secured his left and right flanks, Suetonius is then able to move to either Silchester, from which he can launch an offensive moving up the Chilterns towards Norfolk, or alternatively, Suetonius would camp south of the Thames, in preparation for a forced crossing of the Thames ...but I think, given his inferiority in numbers, he cannot afford to waste lots of troops on a forced crossing. In his situation, that it is not going to be something he can do. He wants an unopposed crossing of the Thames, so a part of the Thames with plenty of crossing to choose from which he can only get upstream of Goring. Moreover, he wants easy supply lines, so he wants to control the crossing and Dorchester would give that control.

As he moves NE along the base of the Chilterns, the Iceni in St.Albans risk being caught between Suetonius and the Thames "moat". They either have to fight or retreat. This encircling movement may be what provoked the battle.

With a lot of diplomacy and Roman gold to keep the luke warm supporters on side, and with auxiliaries from the Belgae, I think Suetonius could have a strong position. Boudica's army, forced out of St.Albans is then forced to assemble somewhere North to North east ... perhaps near Letchworth ... a long way from the Iceni capital. Suetonius sits near Aylesbury, perhaps two days march from his seat of war at Silchester. When the Boudica hoard finally advances, Suetonius moves to his preferred valley on the Chilterns to take his stance and await Boudica.

[MonsGraupius]

I was trying to find a list of contender sites. Eventually I found a document that listed sites using terrain analysis and very quickly omitted all the sites that were not between Dorchester and the Iceni. After discarding a few more which I could not justify as potential battle sites I finished with these sites that I would need to look at closer (NGR is where, based on a quick look, I would put a front line):


Luton?, TL104200, 51.8848, -0.419
Dagnall, SP993157,51.8283,-0.5554
Aldbury (Tring), SP955107, 51.7923,-0.6171
Wendover Dean, SP876052, 51.7293, -0.7264
Wendover, SP871074, 51.7598, -0.7389
Saunderton, SU814981, 51.6817,-0.8285
Dunstable?, TL019218, 51.8857, -0.5204

I looked at Church Stowe & Paulerspury & easily discarded them

[dadlamassu]

Goodness me! This discussion has moved on apace while I was involved in events surrounding the Lying At Rest of Queen Elizabeth in Edinburgh.

The distances from London to these sites are not great and there are several good military reasons for going there:
- Fighting in a town (London) is difficult to control and in very manpower intensive - he has too few troops to do so.
- He lacks the forces to fight Boudica's horde in the open
- His troops are tired and probably a bit demoralised - morale up after victory, morale falling as (possibly exaggerated) reports of massacres come in
- His main reinforcements are to the west and north
- His war supplies from the Mona campaign are also northwest
- The tribes immediately north and east are hostile and out for Roman Blood
- The tribes south are relatively friendly
- The possibly unsettled tribes west and northwest are not openly hostile and a Roman army marching through may show the flag (eagle) enough to calm them a bit
- Allowing London to fall undefended will gain him time while the tribal forces loot, pillage, destroy, rape, torture, sacrifice and generally celebrate for a few days before control is re-established. He may also hope that a significant portion will go home with their loot.
- The Emperor does not like two armies wiped out in his morning report!

So where does that leave him? I have looked at a couple of road maps online bearing in mind that we are less than 20 years since the Claudian invasion. I see him as having already ordered a muster at some point, maybe round Luton? Though I did look at the Bannaventa area too but it may be too far out of the way. I also looked that the possibilities of Cirencester and Silchester but I can find no references to them (again correct me if I am wrong). The main theatre of operations seems to lie in the box formed by the Iceni homeland, Colchester, London and St Albans. I am aware that these may be places chosen by the writers as places known to the audience rather than the actual theatre.

1. The fastest and shortest route is directly to St Albans - a day's hard march or a 2-3 days if fighting but this may deplete his already small force.
2. The longer westward the north east route is (marginally?) safer as the tribes may not be as hostile and allows gathering up garrisons and reserves into the field army.
3. To march west several miles, order a muster at some point around Luton then march cross country more or less northwards.

By making an obvious concentration in that area he is inviting the Britons to move their huge and victorious army again if they want to eliminate the Romans. Keeping a great horde in the field is a logistic and political nightmare. The Britons have little or no logistic backup so are foraging and looting slowing their progress. Keeping so many in the field will be upsetting the normal farming cycle so tribes will be getting distracted. The longer the Britons are in the field the better from a military, if not political, view. Did Suetonius know that St Albans had been raided when he was in London? Or did he go north and again leave the town to the Britons again to gain time?
I remind you that warfare was then a brutal affair, massacres, genocide and enslavement were common. It is likely that we will see this as the picture of the war in Ukraine becomes clearer.

I still favour option 1 as it fits with what I have read about Roman military practice. Deal with it it, deal with it fast and effectively with strength and ruthless resolution. That said I could equally be persuaded by those with more detailed knowledge that Sueutonius pursued either of the other options whichever, in his opinion, gave him the best chance of having a substantial enough force to defeat the rebels.

I have discounted going east as that takes his small force into the jaws of death. Also going south is unlikely as it surrenders quite a large Queendom to Boudica and expelling her would need a major campaign with substantial reinforcements from the rest of the Empire. This in turn weakening the other frontiers. It is only 45 years since Varus lost his legions and Suetonius has already effectively lost one and has one tied up in the south west. So I do not see him risking defeat. I do see concentration of forces, logistic build up, seizing the initiative and going on the offensive to recover the lost areas in a short ruthless campaign into the Iceni homeland. To do that he needs to go to his reinforcements and that is west and northwest. I doubt he expected the scale of his victory.

[MonsGraupius]

Goodness me!  This discussion has moved on apace while I was involved in events surrounding the Lying At Rest of Queen Elizabeth in Edinburgh. 

The distances from London to these sites are not great and there are several good military reasons for going there:
- Fighting in a town (London) is difficult to control and in very manpower intensive - he has too few troops to do so.
- He lacks the forces to fight Boudica's horde in the open
- His troops are tired and probably a bit demoralised - morale up after victory, morale falling as (possibly exaggerated) reports of massacres come in
- His main reinforcements are to the west and north
- His war supplies from the Mona campaign are also northwest
- The tribes immediately north and east are hostile and out for Roman Blood
- The tribes south are relatively friendly
- The possibly unsettled tribes west and northwest are not openly hostile and a Roman army marching through may show the flag (eagle) enough to calm them a bit
- Allowing London to fall undefended will gain him time while the tribal forces loot, pillage, destroy, rape, torture, sacrifice and generally celebrate for a few days before control is re-established.  He may also hope that a significant portion will go home with their loot.
- The Emperor does not like two armies wiped out in his morning report!

Tacitus tells us that Suetonius was looking for a "seat of war" (Uncertain whether he should choose [London] as a seat of war", we are also told that he decided to "he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle". So, not only is he preparing, he has been delaying. So, all talk of a sudden move to battle with "tired troops" does not fit what we are told. There was a delay at the place Suetonius took as his "seat for war". And we are also told: "[he] remembered with what a serious warning the rashness of Petilius had been punished,". Suetonius does not rashly rush to battle.

Given the Thames is an obvious defensive barrier, making a moat, where one of the few drawbridges across it is London bridge, it beggars military logic, for a general seeking a "seat of war" where he intends to "delay", to "prepare", that Suetonius would not retreat over Thames and pull up the draw bridge to allow himself to prepare.

That means there is plenty of time for his troops to recover and for his forces to gather together. An obvious place to pick as a seat of war, is Silchester, where Suetonius can defend the vulnerable west flank of his defensive line. From here, he then advances, and the list of sites are those that someone else picked using computer software as fitting the description.

So where does that leave him?  I have looked at a couple of road maps online bearing in mind that we are less than 20 years since the Claudian invasion.  I see him as having already ordered a muster at some point, maybe round Luton? 

London, St.Albans and Colchester have either fallen into Boudican hands or been left to do so. The area between Lincoln and Norfolk is also captured (after the defeat of the ninth). We are told there are hostiles on the way down, presumably along Watling Street so Watling Street is being harassed or in enemy hands. Where does Suetonius set up his supply lines in Luton?

Remember, if Boudica holds London, she also holds all the lower crossing points of the Thames, and any landing places and ports. There is a long stretch up to Goring with almost no suggested historic fords, and indeed Wallingford was seen as the first fordable point in Anglo Saxon times. That implies the only place Suetonius could get supplies over the Thames is upstream from Goring.

Luton is far too isolated to pick as a "seat of war" in which to "delay" and "prepare" for battle.

[dadlamassu]

I am not an academic and so do not consider myself qualified to argue or comment on the sources and various translations. I am an interested amateur. I am, however, a retired military professional educated at Staff College and with practical experience of warfighting and other operations over 41 years and so feel qualified to discuss the possible (conjectural) military operations. What we probably need is a latter day Tony Clunn to find the battlefield.

I take several of your points. However, you keep saying things like "beggars military logic" without actually explaining your reasoning in terms of warfighting.

For example why with his main forces west and north does he go away from them?

I agree that SP wants to buy time. Crossing a river, even by a bridge, with 5-6,000 men, equipment and baggage is slow (even now) and since SP takes civilians with him, even slower. If SP, as you seem now to indicate, fought the "final" battle in the Chilterns he must have taken his army there somehow (or are you now saying it was there all the time and there really was a "cavalry dash"?) Are you saying that going south and placing a river and the enemy between you and your own reserves is "logical"? If SP does not have the strength to hold London then he logically does not have the strength to carry out one of the most difficult military operations - an opposed assault river crossing.

I also agree that crossing the Thames gives him a defensible line but only if he intends to stay and defend it. Military logic (and tactical/strategic doctrine that I have studied at Staff College and applied for over 40 years) is that an undefended obstacle is no obstacle. So unless SP defends it the enemy will cross it unopposed by whatever means available. I am pretty sure the Ancient Britons had crossed rivers, including the Thames, before the Romans put up their bridges. Even if he does defend it with his small force military logic on the other side (please do not forget the enemy) is that fixing him in place with part of the force then outflanking him at some unopposed point is a fairly obvious ploy.

I have not seen your proposed time line for this campaign so please supply (or reiterate) your version so that we can discuss military logic in context.
Glibly quoting "military logic" without explaining it in the context of warfighting is not helpful to your argument and indeed weakens it. When citing military logic you really should first state your assumptions:
What is SP's ultimate aim and outline plan of campaign?
What are SP's immediate aims?
What and where are his forces?
Where are his supply bases and arsenals?
What time, terrain, weather, threats, morale, routes, logistics and forces available analyses has SP considered?

How reliable are his intelligence assets?
What are his political aims?
and much more. And what are his deductions? Basically what is his campaign appreciation which leads to his plan? This process is military logic. I have spent many long hours on this process at Staff College, in exercises and on operations and as an introduction you might like to read this Australian pamphlet (228 pages). The tactical version is shorter. I do not have a link to the UK version but though not identical it is similar https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=...4RTq1l-W0u
SP will have done something similar but no doubt shorter.

Regardless how convincing we are (or not) we should remember that all this is conjecture. I know I will not change anyone's notion that their conjecture is better than everyone else's version. But I hope that I can encourage participants to think about how BOTH armies and their commanders (and sub commanders) fought this campaign and the factors that affected them.

I will bow out now and leave the field to the academics.

[Steven James]

Alan wrote:

I will bow out now and leave the field to the academics.

 

Well, I hope you do stay around. I like what you have to say.

[MonsGraupius]

I am not an academic and so do not consider myself qualified to argue or comment on the sources and various translations.  I am an interested amateur.  I am, however, a retired military professional educated at Staff College and with practical experience of warfighting and other operations over 41 years and so feel qualified to discuss the possible (conjectural) military operations.  What we probably need is a latter day Tony Clunn to find the battlefield.

William Roy wasn't an academic, just a mere soldier. But if he had the aerial photos showing the line of Roman forts going up toward the coast in NE Scotland and the modern database of dated artefacts, we wouldn't have had centuries of academics randomly picking their favourite hill in Tayside on which to site Mons Graupius.

I take several of your points.  However, you keep saying things like "beggars military logic" without actually explaining your reasoning in terms of warfighting. 

For example why with his main forces west and north does he go away from them?

I have, but it's obviously got buried. Suetonius gets to London and we are then told that he leaves and the populace are "overwhelmed" in London. Given that London bridge goes from the settlement of London over the Thames, it is impossible to overwhelm people in London, unless they were caught out by surprise, or the bridge was taken down. Given they knew Boudica was on the war path, it appears the bridge was taken down.

The Thames has very few fording points, and those it does have are difficult. They are so difficult, that the Anglo Saxons write that Wallingford was the lowest fording point. However, there may have been half a dozen places, where in the right conditions of river and tide, that a crossing could be made with difficulty. But all these are quite low down the Thames roughly London bridge to Chertsey. Being so difficult, they are relatively easy to defend. The ford itself can be made impassible and once that is done, a small force can prevent engineers working to make it passable.

So, because people were "overwhelmed" in London, it appears London Bridge is taken down by Suetonius, and because Catus flees south (to Gaul) we know that is the direction of safety for the Romans ... which means that people fled over London bridge to the south. That orientates the whole battlefield, putting the Thames as the front line when Boudica ransacks London, with London bridge down to stop her advancing.

We know from the text, that Suetonius DELAYS, That he PREPARES, that he is looking for a "SEAT OF WAR", that he does not want to be "RASH" like Cerialis. Everything in the text tells us that Suetonius makes his way to a place where he can regroup and prepare to fight with Boudica.

If Suetonius heads north ... he is crazy. Because the whole of the east coast of Britain from the Thames to the wash is now in Boudican control. He cannot supply his army from the east, nor with London under Boudican control, from the south across the Thames. We know he was being harassed when he came to London

Suetonius, however, with wonderful resolution, marched amidst a hostile population to Londinium

So, we know he does not have good control over the area from north Wales to London. We also know the SW is problematic as Postumus is unable to leave that area.

So, Suetonius is very short on secure lines of supply. If he heads north, he is almost totally cut off from any supply lines, except those from the west, which in turn can only be supplied from the south coast or perhaps the Severn estuary area. And, so the military logic, is that he needs to keep control over the supply lines which means holding the Thames to prevent boudica taking over the south of England and maintaining an army to secure supply lines from the S.Coast up to Calleva ... to where ever Suetonius has his "seat of war" (if not Calleva)

I agree that SP wants to buy time.  Crossing a river, even by a bridge, with 5-6,000 men, equipment and baggage is slow (even now) and since SP takes civilians with him, even slower.  If SP, as you seem now to indicate, fought the "final" battle in the Chilterns he must have taken his army there somehow (or are you now saying it was there all the time and there really was a "cavalry dash"?) 

I am suggesting that Suetonius heads somewhere south of the Thames, using that as a defensive barrier, probably to Calleva, where he spends a month or two regrouping, resupply and probably re-equiping, so that, with his much smaller force, he is ready to take the offensive. So, no "rash" dash into the arms of boudica. Instead a carefully planned campaign forcing boudica to come to Suetonius, when Suetonius is ready, and at a battlefield of Suetonius' choosing. In other words, Suetonius is ensuring everything but number of troops is stacked in his advantage. And clearly, he needs that to pull off such a dramatic win.

Are you saying that going south and placing a river and the enemy between you and your own reserves is "logical"?  If SP does not have the strength to hold London then he logically does not have the strength to carry out one of the most difficult military operations - an opposed assault river crossing.

The SE of England is held by a Belgae Gaulish elite who are generally pro-Roman. They will not like Boudica any more than the Romans and so, Suetonius is crossing the Thames into friendly territory.

However, once across the Thames, whilst he can easily hold it against Boudica, he doesn't have the forces to force a crossing. Which is why he has to go up to where it is relatively easily crossable upstream of Goring. (E.g. at Dorchester)

I also agree that crossing the Thames gives him a defensible line but only if he intends to stay and defend it.  Military logic (and tactical/strategic doctrine that I have studied at Staff College and applied for over 40 years) is that an undefended obstacle is no obstacle.  So unless SP defends it the enemy will cross it unopposed by whatever means available. 

He needs to get the SE Belgae tribes to come on side and agree to man the Thames defensive line. As that is defending their own land against the the ancient enemy of the Marauding Iceni, that won't take a lot of persuasion. Once the Thames is secure, Suetonius can move west to Calleva, from where he is able to start preparing to cross the Thames and begin to threaten Boudica with a march NE along the bottom of the Chilterns, where he threatens to cut off St.Albans.

I am pretty sure the Ancient Britons had crossed rivers, including the Thames, before the Romans put up their bridges.

No defensive line is impenetrable ... it's a question of what advantage it gives the defenders. Anyone with the ability to climb, could scale Hadrian's wall ... and I'm sure many did. But that doesn't stop it being a defensive wall.

If you want to know whether the Thames was crossable, might I suggest that we meet on the Tay and let me show you what it is likely crossing a river the size of the Thames, in its natural state. To be fair, I know it is currently not crossable ... (checking today) actually it's quite low right now, although twice the flow that I usually do it ... so I can't be sure it isn't crossable, but it was terrifying the last four times I've done it, and I am the only person to try it for about 30 years, and it's slowly degrading, so I may be the last. But, perhaps with you holding onto me for dear life it will be easier? (In theory it is easier with multiple people ...but for some reason, I've not found anyone to accompany me)

But, Ancient Britons would be used to crossing rivers, but crossing in armour where you are bound to die if you slip or fall and when under a hail of arrows, presumably with all kinds of debris being thrown in the river to push you off the ford, with a ford wrecked ... so having to rebuild the ford, in the middle of a river, under fire, with trees floating past. I do not know how they did it.

  Even if he does defend it with his small force military logic on the other side (please do not forget the enemy) is that fixing him in place with part of the force then outflanking him at some unopposed point is a fairly obvious ploy. 

I have not seen your proposed time line for this campaign so please supply (or reiterate) your version so that we can discuss military logic in context.

It was so long that Tacitus issues a mild rebuke about "delay":

he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle

That suggests that before the battle, he came under huge political pressure to stop his preparations and instead do a Cerialis and head rashly into battle with Boudica. We are told the Britons failed to plant harvests because of the uprising, which indicates it occurred before March. If we allow a month for Colchester and the defeat of the Ninth, that brings us to April, although the roads may not have suitable until May. Also Suetonius is already fighting in Wales, so it has to be after the campaigning season starts. So, I'd suggest May is probably when London and then St.Albans get sacked. Suetonius is going to want to have finished the Boudican Campaign, before autumn river levels or October. It's ~150 miles from Thames to Norwich. Which in a hard fought campaign might take 3 months. So, he's not going to want to start a campaign after July. If you factor in time to negotiate deals with the SE Belgae tribes, to bribe a few others, to send messengers to get and then deliverer new supplies, then from a potential sacking of London in May, he has up to two months to prepare.

Given he was under pressure to get off his Rs and "end delay", I think he may have been trying to start the campaign in the next spring, but got pressured into a very pressured start in July. That gives him a few weeks to fortify and man the Thames with Axillaries, and then may six weeks to arrange supplies, equipment, men. Which if he left his supply wagon in Wales, is not a lot of time. How long does it take to make a wagon?

Glibly quoting "military logic" without explaining it in the context of warfighting is not helpful to your argument and indeed weakens it.  When citing military logic you really should first state your assumptions:
What is SP's ultimate aim and outline plan of campaign?

His first aim is to stop Boudica at the Thames, for which he has to sacrifice London and St.Albans (probably got some very harsh words from the emperor on that).

He then has to gain control over the SE of England, which is relatively easy as they are pro-Roman and don't want an Iceni hoard coming into their land.

Having stopped Boudica, and secured his supply lines from Gaul and the friendly SE, he then has to secure the upper parts of the Thames which are vulnerable to being crossed. Hence his move to Calleva. This also puts pressure on the more westerly tribes who might have been considering joining Boudica. With this threat and perhaps a lot of money, he then has control of the country from the Thames to the Severn and "friendly" tribes up into the midlands. This prevents the British tribes joining together en masse with the Iceni.

Suetonius doesn't have the numbers to fight a long drawn out campaign as he does not have the troops to protect long supply lines. So, he has to force boudica to come to hi. So from Calleva, he then needs to pressure Boudica into a battle of his place and time of choosing.

Crossing the Thames somewhere near Dorchester, he then moves NE so that those Iceni holding London and St.Albans, now risk being caught between Suetonius and the Thames (held by friendly forces).

They either have to withdraw or fight ... and Suetonius has chosen the ideal battlefield on some valley on the Chilterns, where, the Iceni (from flat Norfolk) will have no idea how to fight, and where he can use the terrain to protect his smaller force from the much larger Boudican army ... which is going to be tired, squabbling and wanting to get back home, after the long journey to fight Suetonius

I have spent many long hours on this process at Staff College, in exercises and on operations and as an introduction you might like to read this Australian pamphlet (228 pages).  The tactical version is shorter.  I do not have a link to the UK version but though not identical it is similar https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiRp52T6Zb6AhXIa8AKHbP6BpwQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftheforge.defence.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fadfp_5.0.1_joint_military_appreciation_process_ed2_al3_1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2V8VxurP3T0c4RTq1l-W0u 

They don't mention rivers. They don't mention fords. The only patrols are boats and aircraft patrolling.

They do mention logistics, but the only section that mentions it in the title is this one which gives us a flavour of it all:

J4—Logistics. J4 staff coordinate all logistic advice, formulate logistic plans and monitor their execution. The J4 is the principal adviser across the broadest definition of logistics, which includes movements. The J4 branch sets priorities for the overall logistics effort and movements within the JFAO, and is the interface with assigned logistics FE. The J4 branch also sets the logistics, medical and health service support policy ensuring this is met throughout the operation. The J4 branch is usually well-staffed and could also contain J1/4 coordination, J1, J4 supply, J4 equipment support and J4 medical.

I do see this:

Particular care should be taken with quantitative analysis when examining consequences that are intangible or difficult to quantify regarding issues such as the environment, safety or reputation.