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

Not that successful - the Romans had managed to completely conquer most of Britain by this point. 

Caesar's invasion force was largely successful in open battle, and brought the Britons to surrender - it was his own poor planning that led to his retreat (although we only have Caesar's own account, of course...). The Romans beat the Britons at the Medway and the Thames, and defeated Caratacus in pitched battle in c.51. The previous Iceni revolt, in 47, had been defeated with the storming of one fort.

The Caledonians and others in the north seem to have given the Romans more trouble, but still mustered for open battle at Mons Graupius, and were duly defeated.

Insurgency and ambushes could have been successful against a scattered occupying power, but not against an army in the field - which could be why Boudica attempted to defeat Paulinus by weight of numbers.


I think we are talking at cross purposes here. There is no question that in a formal battle the Roman Army was far better than the Brythons. That is the point; the Brython's success only happened in broken order when they were harrying a column or from an ambush or a surprising a foraging party; hit and run tactics - which is why I do not think that Cerealis had a formal battle outside Colchester

Caesar had very few open battles at all, either in 55 or 54 BC and was forced into a burnt earth policy as an attack and probably needed a truce as much as the Brythons. 

By this point in AD61 a lot of the Brythonic Tribes had been conquered and assimulated into the Roman Empire but there were a number of "Client Kings" who ruled their own subjects (the Iceni, the Brigantes, the Atrebates and possibly Verulamium and its environs) yet even so,  according to the experts there were many forts garrisoning the country (40,000 men in the army) - hardly a peaceful occupation - more of a repressed state. Even Tacitus states that Rome had not tried to give any benefits to the Brythons but only taken the spoils.
 
There is no denying that the Brythons could assemble vast forces quickly and effectively (Medway and previous battles) and equally quickly melt away.

Nathan wrote:

By the final confrontation they were certainly in one body.


Something we can agree on - but they could have mustered anywhere - including the battle site.

Nathan wrote:

A tempting analogy - but we have to remember that, following a few clashes during the initial invasion, and Boudica's revolt nearly twenty years later, most of southern Britain seem to have remained entirely peaceful under Roman rule for over 400 years. This does not suggest an intractable and indomitable warrior people, and was very different to the Afghan experience. 


The first 8 years from AD43 to the uprising was fractious with constant advances and fighting and the territory won which would then be intensely garrisoned. This was a warrior people contained and  much time and force was spent keeping down the Silures and the Ordovices even after Caractacus was captured and only ended as part of the SP campaign which finished on Anglesey. 

Even after Boudica was defeated the Brythons still fought on in the fens and it wasn't until SP had left that a period of total peace reigned throughout the Country although "Wales" may have been lost...requiring Frontinus to re-conquer it in the 70's as well as take on the Brigantes.

I would agree that after Agricola it was more peaceful but a number of generals continued to battle the inhabitants of the North for many years and many "cut their teeth" on the "front line".  


Nathan wrote:

What leads you to think that Boudica's rebels were organised or disciplined? We have no evidence either way. As you say, the fact that Cerialis led such a small force against the rebels* around Colchester suggests that he didn't rate their capabilities that highly, or underestimated their numbers - he was rash, but not suicidal. 

While the Britons may have had a nucleus of trained warriors (although they had apparently been disarmed after the 47 revolt), I would think that most of their vast army would probably have been untrained farmers and other tribesmen armed with improvised weapons.

*Edit - 2000 men was only the number of legionaries needed to replace the losses in the 9th legion. Tacitus says that the rebels 'destroyed his infantry' (peditum interfecit); a routed force will commonly lose around 37% of its number. But even if the 9th detachment lost 4 out of every 5 men, the original force could have numbered 5000 infantry (50/50 auxiliary/legionary), and probably at least 500 cavalry. The loss or dispersal of such a force would have been a major blow to Paulinus's plans.


I would agree that much of the army would not be elite warriors and possibly farm labourers etc. and indeed women - numbers required to overrun an undefended town but there could have been a substantial core of warriors ready to take on an advancing Cerealis although I still favour an ambush.  

14 years to re-arm secretly is easily possible

It does no justice to the various Roman generals to dismiss the Brythons as a rabble and certainly Julius Caesar seems to rate their expertise and for them to have held the Roman Army at the Medway for two days speaks volumes. Also this first force of Boudica's had also captured forts - no mean feat.

Regarding the 9th as a force of some 5,500 military is possible but if that was a loss or dispersal it as you say would have really stretched Roman resources later on.

Nathan wrote:



Verulamium was a municipium, not a colonia - the inhabitants were allied Britons, and only the most senior men had citizenship. London, on the other hand, "though not distinguished by the title of colony, was none the less a busy centre, chiefly through its crowd of merchants and stores" (Annals 14.33) - most of these merchants would have been Roman citizens, so it was the more important place to defend.

SP had been a Governor of Britain for two years and would have known the defensive possibilities of London before he arrived there this time as all good generals would. 

Most Roman citizens of worth would have already escaped with Catus if the situation was dire or the perception was of imminent danger but the supplies would have needed to be taken or destroyed perhaps by both sides.

Verulamium was important because if Rome could not defend its own allies it would prove that it was weak and could not protect its own.

Nathan wrote:

The Britons needed grain, and London had a lot of it. If they took London they could cut Paulinus's main communication route with the south coast, and revenge themselves on Decianus Catus. It was a clear objective for them, I would say.

Again, unless London was threatened by a very large hostile rebel force, Catus would not have fled from the place, Paulinus would not have thought of fighting his battle there, and he would not then have evacuated it.
   



Still do not buy this argument.

They may have needed the grain but I am not convinced unless they wanted to starve the Romans so it may have been a strategic target.    

SP still had around 35,000 men (allowing for the partial loss of the 9th) so plenty of men to regroup and he could easily communicate from Chichester, Poole or any of the Southern Ports to the continent if necessary for further reinforcements to land along the south coast.

Once Colchester was burnt to the ground Catus would have realised that there were no local troops to defend London and left either from selfish reasons or indeed as you have reasoned for the benefit of the State.  

He would have reasoned that a Roman army would have reached London in 3 days maximum and possibly 2 days and would have had no intelligence of the movement of the Brythonic horde and left ASAP just to be on the safe side.  

We don't know if SP had chosen London as a battle site originally only that he decided that it was a poor position to defend and at this time he may have only been thinking of withdrawing  to fight in another season (or a stronger place) when he had more troops. 

The implication is that he learnt the lesson from the destruction of the 9th not to go on the offensive with his "little army" against a larger force.
  
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
RE: Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand. - by Theoderic - 09-14-2016, 06:44 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,480 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: