03-11-2015, 08:50 AM
As a complete Boudiccan dilettant (who nevertheless likes to read this neverending saga), I may have an observation about the maps which are used by many contributors to this discussion.
If I don't make any sense just tell me so, but somehow it occurs to me that most maps, being of course modern, like to put the Romans with their backs to a forest (small or large).
Which is of course in concurrence with the historical description. However (and here it comes), why should modern maps have any relation to the situation on that particyular spot c. 2000 years ago? I mean, a forest is a forest, but many were cut down, regrown, cut down again and replanted? Why should a forest at the head of a valley have been there at the time of the battle? Is there any poof that shows that these forests were even there at the time?
[Crawls back under his desk]
If I don't make any sense just tell me so, but somehow it occurs to me that most maps, being of course modern, like to put the Romans with their backs to a forest (small or large).
Which is of course in concurrence with the historical description. However (and here it comes), why should modern maps have any relation to the situation on that particyular spot c. 2000 years ago? I mean, a forest is a forest, but many were cut down, regrown, cut down again and replanted? Why should a forest at the head of a valley have been there at the time of the battle? Is there any poof that shows that these forests were even there at the time?
[Crawls back under his desk]
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)