Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
The Iceni clobbering the 9th somewhere east of Watling Street

Any thoughts on this location?
I'm quite taken with Bartlow, largest Roman burial mounds north of the Alps, in a valley bottom, at the confluence of 4 distinct vallies, almost a direct line of march from Cambridge to Colchester. Just a thought, no back up and some contradictions on this but wanted to get the nomination out there for discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartlow
Reply
Quote:The big topographic principals.
Ah yes, but that's my point - these topographic principles come solely from Tacitus' account. And if we're going to start being picky about what we believe of Tacitus, then the exact layout of the battle site is one of the first things we should query. Tacitus himself almost certainly didn't see the place, and there's always a possibility that he was just describing a generic ideal position for a battle, to accentuate Paulinus' great generalship... In which case, of course, all our speculations are in vain. :neutral:

So I tend to think that we should pay close attention to the texts in Tacitus and Dio, and accept that Paulinus was famous as a slow and cautious commander, not a dasher, and that he reached London with his main force. I also continue to believe, as a corollary, that the Fabius Maximus analogy is apposite and should provide us with our best working model of Paulinus' strategic plan. Which would put the final battle close to London and/or St Albans.

Quote:http://www.proto-english.org/Boudica.pdf
These ideas about the origin of the name Boudica are all very well, but fail to account for the king of the Iceni, Prasutagus, having what appears to me to be a perfectly good 'celtic' name! All the study demonstrates is that there a lot of names that look a bit like Boudica or Bodicca or Bodvocca spread around all over the place, including 'celtic' regions.

Quote:I'm quite taken with Bartlow
That general vicinity seems about right. Although I'd say that Cerialis was probably moving at some speed down the Roman road towards Colchester, and so the battle site would be either on the road itself or next to it, if a camp attack is suggested. He'd need some reason to branch off to Bartlow - although it is agreeably close to the fort at Great Chesterford.
Nathan Ross
Reply
People keep saying 'Tacitus never saw this, Tacitus never saw that"

I was under the impression he had served as a tribune in Britain.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
Quote:I was under the impression he had served as a tribune in Britain.
He might have done, but not till the 70s or 80s. His father-in-law Agricola was a tribune under Paulinus though, and that's probably where T got his info (he may also have known Paulinus personally, of course). But it's true we don't know what T did or didn't know... all we have is what he wrote. So his description of the battle site could be spot on (maybe he visited it, if he was in Britain?), but could be something he got second-hand from Agricola, or could even be invention. I prefer to believe it's accurate myself, but that also means believing in the essential accuracy of the rest of his account...
Nathan Ross
Reply
I suspect the site was well known for a couple of generations and may have been a site for Battlefield Tourism/grandad worship for quite some time (maybe Bartlow as well?). Miranda Aldhouse-Green and Richard Hingley got into a head to head on this specific issue in the BBC show that spawned this god forsaken thread; ;-)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r7lr9

Does that close the circle on the thread elegantly enough? can we all go and get a life now?
Reply
Well, I can say that there is a site described by him that fits axactly with the present day location
proposed for a certain battle in Scotland. I personally think he is accurate. (Even if his maps are a little lop-sided) Confusedmile:
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
Well thank you for the dubious honour of kicking off the debate regarding Cunetio.

Of course as everyone knows it is all down to interpretation of the texts and of course we are all guilty of interpreting the texts to fit our pet theories – which I suppose is why this subject will always continue to be contentious.

I believe that Tacitus was probably accurate (warts and all) and although there might be some exaggerations on the people front it is probably wise to accept what he says even though they might seem incorrect – after all he was writing 40 years after the events and we are 2000 years removed.

I do believe that the texts can support the Cunetio location but with new interpretations.

We need to know if Cunetio can hold up as a site.

I have to give credit where it is due and it was Steve’s earlier paper regarding the topography that brought the name of Axford in the Kennet Valley to the fore and it was whilst I was investigating that site that Cunetio, literally 2 miles further up the valley came to the fore.

Cunetio is the crossroads of Roman roads between London and Bath and Portchester and Cirencester / Gloucester and has a Station (small fort) situated at the top of the hill between the valley and the forest built near the remains of the previous iron age fort.

It is also very close to the Ridgeway, a major route across the country especially when linked to Icknield Street.

The Kennet Valley itself is a major route and both this and the Ridgeway pass Avebury one of the most significant religious sites in Britain.

When however you look at the site, if the Roman Army were stretched across the valley floor they could easily be outflanked from the left as you look down the valley, from the Ridgeway via Ogbourne St George or even from the rear along the valley from Avebury .

What about the plain and what about the forest?

Well Savernake forest rises from the top of the valley to the South but what of the plain?

So at first sight it doesn’t look very promising according to the classic interpretation of the site according to Tacitus –

“He chose a position approached by a narrow defile, closed in at the rear by a forest, having first ascertained that there was not a soldier of the enemy except in his front, where an open plain extended without any danger from ambuscades. His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops, and the cavalry in dense array on the wings.”

"At first, the legion kept its position, clinging to the narrow defile as a defence; when they had exhausted their missiles, which they discharged with unerring aim on the closely approaching foe, they rushed out in a wedge-like column."

The forest here is on the south of the top of the hill of the valley, so if the army was in front of the forest they would have to be drawn up on the side of the valley (which on the south side here is very steep) and would act as a rampart.

So if the army is drawn up towards the base of the valley side they are standing on the top of the rampart with the land sloping up towards them from a comparatively narrow valley floor.

So the battle site is then the same place but being fought across the valley and lo and behold the other side of the valley although sloping steadily becomes a huge plain but limited by valleys to the sides and partly to the rear but with access to the river in the valley bottom.

There are two rivers the Og which joins the Kennet which in turn flows eastwards to the Thames .

Rather go any further at this time I have attached a picture filesof an indication of the forces.......

The Roman forces have been worked out at 3 feet per man. The Legions are 8 men deep and the Batavians at 4 deep and the Auxilliaries in a single line. (All conjecture of course but if a charge is to be successful that will the required amount) The Brythons are not in any battle array but just to show that the plain is big enough to muster a huge force.

[attachment]Cunetio Pictures.doc[/attachment]
Deryk
Reply
[attachment]Cunetio 1 Pictures.pdf[/attachment]
CUNETIO PICTURES (I Hope)


[attachment]Cunetio Pictures.pdf[/attachment]
Deryk
Reply
I can't see the picture, Deryk...

From what I can make out from the OS map, your Roman force is drawn up on an east-west line, facing across the valley? But the valley itself looks very narrow, and very wet at the bottom - would the river not interfere with the course of events? I'd need to see your plan, I suppose!
Nathan Ross
Reply
CUNETIO Pictures....

[attachment=4783]Cunet01.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4784]Cunetio2.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4785]Cunetio3.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Deryk
Reply
Congratulations on crossing the Rubicon and stepping up to the plate with a site nomination and interpretation. You are now in the elite of Boudicca geeks.....

It may be the time of night, or just my brain, but I'm having a few problems relating the Google earth images to topography, are there any plans to put this lot on a contour plan for ease of cross reference?

Which translation of Tacitus are you quoting? From memory the ones I looked at didn't read in quite the same way, your version gives more weight to the Romans holding the ridge for a long time before proceeding to counter attack the Brits, fits the CS scenario nicely so I'd like to be able to quote it.

cheers and congratulations,
Reply
Thank you

I hope the following helps:


[attachment=4786]Cunetio8.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4787]Cunetio7.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4788]Cunetio6.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4789]Cunetio5.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4790]Cunetio4.jpg[/attachment]

The River Kennet today can be waded across but would slow down any one trying to rush accross the river (of course I wasn't there 2000 years ago)!

From the texts the Legions waited for the Brythonic infantry to attack which they would have done as the valley filled up, th Romans waited, threw their pillums and then charged down hill.

The shock would have forced the Brythons back and sideways along the valley which narrows towards Stitchcombe down other valleys stopping people escaping the battle field.

Once the rout had started the cavalry would have been released and charged the scattering Brythons cutting them down in the valleys and the whole army driving the Brythons back to the baggage train whose occupants were decimated.

A simple but effective strategy which worked because of the terrain.

Did 80,000 dead include the non combatants? - Probably but many would have escaped - enough to ensure that the campaign had to continue - but it was an impressive Roman victory against overwhelming odds - Seutonius Paulinus was indeed a great general.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
                   
Deryk
Reply
Thank you

I hope the following helps:


[attachment=4791]Cunetio8.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4792]Cunetio7.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4793]Cunetio6.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4794]Cunetio5.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4795]Cunetio4.jpg[/attachment]

The River Kennet today can be waded across but would slow down any one trying to rush accross the river (of course I wasn't there 2000 years ago)!

From the texts the Legions waited for the Brythonic infantry to attack which they would have done as the valley filled up, th Romans waited, threw their pillums and then charged down hill.

The shock would have forced the Brythons back and sideways along the valley which narrows towards Stitchcombe down other valleys stopping people escaping the battle field.

Once the rout had started the cavalry would have been released and charged the scattering Brythons cutting them down in the valleys and the whole army driving the Brythons back to the baggage train whose occupants were decimated.

A simple but effective strategy which worked because of the terrain.

Did 80,000 dead include the non combatants? - Probably but many would have escaped - enough to ensure that the campaign had to continue - but it was an impressive Roman victory against overwhelming odds - Seutonius Paulinus was indeed a great general.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
                   
Deryk
Reply
Thanks for the plans - it looks like a nice position for a battle! As for it being the position of this battle, though, I'm not so sure... :wink:

I'll pass over the matter of the distance from London - this is one of those points that you either accept or don't, and I won't labour it!

The main problem appears to be the orientation of the Roman line. If we can accept that this valley is a 'narrow defile' (and it looks more like a gentle river valley to me), then the position was either in it or approached by it (depending on translation). In your plan, though, the position is actually above the 'defile', along the top of the hillside overlooking the valley. You've got the wood in the rear okay, but unless you consider that Savernake forest extended much further north in antiquity (very possible), there's a large area of flat open ground behind and to the east of the Roman position.

If we consider that the British are coming from the east, along the Kennet valley, they'd be travelling on the south side of the river where the ground is flatter - so they'd approach the Roman position with gently rising ground ahead of them up to the Roman right flank. Your disposition would need them to cross the river around Axford, descend across the valley and array themselves along the facing slopes of the valley to confront the Romans. They may well have done such a thing, of course, in a confrontational spirit - but you are asking the British to effectively place themselves in the Roman trap, with a river crossing and an uphill charge against the Roman line. Why not attack from the flank?

Talking of flanking, it would appear quite easy for the British to move upstream a little, recross the river around Marlborough and send a force to occupy the complex of earthworks around Postern hill and Forest hill, which would command the Roman position. Or would the Romans have occupied these first, further depleting their numbers?

Then there's the river, of course - although it could be waded, would such an obvious terrain feature not have been mentioned in the account of the battle? Same problem for Mancetter, I believe.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Hi Nathan

Sorry for the delay.

Obviously my plan is not that clear.

The valley side where the Romans are drawn is extremely steep in fact it is almost an escarpment with the other side of the valley being comparatively gently sloping but both sides rising 55 metres from the valley floor.

Where I have placed the Legions is towards the bottom of the escarpment just above where it flattens out into a long slope up from the River Kennet.

[attachment=4806]Cunetio10.LookingEast.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=4807]Cunetio9LookingWest.jpg[/attachment]


On the top of the escarpment there is as you observe a large area of flat land before the forest but as you say was that always the case – I cannot say.

The Forest Hill area that you mention would have been occupied by the Station / Fort of Cunetio (which should be on the map) and would have dominated the area but I would have expected that the Romans would have sentries around Postern Hill in the old Iron Age fortifications if required.

I have placed the Romans in what I would expect were their battle positions.

When the Brythons arrived I would have expected that the army was based in and outside Cunetio on the top of the hill, possibly behind the agger of the road from Portchester (see diagram)

[attachment=4808]Cuneto11LookingEast.jpg[/attachment]

This would have been defensible in its own right and virtually impregnable because of the enscarpment to the left and the forest to the right.

There is in fact a case for it could be used as a battle ground but there are other factors that make the other battle position more logical.

As you say some of the Brythons may have come from the East but if they did the best route is on the north of the valley where the going is far easier as the escarpment goes on for some miles towards Speen(using the valley bottom route).

Also to the north opposite Cunetio is where Brythons using the Ridgeway would have also joined the site - so I have placed the muster on the opposite side of the Kennet

Equally there may have been Brythons coming from the West along the Kennet valley again mustering on that side of the valley where there was space for 240,000 people.

I can’t comment on the river but we all agree there would have needed to be water for the armies for even to have been there and it is not a huge river at this point more like a very large stream and shallow but enough to water cattle, horses and the army.

The genius of Seutonius Paulinus is that he managed to make the battle site look like the Romans were trapped and they were a tasty morsel for the massed armies which were in fact trapped themselves by good generalshuip.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Deryk
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: