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

This is an assumption for which there is no evidence. We do not know the manner of Catus’ departure but I suspect that it was clandestine. His absence may not have been generally noticed for at least a couple of days and, even then, the reason may not have been realised. It might have been thought that he was ill or that he had been recalled to Rome or that he had gone to inspect some estate that was to be taken over or even that he had been summoned to see Paulinus for a dressing-down over some misdemeanours of his staff in the east of the province that the populace had only vaguely heard about. Some of the wealthy may have left, not with him but shortly afterwards, but this may well have depended upon their having somewhere to go: estates or relatives in the country, perhaps, or even in Gaul. However, some will almost certainly have stayed for the reasons that I suggested in an earlier post, in the same way that today there are those who refuse to move in the face of some impending natural disaster, such as a hurricane or forest fire. These are the ones, I suggest, who finally decided to leave with Paulinus.

You may well be right “like a thief in the night” springs to mind. Yet he would have left for a reason. Was it that Colchester could be seen to be burning from London, or ships passing perhaps saw the glow on the horizon or someone escaped or was it farther on when perhaps he got a message from Cerealis after his defeat?

Obviously we will never know but even if Catus used every subterfuge under the sun others would have known (I am talking about the rich and powerful here). You are correct in what you say about some staying but many would have gone. There must have been quite a few who perhaps did not understand the seriousness of the situation or who were waiting for Paulinus to arrive and defend them.

What we do know is that he accepted some into his column and I believe that he accepted many but as Tacitus say “Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off by the enemy.”


Renatus wrote:

One may speculate about what caused Paulinus to accept civilians into his column. He may have been so appalled by the atrocities committed by the Britons that he was willing to protect as many as possible from a similar fate, provided, of course, that it did prejudice his strategic withdrawal.

I suspect that his motives were more practical; as I have suggested already, these people would be useful in the work of reconstruction after the suppression of the revolt.


You may be correct BUT and although I have tremendous admiration for Paulinus to be looking at reconstruction before you had actually got the Province back under control would have shown and incredible foresight.

Apart from the humanitarian reasons (which seems unlikely in that age) we still do not really know why he took these people with him.


Renatus wrote:

I’m sorry. I misunderstood you. However, in my own defence, I will set out your previous comments that led me into error:

Deryk wrote:
The Roman Army on the other hand like the Super Powers of today preferred to fight "toe to toe" and the difficulty (as in today's Afghanistan or the Iraq War) was actually getting the enemy to "stand and fight" mainly because the Romans always won because of superior weaponry and tactics.

The one way that the Romans could get people to fight them in a "battle" was to march onto the homelands of their enemies and destroy them until people came and fought them.

In AD60 they had been doing this for 17 years in Britain; the locals would have known this and perhaps we can see this in the way that the Ninth Legion were destroyed on the borders of the Iceni on their way to Colchester in a typical Brythonic ambush.

The Iceni and Trinovantes were prepared and I believe that they were expecting Seutonius Paulinus to march on them perhaps at Colchester and also at Thetford. For them to have marched on London would have left their own lands, which they had literally just taken back from the Roman State open to attack with no one there to defend them.


Deryk wrote:

I think that the very act of SP leaving triggered the attack on London as Pualinus realised it would due to its being undefended. Also the Brythons could leave their homelands because there was no longer a threat to their territories.

Deryk wrote:

To say that the Brythons were “hovering on the outskirts of London” is not my interpretation but that they were in fact defending their borders and ready to move to intercept his column/s on the march.

After 17 years of watching how the Romans operated (which was to march on an enemy’s territory to force them in a battle to defend it) the Brythons had changed their tactics to one of guerrilla fighting and siege warfare. They had obviously been successful at this as the Romans after 17 years still had not conquered the far West or the North . . . The Brythons were expecting the other Legions from the West to join Paulinus and march on their territories to exact revenge, as would have been a typical Roman tactic (exactly what the Ninth did).


Deryk wrote:

I still maintain that for the Iceni and the Trinovantes to have vacated their own homelands would have been suicide if the Ninth, Fourteenth and the Second had invaded from the North, East and South East.

Deryk wrote:

It was not the point of settling back to await retribution but take into account what the Romans normally did. Of course the Ninth did exactly that and SP would have also done so had the rest of his troops turned up.

OK point taken!!!!

I will try to clarify my position:

It is undeniable that the preferred Roman tactic was to fight one army against another and siege warfare. In this case (as you state) they would have gone for the army (horde) that attacked Colchester and would not have gone for the homelands. However that does not mean that the Roman Legions would not have marched through the Iceni and Trinovantes lands, in fact they would have little option.

The difficulty for the Romans was to get people to fight them on the battle field.

The point that I have been trying to make is that the Brythons weakness was the Roman’s strength. In battle the Romans were the best and typically the Brython’s got beaten every time. All their successes were when the Roman Army was not under full battle array. (As was proven in Anglesey and at the following battle with Boudica even when vastly outnumbered).

The successes for the Brythons were when the Roman’s were not expecting them (being on the march or building forts etc.) or in the case of capturing fortresses or towns a form of siege with superior numbers.

So as far as the Brythons were concerned, for them to be in a position where they would not have to face the might of the Roman Army but could ambush them on the march would have been ideal.

The other point about the Iceni leaving their own lands on their way to London via Colchester is that they would have been exposed to being surrounded by the Roman Legions.

Deryk wrote:

The other reason is that the Brythons tactics were more guerrilla tactics where they were highly successful in ambush and siege warfare not massed formations where they knew they were likely to get beaten.

Renatus wrote:

This is where I display my ignorance. Can you give me chapter and verse on this proposition? I am aware of Tacitus’ description of Ostorius Scapula’s campaigns against the Silures.

To back up my point I will use Tacitus – the Annals: “Then the army was marched against the Cangi; their territory was ravaged, spoil taken everywhere without the enemy venturing on an engagement, or if they attempted to harass our march by stealthy attacks, their cunning was always punished.

That Caractacus was only beaten in a fixed engagement speaks for itself

Renatus wrote:

That assumes that the Iceni came down Watling Street, which I doubt that they did.

Deryk wrote:

No reason to doubt that at all.

Renatus wrote:

There is every reason to doubt it. The sources give no hint of any such thing. Your contention, as I understand it, is that the Iceni cleared the Roman forces from their territory and then remained there while the Trinovantes attacked and destroyed Colchester.

Tacitus, in the Annals, describes the Iceni flying to arms in response to the outrages against the royal house and the nobility and rousing other tribes to regain their freedom. He then immediately moves on to the threat to Colchester and its eventual destruction, followed by the threat to London.

There is no suggestion that this was anything other than a continuous process in which the Iceni were involved throughout. In the Agricola, he describes the Britons discussing their woes, taking up arms under the command of Boudica and then, after dealing with the Roman forts, invading the “colony”, which can only be the territorium of Camulodunum.

Dio has Boudica rousing the Britons with two lengthy speeches and then leading her forces against the Romans, sacking and plundering two Roman cities. These can be identified from their descriptions in Paulinus’ speech to his troops as Colchester and London. None of this involves travelling down Watling Street.


The sources can be interpreted in a number of ways (as we have previously agreed).

Here is a scenario that might fit your concerns and fit the texts.

Boudica takes back the Iceni lands by capturing the Roman forts and the Trinovantes do the same. Boudica leaves part of her army to guard her borders and takes part of her army down to Colchester and meets up with the Trinovantes and they capture Colchester. The Ninth is ambushed by the Iceni on their borders by the army that Boudica left.

Boudica and the Trinovantes advance on Chelmsford retaking more of the Trinovantes territory leaving her first army to guard their northern flank.

Paulinus abandons London which releases Boudica’s army from the Iceni lands and this army now advances on St Albans (down the Icknield Way) whilst Boudica and the Trinovantes advance on London.

Boudica and the Trinovantes reach London from the East and Boudica’s other army reaches St Albans.

Both are destroyed.


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 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
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica\'s Last Stand. - by Deryk - 10-31-2012, 05:00 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,479 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: