Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Quote:However, I'm still wary of the possibilities of an outflanking move from the east and north-east, leaving the Romans stuck in their defile with no route of retreat. Although I recall your good point about Paulinus ensuring there were no enemies to his rear, I still think that such a famously clever and cautious general may not have wanted to risk having his force surrounded and trapped.
I think that it's a case of playing the hand you've been dealt. Tring has a number of advantages from the Roman point of view. It is close enough to St Albans for Suetonius' scouts to track the movements of the rebels and, depending upon those movements, offers him a variety of options. If the rebels proceeded up Watling Street on the way back to their homelands, he could go up the Icknield Way and intercept them at Dunstable (I thought you'd like that!). If they approached along Akeman Street, he could withdraw a little further and see if they turned south down the Icknield Way or continued westwards. In the first case, he could follow, knowing that their slow pace would allow his reinforcements to catch up, until he felt strong enough to give battle; in the latter, he could keep on withdrawing, all the time getting nearer to his reinforcements, again until he had built up sufficient forces to give battle. Finally, as happened, he could stand his ground and give battle where he stood.

The concept of offering battle allowed the army that occupied the battleground first to dictate the terms of the battle. Its opponents could then either accept battle on those terms or refuse it. By ensuring that his flanks were covered by higher ground and that his rear was protected by the wood, Suetonius compelled the rebels to attack his front through the defile, which suited his inferior numbers.
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:If the rebels proceeded up Watling Street on the way back to their homelands, he could go up the Icknield Way and intercept them at Dunstable (I thought you'd like that!).

I had thought of that, yes! And in fact either Dunstable (or Tilsworth, perhaps) or Tring would allow movements along the Iknield in either direction to block the rebel advance north or west, or to track them north-east along the far side of the Chilterns.

However, there is the problem that the rebels, after trashing St Albans (and assuming, of course, that this happened after the destruction of London) may have gone off eastwards towards their home territory, rather than follow either road through the hills. We have to consider that the Trinovantes may not have considered the Iknield Way as a route home! I did spend a while yesterday trying to spot sites east and north-east of St Albans - possibly the rebels joined the valley of the Lea and followed it north, which might present the option of a battle around Luton somewhere? - but didn't come up with much.



Quote:Suetonius compelled the rebels to attack his front through the defile, which suited his inferior numbers.

And this is my problem with the Tring site - in order to compel an attack through the defile, there must not have been any other avenue of approach available. Whereas, at Tring, there are a few... We might, I suppose, consider that the Britons' local intelligence was not that good, or that their bravado attitude prevented them from anything but a frontal attack!
Nathan Ross
Reply
[attachment=11974]TRINGBATTLESITE.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
[attachment=11975]TringBattlemap.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
[attachment=11976]TRING100315.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
[attachment=11977]TRING2100315.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
Nathan Ross wrote:

And this is my problem with the Tring site - in order to compel an attack through the defile, there must not have been any other avenue of approach available. Whereas, at Tring, there are a few...

We know that there are many variables:

1. The size of the Brythonic Army
2. The reason that the Brythons left their homelands
3. The refugees with SP
4. SP’s decisions after London
5. Where the Roman re-inforcements came from
etc. etc. etc

The solution to the site location relies on many factors including a combination of the above and also how the battle was fought

That keeps everything open.....

Everyone takes Tacitus’ description as being the only option yet Dio is quite specific about the battle and perhaps the site needs to be able to provide for both descriptions.

Tring, I believe does this.

Although perceived wisdom is that by narrowing his front SP and preventing being outflanked can win him the battle, in reality although this is great for defence it is not easy to turn the defence into attack without being surrounded and destroyed when venturing out of the defile.

Also as Nathan says this option also allows for SP to be outflanked.

If however the whole of the site is defended in such a way that SP can extend his line safely as he attacks, this would be valid.

So rather than look at one valley it is possible to have 3 forces in 3 valleys and also using the platea next to Valley 2.

We should also not ignore that the site could and probably was defended by ditches, calthrops, stakes, etc. which would stop natural ingress

Along the whole length of the plateau runs Grimms Ditch. This could have easily been redug as a defence to prevent any outflanking manoeuvres by the Brythons.



The Brythons would then have attacked seeing that the Romans were bottled up in the valleys which they may well have known about.....


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
Nathan Ross wrote:

And this is my problem with the Tring site - in order to compel an attack through the defile, there must not have been any other avenue of approach available. Whereas, at Tring, there are a few...

We know that there are many variables:

1. The size of the Brythonic Army
2. The reason that the Brythons left their homelands
3. The refugees with SP
4. SP’s decisions after London
5. Where the Roman re-inforcements came from
etc. etc. etc

The solution to the site location relies on many factors including a combination of the above and also how the battle was fought

That keep everything open.....

Everyone takes Tacitus’ description as being the only option yet Dio is quite specific about the
battle and perhaps the site needs to be able to provide for both descriptions.

Tring, I believe does this.

Although perceived wisdom is that by narrowing his front SP and preventing being outflanked can win him the battle, in reality although this is great for defence it is not easy to turn the defence into attack without being surrounded and destroyed when venturing out of the defile.
Also as Nathan says this option also allows for SP to be outflanked.

[attachment=11980]TRING100315.jpg[/attachment]

If however the whole of the site is defended in such a way that SP can extend his line safely as he attacks, this would be valid.

So rather than look at one valley it is possible to have 3 forces in 3 valleys and also using the platea next to Valley 2.

We should also not ignore that the site could and probably was defended by ditches, calthrops, stakes, etc. which would stop natural ingress

Along the whole length of the plateau runs Grimms Ditch. This could have easily been redug as a defence to prevent any outflanking manoeuvres by the Brythons.

The Brythons would then have attacked seeing that the Romans were bottled up in the valleys which they may well have known about.....


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
Contd......

[attachment=11981]TRING2100315.jpg[/attachment]

The Brythons attacking Valleys 1 and 2 and also the plateau.....


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Deryk
Reply
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]
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
I understand we are primarily working to topography. At a detailed scale observations are being made about the likelihood of forest presence. Inthe Church Stowe scenario I have referred to the potential for willow/alder carr choking the smaller vallies and Marix Evans invokes the local boulder clay on a large scale to suggest it's poor agricultural quality may have left it un-cultivated for long perids hence the medival Whittlewood Forest. I think in the case of recent map one could suggest at site scale that steep north facing slopes with poor chalk soils may have been left uncleared, but I think that is all we can reasonably say.
Reply
Just a few distance numbers for reference all taken from Venta Icenorum as the ultimate seat of the rebellion;

Colchester © 88km 55 miles
London (L) 172km 107 miles
St Albans 211km 131 miles
Tring (T) 223km 139 miles
Dunstable (D) 229km 142 miles
Church Stowe (CS) 276km 171 miles
Mancetter (M) 322km 200 miles

[attachment=11982]Ventadistances1.jpg[/attachment]

feel free to double for round trips;


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
Just a few distance numbers for reference all taken from Venta Icenorum as the ultimate seat of the rebellion;

Colchester ...........© 88km 55 miles
London .................(L) 172km 107 miles
St Albans ...................211km 131 miles
Tring .....................(T) 223km 139 miles
Dunstable .............(D) 229km 142 miles
Church Stowe ......(CS) 276km 171 miles
Mancetter .............(M) 322km 200 miles


[attachment=11983]Ventadistances2.jpg[/attachment]

To put the distances into perspective for lightly equipped troops, I am being goaded into doing this by a so called friend;
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/trailwalker

100km in 30hours. I have fond memories of 40 miles (64km) in 10 hours, belt kit and no carts.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
Quote:Is there any poof that shows that these forests were even there at the time?

A lot of the time, no. However, woodland tends to grow in some areas more readily than others, and the northern slopes of the Chilterns seem to have been forested since before records began. Back in my Dunstable proposal I mentioned sources from the middle ages that suggested the area of the town was uncleared woodland - generally, if there was a forest there in pre-industrial times, I think we could guess (unless there is evidence to the contrary, later plantations etc) that there were trees there in the Roman period too.
Nathan Ross
Reply
So the distances doubled up make for some quite long marches. Tring for example would be a 446km campaign, maybe with a bit of a discount to short cut via Arbury Banks for Mr Appleby's sake.

A two advance campaign, such as I am pimping for Church Stowe, would be 508 km, Colchester there and back, then CS via Stonea there and back, so not such a huge difference, and maybe edging towards CS's favour if floating back down the Nene is an option and any retreating Iceni would be on home turf by the time they hit the Fens at about 60km from CS. Then again you'd be collecting and dropping off proportions of troops closer to Colchester and Peterborough than the numbers imply.

However, if I were to buy in to the Parade theory that you guy won't let die why wouldn't the Watling Street ramble continue North taking new territory and spoil with a view to making a circular trip returning home the short route via Stonea 442km, shorter and better theiving opportunities.

[attachment=11984]CampaignCircuit.jpg[/attachment]

So Stonea gives us a new campaign model and a reason for the Roman stronghold and RV to be no further south on Watling Street than the Nene Valley.

@ Robert, who on here isn't "a complete Boudiccan dilettante"?


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,481 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: