Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
(12-02-2015, 09:00 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: So - what if the revolt started in the autumn of AD60 instead?

Dio (62.7) and Tacitus (Agricola 2.15) just say that the legate was away at the time - so Paulinus could have been in the process of concluding his years' campaign in Wales with the conquest of Mona. This would be around September.

Winter crops would be sown in October, so the revolt was already underway by then.

Paulinus, having already completed his Mona operation when he hears of the revolt (Dio 62.8), marches from Mona in October, gets to London, and falls back somewhere. Dio says he was 'inclined to postpone battle to a more convenient season', which would make sense if this was the brink of winter. It might also explain why he was growing short of food . . .

The final battle would therefore happen in November of AD60.All this does seem to explain the crop business quite well, although it means disregarding Tacitus's statement that the revolt itself happened in 61.

That's an interesting idea, although I am always a bit wary about 'correcting' our sources. We have to be careful. Tacitus tells us (Agricola, 14) that, following the governorship of Veranius, Paulinus had two successful years subduing the tribes and strengthening the garrisons. Then, building upon this, he attacked Anglesey but, in doing so, left his rear open to attack. Assuming the revolt began in AD60 would seem to put the beginning of his governorship back a year, with knock-on consequences for the governorships of his predecessors. I have not researched this and it may not be a problem but we have to be aware of it.

We also have to be careful about the use of translations. The one that has been quoted speaks of Petronius Turpilianus taking over the governorship having 'just resigned his consulship'. If the revolt began during his consulship, this compresses the revolt and all its consequences, including the eventual replacement of Paulinus, into a seemingly impossibly short timeframe of a little over six months. Tacitus' wording is 'qui iam consulatu abierat '. 'Iam' has various meanings and the Loeb translation renders the passage as 'who by now had laid down his consulate', which says no more than that Turpilianus was no longer consul. This allows much more leeway and could give a year for all the events to occur. It could even mean that Turpilianus' governorship did not begin until sometime in AD62.

I am also wondering if we are right to be speaking of two planting seasons. Do we know that, at this time, crops were planted in spring and winter? If both crops were harvested at the same time, this implies two types of grain, one maturing more slowly than the other. Do we know that there these two types in the 1st century? I found this website (https://www.dovesfarm.co.uk/about/on-the...-timeline/) which speaks of a single crop of emmer being planted in early November for harvesting in late August. As far as I can tell, this was not an attempt to replicate early practice but rather to see if emmer could be a viable crop for the present day. It may be, therefore, that it was planted to allow harvesting to take place in accordance with modern farming methods. Is emmer versatile enough to be planted in early spring for harvesting in, say, October? This would allow for the revolt to break out in AD61, as Tacitus says, and for spring planting to be neglected, without a previous winter planting to back up supplies. Alternatively, if the outrage against the Iceni occurred in the autumn of AD60, they could have started preparing for war immediately and neglected the winter planting but for the revolt proper not to break out until the following year. In either scenario, if I am right in thinking that the whole tribe took to the road, it would not matter that there were no crops to harvest in AD61 because there would have been no-one there harvest them anyway.
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
(12-03-2015, 11:17 AM)Renatus Wrote: Assuming the revolt began in AD60 would seem to put the beginning of his governorship back a year

We don't know when Paulinus became governor, or the date of his consulship. He could have arrived in March 58 and had summer 58 and 59 as his two successful years.

Nothing in the other sources would contradict this interpretation, and it's the one that Webster et al follow, I think.


(12-03-2015, 11:17 AM)Renatus Wrote: the Loeb translation renders the passage as 'who by now had laid down his consulate', which says no more than that Turpilianus was no longer consul... could even mean that Turpilianus' governorship did not begin until sometime in AD62.

That's good to know. Kevin Carroll ('The Date of Boudicca's Revolt', Britannia 10, 1979) also thinks Turpilianus arrived in 62, after a revolt in 61, for the same reason.

Frontinus de Aquis 102 mentions that Turpilianus became curator of the aqueducts in Rome in AD63. So an appointment in Britain in mid 61 might be plausible, although he obviously wasn't in office long either way.



(12-03-2015, 11:17 AM)Renatus Wrote: Do we know that, at this time, crops were planted in spring and winter?

Diodorus Siculus quotes Hecateus, writing in the 6th century BC, that in Britain "the soil is very rich, and very fruitful, and the climate is temperate, insomuch as there are two crops in the year" (2.47).


I am aware, by the way, that if the revolt was in the autumn my idea about the Iceni having to head home to do the planting or harvesting would no longer stand - and that was (for me, at least) a major support for the 'northern route'...
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-03-2015, 01:32 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Diodorus Siculus quotes Hecateus, writing in the 6th century BC, that in Britain "the soil is very rich, and very fruitful, and the climate is temperate, insomuch as there are two crops in the year" (2.47).

Possibly, although it isn't named and could be entirely legendary.

EDIT  I should make myself clearer. Diodorus is referring to a legendary island in the ocean beyond the land of the Celts. This is the relevant passage (Loeb translation):

'47 1 Now for our part, since we have seen fit to make mention of the regions of Asia which lie to the north, we feel that it will not be foreign to our purpose to discuss the legendary accounts of the Hyperboreans. Of those who have written about the ancient myths, Hecataeus and certain others say that in the regions beyond the land of the Celts there lies in the ocean an island no smaller than Sicily. This island, the account continues, is situated in the north and is inhabited by the Hyperboreans, who are called by that name because their home is beyond the point whence the north wind (Boreas) blows; and the island is both fertile and productive of every crop, and since it has an unusually temperate climate it produces two harvests each year. 2 Moreover, the following legend is told concerning it: Leto was born on this island, and for that reason Apollo is honoured among them above all other gods; and the inhabitants are looked upon as priests of Apollo, after a manner, since daily they praise this god continuously in song and honour him exceedingly. And there is also on the island both a magnificent sacred precinct of Apollo and a notable temple which is adorned with many votive offerings and is spherical in shape. 3 Furthermore, a city is there which is sacred to this god, and the majority of its inhabitants are players on the cithara; and these continually play on this instrument in the temple and sing hymns of praise to the god, glorifying his deeds.'

He sounds decidedly sceptical.
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
There's a note in Ammianus Marcellinus (17.8.1) that the campaigning season in Gaul did not begin until July.

This is perhaps a further argument (assuming the situation was the same in Britain) for Paulinus not commencing his campaign against Mona in March or April 61 - unless he was forced to do it for some reason.

However, if he began it in July 60 he could very well have been concluding his campaign in September.


(EDIT - Diodorus does sound sceptical, although there seems to be a note in Hesiod's Works and Days that the main wheat crop should be planted a month after the autumn equinox. So it seems that winter-growing wheat was the main crop throughout the ancient world, as Deryk says. If only one crop was planted, it would have been this one.)
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-03-2015, 03:23 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: There's a note in Ammianus Marcellinus (17.8.1) that the campaigning season in Gaul did not begin until July.

This is perhaps a further argument (assuming the situation was the same in Britain) for Paulinus not commencing his campaign against Mona in March or April 61 - unless he was forced to do it for some reason.

However, if he began it in July 60 he could very well have been concluding his campaign in September.

Ammianus says in the passage mentioned that Julian had to wait until July, when the summer weather succeeded frost and cold, and supplies could be brought up from Aquitaine. Caesar states that the climate in Britain is more temperate than in Gaul as the cold is less severe (BG, 2.1.12). It is, therefore, possible that the campaigning season in Britain began earlier than in Gaul. Of his own actions, Caesar says that, having heard of a potential rising of the Gallic tribes, he raised two legions in Italy and sent them to Gaul in the spring of 57BC. He joined his army himself as soon as forage began to be plentiful. This is where Hesiod may come in, although climatic conditions in Greece in the 7-8th centuries BC may have been very different to those in Britain and Gaul several hundred years later.

(12-03-2015, 03:23 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: (EDIT - Diodorus does sound sceptical, although there seems to be a note in Hesiod's Works and Days that the main wheat crop should be planted a month after the autumn equinox. So it seems that winter-growing wheat was the main crop throughout the ancient world, as Deryk says. If only one crop was planted, it would have been this one.)

