Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
This is a very difficult thread to leave when there are such excellent insights and people who are genuinely prepared to discuss the archeology and texts......and of course music lovers! Smile

Hi Renatus:

Many thanks for putting such a believable and logical explanation together.

Of course you wouldn’t necessarily expect me to agree with you entirely but there is much that I can support.....


Renatus wrote:

London was a major commercial centre, perhaps the major commercial centre, in the province. It was a wealthy town and thus a tempting target for the Britons. For the Romans, it was probably the administrative, as well as a mercantile, centre and, therefore, not to be given up except in the most dire of circumstances. Its significance, therefore, was both material and symbolic.


I can appreciate that London was the Roman Administrative centre with a strong commercial side but how much wealth would have been left after the administrators and wealthy had already evacuated I think is a moot point even before Seutonius Paulinus arrived.

The difficulty I have in believing that London was a prime target for the Brythons is partially based on the fact that they should have overrun London at least a week before SP arrived.

The excuse that they were a drunken mob does not fit with the logistics at all or that this was a “knee jerk” reaction to Boudica getting beaten. This was a planned and combined operation (possibly with the backing of the Druids) and in this case they could have been in London 5 days after sacking Colchester even taking into account a fair amount of looting and celebration.

The fact that SP arrived at London before them was because it was not a prime target for them and therefore not part of their strategy. If we assume that he was there for 2 days or so the Brythons would not have marched on London for over 2 weeks.

The second reason is that if the warriors went to London they would have left open the Western and Northern borders of the Iceni and the Trinovantes to the Romans as they progressed down Watling Street and could have been approached from Leicester, St Albans or London.

The third reason is that although it was an administrative centre for the Romans, that made it important to the Romans but not to the Iceni or the Trinovantes. There was no real benefit to them as an Administrative Centre or as a trophy until they had secured their own lands.

Renatus wrote:

If they had not proceeded with their campaign but had withdrawn within their tribal boundaries to await Roman retaliation, they would not only have lost the impetus generated by their earlier successes but would have handed the initiative to the Romans.

I find this hard to accept

The standard Roman tactics would have been to attack full on as you say yourself state “... it is most unlikely that the Romans would consider launching a punitive raid into the enemy’s territory whilst it still had an army active in the field. They would defeat the army first....”

I can understand the Romans mustering at London but then to have advanced onto the Trinovantes homeland to Colchester to bring them to battle but as you rightly say he didn’t have enough men.

I think that this point actually answers your point that the standard Roman tactic would have been to beat the army in the field – NOT wait for the Brythons to come to them.

Renatus wrote:

(Incidentally, the Ninth was not attacking the rebels’ homelands, as you seem to suggest. Tacitus makes it quite clear that it was advancing to the aid ( in subsidium adventanti) of Colchester. and then take retaliatory action against its homeland to deter future insurrection – I think the term is atrocitas, which says it all).

I have misled you into thinking that I was suggesting that Cerialis was attacking the Homelands. I was proposing that he was on the way to Colchester using a direct route from Longthorpe via Godmanchester via Cambridge through Haverhill and Sturmer then Long Melford to Colchester.

He was attacked at Sturmer (there are references to a battle here) because he used a route that bordered the Iceni territory and coincided with the Icknield Way and fell foul of the border patrols that called down the Iceni warriors.

I think that possibly Cerialis possibly retreated to the fort at Great Chesterford which was about 6 miles from the running battle.

Renatus wrote:

First, he could have marched out to confront the advancing rebels with the forces that he had but, in doing so, he ran the risk of suffering the same fate as Cerealis and the Ninth.

Totally agree!

Renatus wrote:

....Or (and I am beginning to favour this explanation) he may have decided simply to preserve his army for future action, even if this meant exposing the town to occupation and devastation.

A great general’s great decision. Totally dispassionate but tempered with the option for people to be taken under his banner to be evacuated.

Interestingly a totally different attitude to how he treated the local population where little quarter was given at all.

Renatus wrote:

The danger, of course, was that he would, in effect, be supplying the rebels and enabling them, if they were so minded, to continue their depredations without having to worry about finding food. If he destroyed the stocks, the rebels’ advance would be slowed down by the necessity for them to forage as they went along.

I can appreciate Robert’s argument re the wealth and food and the attractions that would slow the Brythonic army down but at the end of the day I think that the danger of leaving supplies, arms and wealth which might be used against him later would have outweighed the benefits and having to find food would have slowed them down considerably.

Some of the archaeology would indicate that SP was using a burnt earth policy on his route away from London. Syon Park has indications of burnt grain, Staines was also burnt around this period (all a bit tentative I appreciate) and Silchester also.

Much of the warrior class would have been extremely mobile and SP must have been confident that he had enough time (even though he would have been travelling at about 10 miles per day with the burden of the refugees) to get away. Otherwise he would have been caught and harried putting him atthe same risk of Cerialis or Varus.

This is another reason against the Brythons advancing on London forcing him to evacuate because if that was the case and he had to leave quickly he would have left the refugees to save his army.

Renatus wrote:

In the event, if Dio is to be believed, none of this worked. The plundering of London did not delay the rebels overmuch and Paulinus realised that they were coming upon him much faster than he had anticipated, forcing him to give battle with the forces that he had unreinforced. He was fortunate and astute enough to be able to choose a battle site that suited his limited resources and disadvantaged the enemy.

Although I agree with this statement I think that it is underestimating Seutonius Paulinus’ genius. He was one of the best generals of his age, him and Corbulo, as Tacitus states.

I am coming to the opinion that as Tacitus states (but as I have previously ignored) “he resolved to quit the station, and, by giving up one post, secure the rest of the province. “

So perhaps we can say that he was not merely fortunate to find a battle site but that he had one planned all along.

If that is the case getting the Brythons to follow and attack him was genius indeed.

To a degree Dio makes us think that he was panicked into fighting but this does not reflect the records of the general.

Kind Regards - Deryk
Deryk
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Calling all armchair generals! - by Ensifer - 03-11-2010, 03:13 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 02-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 02-19-2012, 12:02 AM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 02-19-2012, 02:50 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 02-19-2012, 05:40 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 02-19-2012, 11:26 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-24-2012, 05:11 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-24-2012, 09:42 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-24-2012, 10:10 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-25-2012, 03:11 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-25-2012, 03:25 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-25-2012, 08:36 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-26-2012, 02:57 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 04-27-2012, 01:50 PM
Re: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Steve Kaye - 08-05-2012, 02:24 PM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Deryk - 09-30-2012, 05:43 PM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by antiochus - 11-07-2014, 02:18 PM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by antiochus - 11-08-2014, 01:50 AM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by antiochus - 11-11-2014, 02:03 AM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by antiochus - 11-18-2014, 07:54 AM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by antiochus - 11-20-2014, 02:37 AM
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by antiochus - 11-25-2014, 08:29 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,480 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: