02-28-2017, 02:04 PM
(01-13-2017, 02:09 PM)John1 Wrote: One big camp demands an early commitment to what might prove be an untenable perimeter...
As the Roman army were apparently capable of building a camp for an entire army at the end of every day's march I don't think we need to assume they were limited to any early commitments in terms of camp size!
(01-13-2017, 02:09 PM)John1 Wrote: I think for a Tring/Dunstable advocate you are being a bit binary about regional definitions with that one. CS being closer to Iceni territory than Tring.....
Although, as you say, the revolt itself was in the south-east, not in Iceni territory - the only geographical coordinates we have are Colchester, London and St Albans - all a lot closer to Dunstable or Tring than to any site in the Midlands.
But the circularity of this argument is now very well established!
(02-02-2017, 12:54 PM)John1 Wrote: this MOLA site recently claiming a Boudican association, at 3.7 acres it's a lot smaller than the putative sites at Church Stowe or Windridge, both about 10 acres;
Interesting. Permanent forts seem to have a bigger 'footprint' than temporary camps. At 3.7 acres this early London fort is about the same size at Castlesteads on Hadrian's Wall. I would guess it might have housed a single quingenary auxiliary cohort, perhaps equitata.
(I like the idea of the saint's shrine. Although nothing to do with our battle, of course...)
Nathan Ross