Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

' . . . he may then have marched north-west along Watling Street to meet the slower-moving legionary troops on their way from Anglesey.'

Oh God!  It's the cavalry dash again!

[John1]

I thought we'd dropped the pejorative "Cavalry Dash" for Steve's more compelling, credible and accurate description of an Advanced Armed Reconnaissance Patrol in Force.  Post #2495.

It's worth noting the bottom diagram showing that the authors are also clearly unreconstructed "paradistas" a thought line that should really have been consigned to the "not credible bin" many years ago....

[Renatus]

I thought we'd dropped the pejorative "Cavalry Dash" for Steve's more compelling, credible and accurate "Armed Reconnaissance Patrol in Force".  Post #2495.

Not that I am aware of nor do I see that phraseology in the post you cited.  As I read Steven's suggestion, Suetonius remained with his force for most of the journey south but, at some point, rode ahead with his guard cavalry to reconnoitre the situation.  That is very different from what Hingley seems to be implying.

[Nathan Ross]

Oh God!  It's the cavalry dash again!

I know! It is the myth that will not die!

I thought we'd dropped the pejorative "Cavalry Dash" for Steve's more compelling, credible and accurate description of an Advanced Armed Reconnaissance Patrol in Force.

'Cavalry Dash' was originally Steve Kaye's term. Might you be thinking of Duncan Mackay's 'Relief Column'? (hard to see who they were relieving, of course, since there were no troops in London...)

[John1]

TBH I don't tend to think too much when anyone leads with Mancetter anymore ...... tends to lead me to think they didn't think for a few decades ..... Nice to see everyone again though..... 

I can't recall the origin of "Cavalry Dash" as a phrase but I don't think it fits.... but Steve's overview is good.... IMHO

[Steve Kaye]

"'Cavalry Dash' was originally Steve Kaye's term." - Nope, was not me.

It may have originated with Nick Fuentes in https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/arc...11_317.pdf .

On page 312 Fuentes writes ...

There is however no literary evidence for the cavalry dash to Londinium, the return and the final battle being fought along Watling Street. Indeed, I would suggest the evidence available clearly indicates that this scenario is quite wrong:

Good to see that London Archaeologist has deposited material with ADS.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[John1]

So the criticism of the principal of an Armed Recce in Force dubbed the "Cavalry Dash" is right up there with the Virginia Water battle site nomination ...... thanks for clearing that up Steve....

[Nathan Ross]

It may have originated with Nick Fuentes...

Aha, you're quite right! I'd forgotten that old reference.

right up there with the Virginia Water battle site nomination

Still one of the better overall campaign hypotheses, I'd say, although the proposed battle site itself is perhaps not too compelling.

[John1]

"Still one of the better overall campaign hypotheses"  Hmmm... 

Much as I deeply respect your views on these matters Prof Ross, this probably says more about the weaknesses of a number of the campaign hypotheses than Fuentes' work. It seems weak hypothesis and thin paper regarding the battle site to me.

The whole debate really rests on the quality of the ground (terrain and features) of the nominated battle site so once the credibility/anchor of that is lost, or not built in the first place, reverse engineering the campaign that leads to that site is entirely futile. It could be Fuentes' enthusiasm for London created bias and if VW is the best he could find to feed that need to bring London deeper into the story, then that probably kills the campaign narrative whatever the merits you read into it.

   

   

That's a 3km front line with a 20m elevation gain over 1.5km on each side so no meaningful valley side topography (1:75), flanks entirely exposed with even a road to the North to outflank any Roman line.. 

   

My own view is that Fuentes' poor cartographic skills and the evidently lacking critical cartographic review skills of his editors and critics have allowed this site speculation too much credibility for too long. It is more of a plain than a foricbus and his dramatically named and rendered hills are inconsequential to the manoeuvring of troops... Wellington Avenue seems to be the focus of the action with some dangerously steep river cliffs immediately behind the Roman line and a honking great river valley bisecting their lines with nice even fields on either side of the river....

   

Sorry VW isn't even in the game, it never should have been.

   

https://digginglondon.org.uk/images/Imag...s/Nick.pdf

714,972

[John1]

Then again VG is probably better in terms of topography that the most recent candidates;

Upper Arncott from Martin Tagg looks more like an isolated hill in a marsh (advanced by the Battlefields Trust 2023),

   

Little Brickhill, approached downslope from the south by the Iceni (need an authors name for this, advanced by the Battlefields Trust 2023)

   

Windridge, no meaningful valley and the site of a fort accounting for the shot cluster. (Echolands, Duncan MacKay)

   

It's worth considering these topographies relative to Tring and Church Stowe (credible valleys?):

   

   

718,721

[Renatus]

What concerns me about Church Stowe (apart from thinking that it is too far north) is that, as I understand it, it is a closed valley whereas, according to Tacitus, what protected Suetonius' rear was not high ground but a wood.  You may have dealt with this objection before and I have forgotten it but, if so, could you reiterate?

[John1]

Sure.

1, I take the view Church Stowe is not too far North, in fact, any further South would be recklessly open to attack from the East.

2, The closed ridge provides a funnel open only to the East, guaranteeing a choreographed approach to the Roman positions if the flanks can be substantially secured by topography and/or woodland. Church Stowe has the potential for both.

3, The "rear" can be more that the 180 degrees directly behind the roman line in this instance. It can be a broader system that significantly impedes approach to the ridge from as broad a set of directions as possible. In this case the valleys which define the southern and northern feet of the ridge making the only viable approach directly from the East.

4, The nature of the "wooded" must be very specific. We must be looking for a native woodland type the mature character of which must be close to impenetrable for lithe, local light infantry. That is a very tough terrain. That character can only really be met by one woodland type, which is alder willow scrub. For example mature oak or beech woodland that would be found on this ridge top (Oak) or the Chilterns (Beech) would present no meaningful obstacle to light infantry. Native alder willow scrub, in a UK context, is usually characterised by ground so poorly drained it is peppered with pools, streams and deep soft ground. Pre agricultural drainage it is likely that the north and south valleys surrounding this ridge would have that character. It's now a rare habitat in the UK but once you tried walking through a site of this character you will appreciate how impassable it is for any organised unit to move through.

Likely extent of wet woodland at Church Stowe;

   

Character of native Wet Woodland;
https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-w...-woodland/

The chain of comments regarding alternative sites above is not intended to emphatically lead to Church Stowe, rather it demonstrates how recent nominations have now strayed entirely (and frustratingly) beyond meaningful topographic determinants for nomination. I'm approaching this as a geographer and either you take the topography seriously, limiting the site characteristics and options (as Steve Kaye did), or you just stick a pin in the map and throw away the concept of a meaningful valley topography. I can't and see that approach as futile but I may well be wrong, I am an advocate for a particular method of research by terrain analysis, that's really all I have to offer ... I must stress I put Arbury Banks and Heydon in the "not taking the valley seriously" camp too. What could be better than a closed valley next to Watling Street, the topographic advantage bolstered by a ring fence of willow/alder scrub and bog...which could be described as woods and the topography as the forcibus...?

Tacitus has described the entire site as a forcibus implying a distinct change in levels he doesn't provide sufficient description to say whether that forcibus was open at one or two ends. We have to cope with his lack of specificity and step away from the text to privilege the quality of the ground for the purpose and a closed valley would suit him far better than an open one. An open valley would likely carry both a significant water course and a track thus negating any tactical advantage... relying on "woods" is simple short hand for relying on woods and the topography of the forcibus the significance of which he had already made a core part of his site description..

[Renatus]

The chain of comments regarding alternative sites above is not intended to emphatically lead to Church Stowe, rather it demonstrates how recent nominations have now strayed entirely (and frustratingly) beyond meaningful topographic determinants for nomination. I'm approaching this as a geographer and either you take the topography seriously, limiting the site characteristics and options (as Steve Kaye did), or you just stick a pin in the map and throw away the concept of a meaningful valley topography. I can't and see that approach as futile but I may well be wrong, I am an advocate for a particular method of research by terrain analysis, that's really all I have to offer ... I must stress I put Arbury Banks and Heydon in the "not taking the valley seriously" camp too.

I agree with all of this.  I was not intending to imply that you were leading up to Church Stowe.  I was commenting on that generally.  I will deal with what you say about that separately.  For the time being, I want to consider Upper Arncott.  I cannot access Martin Tagg's website (it seems to have been taken down) but I recall that he suggested two possible sites there.  Which is the one that you illustrated?

[John1]

with the web site down I am just working from memory, something about the two circled hills and the proximity to Alcester.... but I didn't pay a massive amount of attention to it once I'd seen the topography

   

During the campaign period the blue flood zone area would have been wet or very poorly drained so a distinct factor in the local strategy and association with Alcester.

   

[Nathan Ross]

The whole debate really rests on the quality of the ground (terrain and features) of the nominated battle site so... reverse engineering the campaign that leads to that site is entirely futile.

In fairness to Fuentes, I don't think he was particularly intending to construct a campaign that led to Virginia Water - rather than he favoured a westwards route from London and VW was the first available high ground that might fit the bill.

As I said, I don't find it compelling either. However, move a little further west and we might have a few reasonable options, on the route up to Surrey and Bagshot Heaths and towards Silchester. Just past Sunningdale might work, at a push:

   

Obviously it's no overwhelming terrain feature - but few of the sites that any of us have discussed are that. And (as I'm sure I've said before) Suetonius Paulinus had no access to accurate topographical maps of the entirely of England. He had little enough that we might call a map of any sort. All he had to go on when choosing his battle site was the available ground that he could see with his own eyes close enough to wherever he was positioned at the time. All topography is therefore relative.

As I've also said many times, I think he was in St Albans when he made the decision to fight, and he therefore looked directly north-eastwards at the high ground of the Chilterns, and that's where the battle was...

It's worth considering these topographies relative to Tring...

Ah, now that's more like it!