I could not find this passage although, in a highly convoluted text, I could easily have missed it. What I did find was this:

(ll. 383-404) When the Pleiades, daughters of Atlas, are rising (10), begin your harvest, and your ploughing when they are going to set (11). Forty nights and days they are hidden and appear again as the year moves round, when first you sharpen your sickle. This is the law of the plains, and of those who live near the sea, and who inhabit rich country, the glens and dingles far from the tossing sea, -- strip to sow and strip to plough and strip to reap, if you wish to get in all Demeter's fruits in due season, and that each kind may grow in its season. Else, afterwards, you may chance to be in want, and go begging to other men's houses, but without avail; as you have already come to me. But I will give you no more nor give you further measure. Foolish Perses! Work the work which the gods ordained for men, lest in bitter anguish of spirit you with your wife and children seek your livelihood amongst your neighbours, and they do not heed you. Two or three times, may be, you will succeed, but if you trouble them further, it will not avail you, and all your talk will be in vain, and your word-play unprofitable. Nay, I bid you find a way to pay your debts and avoid hunger.

(10) Early in May.
(11) In November.


However, he does not seem entirely to rule out planting in the spring:

(ll. 458-464) So soon as the time for ploughing is proclaimed to men, then make haste, you and your slaves alike, in wet and in dry, to plough in the season for ploughing, and bestir yourself early in the morning so that your fields may be full. Plough in the spring; but fallow broken up in the summer will not belie your hopes. Sow fallow land when the soil is still getting light: fallow land is a defender from harm and a soother of children.

If any of this is relevant, it could, perhaps, support the idea of the rebellion breaking out in March or April, when a crop planted in November would not have been harvested in May and the planting of a crop in March or April for harvesting in September or October had been neglected.
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
(12-04-2015, 05:42 PM)Renatus Wrote: (ll. 383-404) When the Pleiades, daughters of Atlas, are rising (10), begin your harvest, and your ploughing when they are going to set (11).

(10) Early in May, (11) In November.

Yes, that's the bit, it seems - I got the discussion of it from here (which translates the second bit as 'plough also in the spring'), but it does seem phenomenally tricky and could be read it two ways...



(12-04-2015, 05:42 PM)Renatus Wrote: the rebellion breaking out in March or April, when a crop planted in November would not have been harvested in May and the planting of a crop in March or April for harvesting in September or October had been neglected.

That was the way I understood it originally, before I started thinking about this planting business! However, the 60-61 dating seems to make more sense of Paulinus keeping his army 'under canvas' after the battle (rather than returning them to their barracks for the winter) and building new winter camps. If the revolt begins in April, Paulinus must have moved against Mona very early in the year, and the 'final' battle can hardly have been later than June.
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-04-2015, 07:01 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: I got the discussion of it from here

Are you having the same trouble with Google Books as I am? Where there is a preview of a book and I click on it, I get a page which evidently relates to it (there is a menu bar which includes a box with the page number in it) but which does not include an image of the page itself. If the book is out of copyright and there is a facility to download it, I can do so but, if it is still in copyright and there would be only a partial preview, I get nothing and am completely stymied. I do not seem to have the same problem where there is only a snippet view.

(12-04-2015, 07:01 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: That was the way I understood it originally, before I started thinking about this planting business! However, the 60-61 dating seems to make more sense of Paulinus keeping his army 'under canvas' after the battle (rather than returning them to their barracks for the winter) and building new winter camps. If the revolt begins in April, Paulinus must have moved against Mona very early in the year, and the 'final' battle can hardly have been later than June.

The idea that the army spent the winter sub pellibus possibly originated with Dudley and Webster. Tacitus says only that the army was brought together and kept in tents to finish off the war, in other words, perhaps, that it remained in campaign mode; there is no mention of winter in that context. Of course, if Dio is right and a large number of the rebels escaped and remained under arms, initially because they intended to carry on the revolt but later because they were afraid to surrender, the army could well have been kept 'under canvas' though the winter, at least until Turpilianus arrived and took the heat out of the situation.

I suppose that, when I mentioned the revolt breaking out in March or April, what I really meant was that it was at that time that the circumstances arose that culminated in the revolt and that, accordingly, it was then that the Iceni decided that there would be no need for the spring planting. We have between us previously suggested a timeline in which Paulinus began his Welsh campaign at the beginning of May and the open revolt started at about the same time. You had the final battle taking place in mid- to late-June and Turpilianus arriving to take over the governorship in March 62. Quite plausible, in my opinion.
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
(12-04-2015, 10:35 PM)Renatus Wrote: Are you having the same trouble with Google Books as I am? Where there is a preview of a book and I click on it, I get a page which evidently relates to it (there is a menu bar which includes a box with the page number in it) but which does not include an image of the page itself. If the book is out of copyright and there is a facility to download it, I can do so but, if it is still in copyright and there would be only a partial preview, I get nothing and am completely stymied. I do not seem to have the same problem where there is only a snippet view.

This seems to be an Internet Explorer problem. IE is my preferred browser but I have now had to load Firefox before I can use Google Books and access the link in Nathan's post. Is nothing simple?
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
The following scenario seems to fit the writings of Tacitus based on everyone's observations:

If the Brythons were expecting to take the Roman wheat we have to assume that the Roman warehouses would have been full at the end of August and low in June / July, so an earlier campaign does not seem to fit.

We also have to assume that the Brythons would have harvested their own crops in August as well.

It would seem logical therefore that the attack on Colchester and the invasion of Mona could have been during September AD61.

Therefore the fact that Paulinus was so far away may well have been coincidence purely governed by food.

That may be the key to why the residents of Colchester were not worried about being attacked as the “fighting season” was drawing to a close.

Of course Mona could have been the final part of the campaign of the subjugation of North Wales which has some merit.

Unlike some I cannot see why the Brythons would march on London directly after Colchester because they would be vulnerable if the Roman Armies attacked them.

They were proved right when the Ninth attacked them but Cerialis totally misjudged the situation and attacked with too few men or the Iceni really were aware and ambushed him en route.

Not only, this but if they were after the wheat to last them for the following year for a military siege or home based war they would have needed to add to their already harvested stores.

Roman strategy would have been to attack the rebels towns if there was not a standing army in the field.

On top of this is the find of the bronze head found near Rendham in the Iceni homelands indicating that the warriors came home after sacking Colchester.  

So if the plan was to stay at home to defend their lands why would the Iceni and Trinovantes leave and go on attack in greater numbers than before?

Perhaps it was because Paulinus did not bring his whole army down south but possibly only the Fourteenth Legion and some auxiliaries.

Instead of defending London, advancing to Colchester or perhaps Thetford, Paulinus decides to retreat.

This would have been a strategy that the Brythons had not seen before and possibly after recent events took as weakness by Paulinus and the chance of an easy victory because of his reduced force.

At the end of September they decided to follow Paulinus to engage him but because of the recent successes more people than before went off to war.

This led to the winter wheat not being planted in the quantity needed for AD62.

Of course if the tribes left en masse they would have had to take all their provisions with them and relied totally on this.

In this scenario Boudica’s last battle possibly would have been possibly in early October with a great loss of life for the Brythons 

The bringing together of the whole Roman Army of Britannia to be kept under canvass possibly would have been late October.

The question here is when would have the reinforcements from the continent arrived?

Possibly by early November – the Roman fleet must have been used to travelling across the Channel in the last 17 years safely.

The new Procurator probably would have arrived with them

The Ninth would have been bolstered by the new legionaries.
         
Tacitus implies that the new auxiliaries and cavalry were placed in new Winter Quarters which may have been in the Trinovantes and Iceni territories.

Perhaps these new forts were built by December garrisoning the area of the rebels.

It would appear however that Paulinus kept up the attacks on the Brythons, even those who surrendered, much to the consternation of the Procurator who asked for him to be replaced.

Instead, possibly in March AD62, Claudius sent his agent to investigate but Paulinus was allowed to continue his campaign to eradicate the rebels who by this time were living in the margins of the Fens.

The next phase of the campaign appears to have been a sea invasion which cost “a few ships and their crews”.

Now Tacitus plays this down but there must have been considerable loss as it appears that this was what finally caused him to be replaced before the rebels were killed.

Perhaps this was May and he was replaced half way through the year by Petronius Turpilianus.

When he returned to Rome, perhaps in July, Paulinus was feted as a hero.

This seems to fit with the writings... but it is only one interpretation..... and I am sure there are some counter arguments.  Smile

Deryk   
Deryk
Reply
(12-05-2015, 11:14 PM)Renatus Wrote: This seems to be an Internet Explorer problem.

Seem so! I use Firefox.

Meanwhile - having been fairly convinced by the Autumn 60 revolt idea, I'm now swinging back the other way... There's a note in Agricola 18.1 that Agricola arrived in Britain in midsummer and found the troops lazing about, convinced there would be no fighting that year - which suggests the campaign season began before midsummer (June/July?).

Also, T mentions the reinforcements arriving from the Rhine before he says that Paulinus put his auxiliaries in new winter camps, implying they arrived during the same season as the battle, which as the seas close to shipping in late September would mean the battle was in midsummer...

I think at this point I'm just eager for any new ideas that might shake our thinking up a bit!
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-06-2015, 12:04 AM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Also, T mentions the reinforcements arriving from the Rhine before he says that Paulinus put his auxiliaries in new winter camps, implying they arrived during the same season as the battle, which as the seas close to shipping in late September would mean the battle was in midsummer...

I think that this needs to be qualified slightly. According to Vegetius (ERM, 4.39) from six days before the Kalends of June (i,e., 27 May) until 18 days before the Kalends of October (i.e., 14 September) the seas are safe. After that until three days before the Ides of November (i.e., 11 November) they are doubtful but still navigable. Thereafter the seas are closed until six days before the Ides of March (i.e., 10 March). This may not have much bearing on the date of the final battle but, if the seas were open until 11 November, this allows more time for all the events in the aftermath to take place, i.e., for Paulinus to carry out his campaign of retribution, for the reinforcements from the Continent to arrive, for Classicianus to be appointed to replace Catus, to travel to Britain, make his assessment of the effect of Paulinus' actions and to make his recommendations, and for Polyclitus and his entourage to travel to the province, investigate the situation and to return to Rome to present his report. It also suggests that Turpilianus could not have arrived in Britain to replace Paulinus before mid-March 62.
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
(12-06-2015, 05:06 PM)Renatus Wrote: this allows more time for all the events in the aftermath to take place

It does, just about - the kind of large-scale cross-channel transportation required to bring thousands of reinforcements from the continent may not have been attempted outside of the 'safe navigation' period, but this was an emergency, so... perhaps. And at a push it could have been completed before the middle of September.

I preferred the longer timescale as it required less shoehorning of events into tight spaces, but, as I say, I'm more inclined to the shorter version now (as I was before!).

Potentially the Iceni expected to be back to harvest the winter crop by late July - they weren't, and Tacitus's comment about the missed spring planting was an attempt to shift blame onto them and so exonerate Paulinus for his severity in the counter-insurgency phase of his campaign.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Renatus wrote:

.....this allows more time for all the events in the aftermath to take place, i.e., for Paulinus to carry out his campaign of retribution, for the reinforcements from the Continent to arrive, for for Classicianus to be appointed to replace Catus, to travel to Britain, make his assessment of the effect of Paulinus' actions and to make his recommendations, and for Polyclitus and his entourage to travel to the province, investigate the situation and to return to Rome to present his report. It also suggests that Turpilianus could not have arrived in Britain to replace Paulinus before mid-March 62.


I would have thought that Polyclitus arrived in mid-March 62 and Paulinus had the go ahead to continue the campaign in the new campaign season but unfortunately the disaster with the ships called for a new Governor.  

I understood that the consuls resigned half way through the year in imperial times which would allow for Turpilianus to arrive in August AD62 if that is correct.

Nathan Ross wrote:

I preferred the longer timescale as it required less shoehorning of events into tight spaces, but, as I say, I'm more inclined to the shorter version now (as I was before!).

You have now convinced me that for the warehouses to be full of wheat, unless the Roman Towns were supplied from abroad, the uprising started after the harvest was gathered in by both the Iceni and the Romans.

I think that the rebellion started in September which fits the wheat comments by Tacitus and allows 3 months for the major battle, the autumn / winter campaign,  the arrival of the reinforcements and the building of Winter Quarter all in AD61 but that the other events (Polyclitus and the disastrous loss of the ships were in AD62 with the replacement Governor arriving around August 62 and Paulinus back in Rome by September AD62

(Not really sure that these scenarios really change the actual battle site)

Cheers - Deryk
Deryk
Reply
(12-06-2015, 06:37 PM)Theoderic Wrote: I understood that the consuls resigned half way through the year in imperial times

Yes, the ordinary consuls appear to have been in office for the first six months, then handed over to suffects. There's an inscription which seems to suggest that Turpilianus had already been replaced as consul in April of 61, but Carroll redates this to the Flavian era.

Caesennius Paetus, who was ordinary consul with Turpilianus, was probably appointed governor of Cappadocia in midsummer 61, but did not arrive in his province until spring of 62. However, even these dates (like most unsupported chronology in Tacitus!) have been questioned as well, and redated to within 61 (see Carter, The "Lex Portorii" and the Armenian Campaign of Caesennius Paetus)... I do suspect that leaving Turpilianus's appointment until mid 62 would create too much of a time-lag: consuls were generally, I think, appointed to provinces pretty soon after they left their posts.


As you say, this doesn't much affect the battle site (except the rivers/streams issue I mentioned before, and the movements of the rebels regarding planting and harvesting), but it helps to get an overall picture of the campaign, the amount of time available for manoeuvre and delay, and even the appearance of the battle site. But it seems we can't really tell either way with the evidence we possess.
Nathan Ross
Reply
(12-06-2015, 05:48 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: It does, just about - the kind of large-scale cross-channel transportation required to bring thousands of reinforcements from the continent may not have been attempted outside of the 'safe navigation' period, but this was an emergency, so... perhaps. And at a push it could have been completed before the middle of September.

It would take some time to muster some 7000 troops and to transport them to Britain but, with the seas open until the beginning of November, I see no need for the process to be rushed to completion by mid-September. Some could undoubtedly have arrived by then but the rest could have been brought over in stages between then and, say, the end of October. The auxiliaries were, apparently, in Britain in time to be installed in newly-constructed winter quarters. This militates against a late campaign, which would allow little or no time for the reinforcements to be brought over before the seas closed.

(12-06-2015, 05:48 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: Tacitus's comment about the missed spring planting was an attempt to shift blame onto them and so exonerate Paulinus for his severity in the counter-insurgency phase of his campaign.

I am not sure that Tacitus would have felt the need for any such exoneration. He clearly thought that Paulinus was right and had no sympathy with those who favoured a more conciliatory approach.

(12-06-2015, 06:37 PM)Theoderic Wrote: I would have thought that Polyclitus arrived in mid-March 62 and Paulinus had the go ahead to continue the campaign in the new campaign season but unfortunately the disaster with the ships called for a new Governor.

Although it is possible that Polyclitus did not arrive until 62, it is not necessary or even likely for this to be so. This was a crisis in which the governor, having quite properly accomplished the defeat of the rebels, was now mishandling the aftermath and urgent action was required. If Classicianus arrived in the province shortly after the final battle, say sometime during July, he could have made his assessment and sent off his report by mid-August. Polyclitus could, possibly, have arrived by the end of September and had a month in which to reach his own conclusions before hurrying back to the Continent before the seas closed in November.  

(12-06-2015, 06:37 PM)Theoderic Wrote: I understood that the consuls resigned half way through the year in imperial times which would allow for Turpilianus to arrive in August AD62 if that is correct.

Unless I misunderstand the point you are making, this seems to be a non-sequitur. Turpilianus was ordinary consul in 61, so could have arrived in Britain by August 62, even if he had served the full year.

(12-06-2015, 06:37 PM)Theoderic Wrote: You have now convinced me that for the warehouses to be full of wheat, unless the Roman Towns were supplied from abroad, the uprising started after the harvest was gathered in by both the Iceni and the Romans.

This does not follow. After the fall of Colchester, the rebels proceeded to London. London was a major trading centre and its warehouses would have been full of supplies. Tacitus tells us that it was 'copia negotiatorum et commeatuum maxime celebre ', literally translated, 'filled to the highest degree with an abundance of merchants and provisions'. It was, therefore, the natural target of the rebels after Colchester and where, no doubt, they expected to seize the bulk of the supplies that they relied upon to sustain them until they were able to resume normal husbandry.
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


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,482 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: