Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Nathan wrote:

Tacitus must surely be describing a position in a narrow confined space between hills. Not on a ridge.

I totally agree BUT:

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.


The text does not say that the position was in the narrow defile but that it was "approached" by a narrow defile.

At first, the legion kept its position, clinging to the narrow defile as a defence;

Again the text states "clinging" to the narrow defile not being in the narrow defile.

....they rushed out in a wedge-like column. Similar was the onset of the auxiliaries, while the cavalry with extended lances broke through all who offered a strong resistance.

The word "out" in this case could be interpreted as rushed out into the defile.

This of course is just an interpretation that the Cunetio battlefield suits.

Having said that my Latin is pretty poor (well none existent really, amo, amas, amat etc.) however
people have taken the word "out" to have exited the defile but I am not convinced.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Does anyone understand why Graham Webster just ignores the "Western Route" after stating that
Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus does very well and is praised by Tacitus for his constancy to Rome, which means that he did not join the revolt.

After this statement then Webster totally ignores the reasons why the client king was so well rewarded during his lifetime and goes on to talk about the battle being at Mancetter.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Tacitus must surely be describing a position in a narrow confined space between hills. Not on a ridge.
In the context of CS I have no problem with reading this as the Romans occupying Castle Dykes, I'd call it a ridge top but I certainly don't see the text ruling it out.

Vindex wrote:
Last post from me on this topic for sure.

I trust "the topic" means the river crossing and not the thread. We can't do this without you Moi..... Sad
Reply
Quote:The text does not say that the position was in the narrow defile but that it was "approached" by a narrow defile.
We've discussed this before! Confusedmile:

It's a translation error - the literal version is that the position was in the defile. Church and Brodribb added the 'approached'. They presumably meant that to approach the position you had to enter the defile...



Quote:Again the text states "clinging" to the narrow defile not being in the narrow defile.

Ah, but it doesn't! 'Clinging' is another C&B poeticism. The text is the bit I mentioned before: the Romans 'retained the narrowness of the place as a barrier'. So they were still in it!



Quote:The word "out" in this case could be interpreted as rushed out into the defile.

Do you think so? :dizzy:
Nathan Ross
Reply
Quote:Does anyone understand why Graham Webster just ignores the "Western Route"

He didn't think that Paulinus could have marched his army down from Wales to London quickly enough - therefore P must have returned north to meet his army on the road and fought his battle there.

However, this relies on P not receiving any information on the uprising until Boudica was practically burning Colchester. Not very plausible, I think!
Nathan Ross
Reply
This discussion of the merits and demerits of the various sites is all very interesting but it seems to me that it is essential first to consider why either side should be at any of those locations. So, at risk of going over old ground, let me offer a few thoughts.

I think that we are probably all agreed that Suetonius was withdrawing in the hope of linking up with reinforcements and that the Britons were moving in the same direction. The motivation of the Britons is more problematical but Tacitus states that they were interested only in plunder.

Taking the western route and Cunetio first, it is fairly clear that Suetonius would move in that direction with a view to linking with the Second Legion and other troops in the West Country. For the Britons, Silchester and the lands of the Atrebates would be possible targets but I ask what there was west of Silchester to attract them and to draw them to the vicinity of Cunetio (this is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question).

Considering the northern route, Suetonius could have summoned troops from North Wales and was withdrawing north to meet them, although the sources say nothing of this. If he still entertained hopes of linking with the Second Legion, he could have ordered them to proceed straight up the Fosse Way to rendezvous at High Cross (still south of Mancetter) or to branch off along Akeman Street to join Watling Street north of Verulamium. Of course, if the Iceni had come along the Icknield Way and advanced on London down Watling Street, sacking Verulamium on the way, as has been suggested, this would have precluded any withdrawal northwards. From the Britons' point of view, they might have decided that they had enough plunder and were returning to their homelands for the autumn planting. If, as I believe Nathan has suggested, this would take them up Watling Street and then along the Icknield Way, this would rule out any site north of Dunstable.

I think that it is only after taking full account of the motivation and strategic objectives of both sides and the direction in which those considerations would take them can we go on the evaluate the characteristics of any particular site.
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
Quote:I think that it is only after taking full account of the motivation and strategic objectives of both sides and the direction in which those considerations would take them can we go on the evaluate the characteristics of any particular site.

I believed I'd done just that for the northern route (and Dunstable in particular) back in this post here! :whistle:
Nathan Ross
Reply
Quote:I believed I'd done just that for the northern route (and Dunstable in particular) back in this post here!
Precisely - and I attempted to do the same briefly for the western route here, although without a specific site in mind (but not west of Silchester). Now we need something similar for other proposed sites. I have to say that, although I favour the western route, if we have to go north, Dunstable seems the most convincing.
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
OK strategic reasoning for Church Stowe (word limit switched to “off” position)

1)Paulinus is coming down Watling Street from the North West, apparently leaving a garrison or garrisons behind him (parts of the XX). Would he have abandoned these troops by heading west? I think not, instead they are guarding his rear and covering newly subdued territory. He never looses touch with this resource by going walkabout.

2)The Iceni forces are to the south and east of his position, south because of destroyed settlements, east because this is their home land and he has lost the eastern cover provided by the IX. If he goes too far south the Iceni, or a secondary Iceni force could get behind him. The potential Iceni route of approach from the east will be no further north than Peterborough due to the extent of the Wash at this time.

3)The loss of the junction of Watling St and Fosse Way at High Cross would be a disaster for his communications so he must seek to block an approach to High Cross.

4)He assumes the II are going to come to join him by approaching up Fosse Way, (they were supposed to join him, hence the suicide, he was not heading to them). The route up Akeman Street or the Icknield Way leaves the II column open to potential attack from the south. Fosseway is by far the most secure approach and is only 10 miles due west of CS on the Droitwich Saltway.

5)CS provides a position that is central to all forces at the confluence of the Avon, Cherwell, Nene and Ouse. So he can pick up the remnants of the IX and the whole of the II.

6)CS at the head of the Nene and Ouse holds position where a strike into Iceni territory is clearly a threat to the enemy. Credit the guy with an eye for an offensive opportunity.

7)Nowhere does Tacitus say the Iceni are sticking to the Roman Road network. The Romans are using it, but there are very few reasons for an Ox cart bound horde to follow that new fangled routes when all the former routes (probably in valleys and on ridges) are still know and used. So the rivers point to CS.

8)CS has an all round defence in terms of topography. This position is so strong it may have been a known strategic location since the conquest, possibly even garrisoned or stock piled.

9)It is conceivable that the slower moving elements of the column from Mona were left to prepare a position at CS and only more mobile troops did the up and down to London. As the ground of his choosing was on the route anyway, this would massively reduce the mileage compared to the western option, but is only days march north of Dunstable so inconsequential. This provides for a static RV for messengers to direct the II and remains of the IX to, and a week to prepare the ground. Was the round trip to London a PR exercise?

So highly defendable. Well connected. Provides a threat to the enemy. Defends the road network. Can cope with the Brits NOT using the Roman Roads. On the route down from Mona.

We know, almost as a fact, the Roman column passed CS on it's way to and from Mona, those individuals were on Watling Street at that point twice during the campaign, the same goes for Dunstable. We have no idea whether they went west of London at any point.

somewhere between St. Albans and Dunstable. Any site further north makes little sense. well we'll have to differ there I think the strategic elements can only provide a strategic "bubble" of sites. From there we have to switch to topography and archaeology.
Reply
Renatus wrote:


I think that we are probably all agreed that Suetonius was withdrawing in the hope of linking up with reinforcements and that the Bri tons were moving in the same direction. The motivation of the Britons is more problematical but Tacitus states that they were interested only in plunder.

The Dunstable location has a number of interesting facets and one of them is its strategic position blocking access to the Icknield Way and the way back to the Iceni Homeland.

If however as Tacitus states the Iceni were merely after booty, had robbed London and were going back home to plant winter wheat, going up Watling street would not have been the quickest way home. That would have been via Braughing, up to Bartlow and then onto to the Icknield Way and onwards into Iceni territory or for the Trinovantes directly back to Colchester.

It would therefore seem that for the Brythonic Army to be on Watling Street they would have to be pursuing the Roman Army. Would the Trinovantes and the Iceni had 230,000 people following from London? This seems an awfully large army for just two tribes.

Would they have needed waggons etc.?

What it does seem to show is that the Brythons realised that they needed to destroy the Roman Army, miles away from their support and bases. Does this also imply that this was a weakened army when it reached London as Tacitus implies "a small army"?

Certainly what it does mean is that this was not a rabble wondering home after a few days pillage about to be surprised but an Army intent on the destruction of Seutonius Paulinus and his men.

As Steven Kaye stated once Colchester had been destroyed, the Iceni and the Trinovante's lands repossessed it was a state of Total War and the Brythons had no choice but take on the might of Rome and according to Tacitus and Dio did it spectacularly....

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:somewhere between St. Albans and Dunstable. Any site further north makes little sense. well we'll have to differ there I think the strategic elements can only provide a strategic "bubble" of sites. From there we have to switch to topography and archaeology.
But why would Boudica be that far north?
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
same latitude as Cambridge, Thetford and Stowmarket. So not so far north particularly if you look at the map without Roman roads.

Have a look at Keith Briggs fantastic maps, particularly the topography;
http://keithbriggs.info/images/Roman_roads_all.png

If the Iceni are moving from Norfolk/Suffolk they'll be headed southwest down that big green wedge through Godmanchester and Stony Stratford, north of the Chilterns and not dependent of the enemy infrastructure. We don't know the "horde" was in London, spoils and grain of Colchester was taken back home, reinforcements persuaded to join on the back of the hardcore's victory in Colchester and over the IX. They were looking for the Romans for nothing less than annihilation, the Iceni were hunting and the Romans knew it, found their best position and waited for the fight to come to them. They could have gone to Mancetter, the Brits would have still come looking for them, these were angry people and they had a limited window of opportunity to wipe out the Roman forces. This is not a passive amble looking for loot, this was a search and destroy campaign with no quarter given on either side. Your version of "sense" may well not have got a look in. :twisted:
Reply
Renatus wrote:

I ask what there was west of Silchester to attract them and to draw them to the vicinity of Cunetio (this is a genuine, not a rhetorical, question).


