Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[John1]

I didn't think of it as a defence of CS, more like a 7 pronged assault on Mancetter, :evil: I'm sure Steve will be pushing us all westwards for your sake

[Renatus]

Anyway, please do give us a report on what happens in Warwick

I'll second that. I wanted to go but intervening circumstances have made that impossible. Is there any prospect of the papers being published?

[John1]

Shame you can't be there Michael, I was intending to "strive mightily" in your direction....The organisers have requested permission to reproduce the presentations so looks like a publication is being looked at. It would be good to get this crop of theories set out as a formal baseline, to which others might be added.

[John1]

Post Match Report

Prof Aldhouse-Green
kicked off with a general overview of Boudica, didn’t really challenge her existence in a meaningful way, just posed the question, then fled to Cardiff before the action. Needs help with Powerpoint graphics.

Martin Wilson
of “Roman Mancetter” and Souterrain (http://www.souterrain.biz/About%20us.htm) briefed on current site interpretations primarily of the Fort. Interesting comments on revisions of Webster’s certainties. Audience question “Is there any evidence of a battle at Mancetter?” reply “There is no evidence of a battle at Mancetter”.

Prof Hingley,
told the story of Boudicca through history, the bomb shell was, maybe she was from the Brigantine Royal Household. Still optimistic the battle site will be found and a lot will be learnt from it.

Steve Kaye,
presented his fantastic papers;
http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arch...rrain.html
http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arch...stics.html
http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arch...ps_uk.html
Steve makes the case for a 9 litre consumption threshold per soldier and against the cavalry dash. Papers well received. Of particular note was his water threshold graph on marching camps. A suggestion from my audience neighbour (Chris Rowe?) was that he should test the access to water theory against known battle sites, Bosworth, Naseby, Towton etc. which seems a good way forward. A spirited case was made in favour of the cavalry dash by Ian Dexter of the Battlefields Trust.
(Steve please jump in and put me right, we need you back)

Mancetter – Alan Cook,
Alan was AWOL, research framework regarding soil chemistry was outlined by Margaret Hughes (Conference organiser). Seems inconclusive, a quality hand out was distributed. Concluding para reads;
“Alan Cook’s report has not yet been circulated beyond a small group of historians and archaeologists, so far meeting with mixed reactions.”

High Cross – John Waite
John did a verbal only presentation so no maps and diagrams, position of his book is retained with additional photographic material on his poster sourced from a Cambridge Uni aerial survey. This is John;
http://johnwaite64.wix.com/roman-soldier

Clifton on Dunsmore – Kerry Sullivan and Chris Kinsella
Kerry did a good verbal presentation but again not supported by maps and diagrams. The material in the posters was clear and informative. Chris and Kerry are on here so they can expand where they see fit.

Arbury Banks – Grahame Appleby
Graham focussed on the campaign timeline, concluded with Arbury Banks but was by no means vociferous in his defence of the site. A very clear and informed panellist for the forum.

Church Stowe – John Pegg
A fast talking, blur of words and images that left the audience in something resembling a coma, which I took to be a good sign. Audience input included Weedon and Stowe denoting a holy place may hint at the earlier existence of a temple or victory monument.

Cuttle Mill – Martin Marix Evans
Text poster distributed, no variation on known position.

Dunstable – Barry Horne
Poster distributed. Valley located near Manshead Middle School, time line of revolts 20 days total.

Forum.
I almost lost my temper as what could have been a great discussion, regarding more detail on each of the sites, descended into another “he might have said she might have said” about the 200 words of Tacitus…. concluded that the topic hasn’t and cannot move forward because most of those involved just want to play with words and have unsubstantiated opinions about long dead, maybe fictional, characters….can we just get the maps out instead, please.

Papers will be published, PM me if you’d like more detail on any points.

[Renatus]

Thanks for an excellent summary, John. I remain of the view that the key question to be answered in justifying any site is: Why were they there? Did anyone ask or answer that question?

[John1]

Thanks Michael, hopefully the others will add more.

I think everyone had a “why there”;

Mancetter
– existing fort and garrison.

High Cross
– defence of the important transport hub.

Clifton
– a blocking ridge across Watling Street prohibiting an advance north by the Iceni.

Arbury
– Roman fast move to get between the retiring Iceni and their home lands.

Church Stowe
– at the centre of the three main Roman troop dispositions
- Within cavalry dash distance of London.
- In a position to threaten the Iceni homelands
- As far south on Watling St as it is possible to go with the eastern flank secured by the Fens
- At the head of the Nene, Ouse, Cherwell and Avon
- Close to the Watford Gap pinch-point and source of sandwiches
- Known strong point/ rallying point from previous campaigns
- Perfect defensive terrain
- Great water supplies
- Potential depot site
- At the intersection of several tribal boundaries so treading on no other tribes toes.
- On Watling Street
- Particularly nice local beer (recipe subsequently lost)

[John1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgrZM1yGECA

[Nathan Ross]

Audience question “Is there any evidence of a battle at Mancetter?” reply “There is no evidence of a battle at Mancetter”.

That covers that then! :-D

the bomb shell was, maybe she was from the Brigantine Royal Household.

I think Prof. Hingley mentioned this in his book Iron Age Warrior Queen, which despite the title is still one the best books on the subject, in my opinion.

A spirited case was made in favour of the cavalry dash by Ian Dexter of the Battlefields Trust.

Lots of spirit would be required indeed to make the case at all convincing...

Meawhile, I'm glad your blur of words left the audience stunned, John, if not exactly in the way you might have hoped! A shame the forum was not more fruitful, but I suppose with so many competing views it was fated to come down to a debate on technicalities.

Thanks for passing on the details of the discussion though - much appreciated!

[John1]

The paper from Dunstable had very little site specific information either as a site description or tactical speculation, the only site specific passage ran thus;

"Just south of Dunstable there is a valley through the Chilterns where Watling Street runs and this does have some of the features required. The valley (51 52' 15.61"N, 0 29' 39.62"W), near Manshead Middle School, is some 350 yards (320m) wide but narrows considerably about 880 yards further south where it would constrain the rebel army so they could not surround the smaller Roman force. This narrowing would also have hampered the escape of the rebels and their camp followers when the roman army rushed the rebels who had entered the field of battle."
Barry Horne 29th June 2013

There were no plans or illustrations to articulate the disposition of troops or course of the engagement. The Dunstable theory seems better resolved and articulated in this thread some months ago.

[John1]

The conference posters are appearing at Academia.edu, three so far;
http://independent.academia.edu/SteveKaye
http://cambridge.academia.edu/GrahameApp...sentations
http://academia.edu/3824546/Poster_-On_t..._June_2013

I suspect that this is all there will be.

[Theoderic]

It has always been assumed that the "horde" was pedestrian but is it possible that it had far greater mobility by using horse-drawn Chariots and Wagons for transportation to and from the battlefield and then using both the Chariots and Infantry at the fight with the wagons being left as the baggage train?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I'm pretty sure the concept that the Britons used boatloads of chariots is incorrect. Chariots were rare on the battlefield. I doubt Boudicca's Army went out of their way to build them either. I could be wrong though.

[Theoderic]

Yet a hundred years before (54 BC) Caesar mentions being harassed by 4,000 charioteers (perhaps only 2,000 chariots) on his march after defeating the Brythons.

This use of chariots or / and wagons seems to continue at the final battle of Boudica and up to the battle of Mons Graupius.

It seems that any Brythons not killed or wounded in battle manage to escape in large numbers rather than being "mopped up" by the Roman cavalry - so the mobility question remains.

[Theoderic]

Hi All

OK time to start to flesh out the Tring site option. I know that I have mentioned this before but please bear with me so I can present the argument in phases to be discussed as we move along..

I have been reviewing the thread and believe that this particular site fits most of the credible theories (e.g: it is only a few miles from Dunstable, it lies towards the West, it is based on a direct ancient route from the Iceni heartlands and a Roman Road from London and St Albans and it has the required topographical and water requirements).

I think that we have established between us that SP had a battle site (or indeed a place of refuge or defence) in mind when he left London – Tacitus tells us so.

From the writings of Tacitus it would seem that the Ninth were not necessarily ambushed (although we know that was a favourite Brythonic tactic and an area that the Legion would have been at its weakest) just simply overwhelmed by the force that had already sacked Colchester and were either on their way home or on their way to London.

Few of us support the “dash to London” approach (and if the whole country was up in arms as Tacitus implies SP could not afford to weaken his force) so if we are to believe Tacitus, he went to London with his whole army but already knew of the defeat of the Ninth when he arrived in London and deemed it too small a force to be effective in defending that town.

Obviously the Tribal Army must have been on the way to London otherwise there would have been no mention of defence or a need to take refugees with him but must either have delayed to see where SP was advancing to (it could have been from a number of locations) or were really slow – I prefer the former on the basis of previous movements of the Tribal armies recorded by Caesar or indeed the escape of Caratacus from the Medway battle.

Tacitus states that surprisingly SP took certain refugees with him from London which would have burdened him in a number of ways so he must have been confident that he would not be caught by the Brythons following him from London.

Contentiously perhaps but it would seem that the place where SP was to regroup was not too far away as the refugees would not have been ready for a major forced march at some speed.

SP would have started out West and then have taken the road north to the station at Brockley Hill and then either to St Albans on Watling Street and up Akeman Street to Tring or directly from Brockley Hill via the Gade and Bulbourne river valleys which terminate just outside present day Tring with the Icknield Way running from the East to the South West along the Chiltern escarpment just north of Tring at the Roman Settlement of Aston Clinton.

So what is so special at Tring?

There is a large natural set of raised land to the west of Tring that define a large area of the Chiltern Hills (about 5 by 3 miles) that rises on the edge of a massive plain. Two of the hills are the highest in their county of Hertfordshire (Pavis Wood) and Buckinghamshire (Haddington Hill). It is a wonderful area to defend with 360 degree views across the country, the Icknield Way and Akeman Street.

[attachment=7778]tringpics1.pdf[/attachment]
[attachment=7779]tringpics2.pdf[/attachment]

It rises on many sides steeply and has valleys like those described by Tacitus including the woods. On one side it is protected along its ridge by “Grims Ditch” acting as a further barrier and as a an earlier Tribal delimiter. It also has springs based on a natural aquifer and is close to the source of the Bulbourne River in the past.

So a place to regroup and prepare for battle and to wait for re-inforcements and the enemy to arrive, where camps could be set up in safety in the high grounds above the valleys and where artillery could be built and defences implemented and tactics reviewed by a careful and talented general.

Anything here so far that knocks this site out of the eqation and could the other theories work with this site?

Kind Regards - Deryk

[Renatus]

A nice summary, Deryk: let me add a few thoughts of my own arising from it.

I agree that there is nothing in Tacitus to say that the Ninth was ambushed; it reads more as a head-on confrontation. However, I doubt that the rebels were returning to their homeland. Having sacked Colchester, the incentive would have been to continue their advance. Nor is it likely that they were already on their way to London. Tacitus tells us that they met Cerialis on his way to relieve Colchester. It seems more likely that, having destroyed the temple and its defenders and razed the rest of the city, and being aware of the approach of the Roman forces, they turned to meet them.

I do not see the rebels then sitting back to see what Paulinus would do. It is more likely that they maintained their momentum and advanced on London but slowed down by their families in ox-wagons and plundering en route. That their progress was slow seems to be suggested by Paulinus' being prepared to take civilians with him on his withdrawal from London, albeit that they had to attempt to keep pace with the soldiers.

Even if the civilians were able to keep pace, I would not expect Paulinus being willing to encumber himself with them any longer than necessary. Tacitus' comment that he was prepared to sacrifice one town to save the rest raises the possibility that he expected the rebel advance to end in the sacking of London. That being so, his intention may well have been to convey the civilians to the comparative safety of Verulamium and then to proceed along Akeman Street to rendezvous with reinforcements summoned from the west. He may have intended to go as far as the Fosse Way, so that troops from the south-west and north could meet him there. If so, this was a miscalculation as, of course, the rebels were not content with plundering London but then marched on Verulamium.

It seems possible that Paulinus had proceeded as far as Tring when he received news of the rebel advance and decided to stop there to await developments. The rebels' movements were now unpredictable: they might return to their homelands along the Icknield Way via Dunstable or they might proceed along Akeman Street with the intention of attacking the tribes in the west not yet committed to the revolt or they might intend to go along Akeman Street as far as its junction with the Icknield Way and then branch off to the south-west to attack the Atrebates. At this point, Paulinus may have wanted to remain close to them to monitor their movements and react accordingly. From the rebels point of view, even if they did intend to return home, they may well have been unwilling to leave a powerful Roman force in their rear and, therefore, felt that they must proceed against Paulinus' force and eliminate it before it could be reinforced.

I am not convinced that Paulinus had pre-selected the battle site before leaving London. He had had little opportunity to reconnoitre a suitable site on his way south and, in any event, he could not predict precisely what the rebels would do or the route that they would take. I am not aware that Tacitus says that he had selected the site beforehand but I may have missed something and would be grateful for the reference. What is clear is that, having decided to give battle, he selected the most advantageous site in the area in which he was encamped.

Much of this is speculative, I admit, but it provides more material for discussion, I think.