I think that if we accept that the Tribes were hunting the Roman Army (as John states) that they would hope to catch them before they reached the Fosse Way.

Conveniently Cunetio is really the last place that they could have continued to pursue to without coming into the reach of the rest of the Roman Military Machine.

Even so this was probably their undoing......a step too far - they should have turned back at Silchester but the stakes were very high and the calculated risk would have appeared small especially as the Romans had been retreating and did not look like they were up for a fight.

Also if the "horde" were disbanded would there have been enough momentum to gather them together again? This was a "once in a lifetime" opportunity with an army made up of various tribes banded together..... use it or lose it as they say..... Confusedmile:

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
Quote:He assumes the II are going to come to join him by approaching up Fosse Way... The route up Akeman Street or the Icknield Way leaves the II column open to potential attack from the south.

A route up the Fosse Way would have the IInd actually moving away from the place where Paulinus would need them... Far more reasonable, if he wanted to link up with them, to have the legion move due east via Silchester, or reroute onto Akeman if London had already fallen. Who would be threatening this route from the south? Cogidubnus?

Good point about the IInd moving towards P, not vice versa, though.


Quote:there are very few reasons for an Ox cart bound horde to follow that new fangled routes when all the former routes (probably in valleys and on ridges) are still know and used.

Imagine you're the leader of a vast tribal horde intent on destroying the Romans. Do you:

a) take your force off to the nearest river network, load them and all your wagons into boats and barges and set off slowly upriver, then unload again and head west along winding tracks hoping to bump into the Romans?

OR

b) follow this massive dead-straight paved road that will take you and your army directly to where the Romans are?

:razz:


Quote:it may have been a known strategic location since the conquest, possibly even garrisoned or stock piled.

May have been... but where's the evidence? ;-)


Quote:Was the round trip to London a PR exercise?

Could be... But Tacitus says that P had originally intended to fight a battle at London. We'd need good reasons to suspect he didn't.
Nathan Ross
Reply
A route up the Fosse Way would have the IInd actually moving away from the place where Paulinus would need them...
not if he needs them at CS massing all his assets, a move directly east means sooner or later an unplanned head on with the enemy. Fosse way is the best way to make a discrete, secure move to a stable RV that doesn't risk compromise in the course of unplanned enemy movements over a few days, ie decision on RV made, courier travels, II prepares to march, II marches.


Good point about the IInd moving towards P, not vice versa, though.
Pretty fundamental and one I think Tacitus is clear-ish on.

Imagine you're the leader of a vast tribal horde intent on destroying the Romans.
I hit Colchester and the IX with my professional/committed troops, hard core stays together others return loot and semi hard core farmers home. But with a message that the Romans are on the run, everyone, I mean everyone, is to to get their kit together and join us at location X where we're all going to have the mother of all battles !!!!!

Do you:

a) take your force off to the nearest river network, load them and all your wagons into boats and barges and set off slowly upriver, then unload again and head west along winding tracks hoping to bump into the Romans? :x everybody YOMP however you can to the RV at X, for god's sake no parades and try to avoid those horrible roads they don't lead where we want them to go anyway....ie Norfolk to armageddon

OR

b) follow this massive dead-straight paved road that will take you and your army directly to where the Romans are?
:x scouts follow that legion and harry it where possible, let me know where they go, rest of you lot stay in touch move up to the RV in bands of no more than 1000 so you can stay flexible and provisioned. Try and stay East so you can link up with/recruit more Iceni.

Ultimately I cannot use the roman roads as an absolute anchor for the campaign, yes for the Romans but NO for the Brits, I fear Nathan and I won't being seeing eye to eye anytime soon with this very different model for movement. Does Dunstable work if you detach Iceni movement from Watling Street? Does the western theory stand up, if the main body of Britons never went to London? two fundamental questions.

May have been... but where's the evidence?
In the ground, got a trowel? The core of Castle Dykes is a whacking great Iron Age structure so a feature already on site. Where is there any evidence of any camps in that area? they must have been there as the conquest moved north over the years.At the moment there is no Roman occupation of significance at Church Stowe, it's Iron Age and medieval so for this to work there is some major muck shifting to be done. I recognise the whole CS thing is out on a limb because of this and really the debate needs to move onto the ground to start writing off some of these sites as appears to have happened at Paulerspury.


Could be... But Tacitus says that P had originally intended to fight a battle at London. We'd need good reasons to suspect he didn't.
Well he didn't so his intentions are pretty un-provable, but it would look pretty bad to future London traders if the Governor appeared to be uncommitted to their assets, maybe post event confidence in London as a trade center generated that line.

Have you noticed this month we've jumped from 11 pages of this stuff to 22? !!!! :-o
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,484 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: