Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
Dan Jones puts the "Battle of Watling Street"  "not far from" the Lunt - but bottles naming a site;

https://www.channel5.com/show/walking-br...man-roads/

(although the cheap skates used drone footage from Church Stowe Wink )
(Lunt = 19.9 miles from Church Stowe, 14.6 miles from Mancetter, 44 miles from Tring, 65 miles from the Ogbournes)

520,476
Reply
Renatus wrote: 


We therefore have three options:
 
1.    Paulinus proceeds to London with his army.
2.      Cavalry dash.
3.      Sea voyage.


As we are still in lock-down(ish) and are debating options (and although I still feel that the Tring area fits the bill at least as well as Church Stowe) I thought it may be interesting to add something else to the mix.
 
I have always thought that there is perhaps a 4th option.

We know that Paulinus received the news of the attack on Colchester whilst he was wrapping up the campaign at Anglesey.

We do not know if he also heard of the actions of the 9th at this time and their defeat but we know that he was a planner.

He may have thought that Cerialis would have gone to the aid of Colchester as the city was in his area of control.

It would have been inevitable that as there was an uprising he would automatically have taken the army that was already mobilised to support the 9th who were depleted as we know as half of them were garrisoning the Brigantian forts in the North East.

Watling Street was the quickest way to the area, firstly to protect the towns (St Albans and London)and to make punitive reprisals in the Colchester area, once these locations had been secured and the requested other troops had arrived.

His first point of arrival would have been St Albans which had excellent road links to Colchester via Braughing and to London and also via the Camlet Way to Silchester (Margary 163) .
 
His problem was a lack of information.

Catus had fled so although Paulinus could secure St Albans but he had no idea of the details of what had happened or what was the current situation.

Rather than take his whole army to London into an unknown and exposed situation, he could take his mounted troops to reconnoitre what was happening in London and the outlying districts leaving the legionaries at St Albans keeping the populace of St Albans secure and ready to greet the reinforcements he has asked for.

He could then have gained first hand knowledge of the uprising and the demographics and logistics of London itself.

As we know from the text, he left with those who could keep up because he didn't have enough troops nor was there an adequate defensible position. 


This does bring up the intriguing possibility that when he returned to St Albans and then he left with the citizens, not North up Watling Street, nor West along Akeman Street but South West along the Camlet Way towards Silchester where there are many options for battle in the Chilterns.....or farther west at Marten, Shalbourne or Ogbourne. 


  
Deryk
Reply
Hello Deryk,

You say, "This does bring up the intriguing possibility that when he returned to St Albans and then he left with the citizens, not North up Watling Street, nor West along Akeman Street but South West along the Camlet Way towards Silchester where there are many options for battle in the Chilterns.....or farther west at Marten, Shalbourne or Ogbourne."

This is possible but it might depend on whether the Camlet Way was a reality. Marlow Archaeology have produced a well-balanced piece on this road -
http://www.marlowarchaeology.org/camlet-...MCL=vnWAdM .

As you know, I favour the western, prospective, battle sites that you mention, especially Ogbourne St. George. However I prefer the more simple case that Paulinus was in London with the army and that they took the most direct westwards route - cross Thames at Staines, then on to Silchester and further west.

Regards, Steve Kaye
Reply
Mancetter fights back...... Mystic Britain:Legend of the Warrior Queen Smithsonian Channel (Clive Anderson/ Mary Ann Ochota) goes with "Some historians think it is Mancetter".... only cited alternative was Kings Cross.... palm to face....  is it still 1968? Well at least the committed to 61AD and a burial on Hampstead Heath or Birdlip... Painful and some big names associated with it.....  Big Grin Big Grin Big Grin


523,132
Reply
John1 Wrote:If you are stuck for something to do in lock down I can thoroughly recommend Margaret Hughes' book- Boudicca at Mancetter. required reading for any student of the topic;




I have got round to reading this.  I am not sure why you recommend it so highly.  To me, it is flawed and misleading.  The pity is that the Atherstone Civic Society will probably be peddling it to unsuspecting visitors to the Roman Mancetter Heritage Centre and they are likely to believe it.
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
I'm sorry you feel like that about the book and recommendation. 

In spite of the general dismissal of the Mancetter candidacy on this forum it remains the "go to" location theory for the battlefield in academia and the media. In addition Mancetter has been subject to the most extensive archaeological investigation of all candidates. This book summarizes this position and adds new information/theories to previous documents on the site. 

In addition Margaret has provided an appendix of short summaries of many of the other candidates written by the authors of those theories making the book a unique print resource in that respect as far as I am aware. 

I continue to recommend this book to anyone who wants as complete an overview of the current position in print.
Reply
John1 Wrote:In spite of the general dismissal of the Mancetter candidacy on this forum it remains the "go to" location theory for the battlefield in academia and the media.

Precisely, which is why we do not need another book pushing one of the less likely sites. She calls it a hypothesis but, in that case, it would have been more honest to put a question mark after 'Mancetter' in the title.  Her reasoning is faulty in a number of instances but is put forward with such conviction as to be likely to mislead those new to the subject.  It is true that she summarises some alternative suggestions but only after seeking to 'prioritise' Mancetter, so she is really only playing lip-service to the possibility of there being an alternative.  Nor is the list of alternatives complete.  Where are Nick Fuentes' Virginia Water, Deryk Cundy's Tring or even Foord & Home's somewhere between Banstead and Guildford?  You may not like them, as I do not like some of the other suggestions, but they are out there and deserve to be considered, at least.
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
Victory Temple at Caistor?  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-54031373

532,270
Reply
(09-14-2020, 08:57 AM)John1 Wrote: Victory Temple at Caistor?  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-54031373

"It was built by the Iceni tribe" - Stockholm Syndrome?
Nathan Ross
Reply
Renatus Wrote:I thought that it might be worth accessing Haverfield’s 1914 letter to The Antiquary as this probably summarises his definitive view of the revolt. It is in Vol. 50 of the journal on pp. 439-440, under the title ‘The Battle between Boadicea and Suetonius’. Unfortunately, it is only available in snippet view in Google Books. However, I have found four snippets which probably cover most of the ground. The first is the beginning of the letter and the others, which join together, are the end of it, the last being followed by Haverfield’s name. There is a gap of uncertain length between the first and the second snippets and some of the wording is indistinct, so it may be worth getting a decent copy of it, once the libraries reopen, to clarify any uncertainties. My reading of what I have found is as follows:

‘In your September number, a reviewer of Messrs. Foord and Gordon’s [sic, the authors are Edward Foord and Gordon Home] England Invaded (London, 1913) discusses the Roman conquest of Britain, and credits me with the “assumption that Suetonius retired on Deva” before he fought with Boadicea.  . . . should like to say that I do not think that I have ever made the assumption in question, though others have. What I have said about the campaign of Suetonius is this in brief: The narrative of Tacitus shows clearly that: i. when the revolt of Boadicea broke out in East Anglia Suetonius was fighting in or near Anglesea with a force not precisely described, but certainly comprising the better part of the 20,000 men then stationed in or near Chester: ii. that he at once posted to the scene of the revolt, moving – very naturally – faster than the main body and reached London with practically no troops: and iii. that he then fell back on his main body, and fought the battle. So far Tacitus. The line of the Roman roads enables us to add that, coming from Anglesea, he must have marched along Watling Street, and his troops must have come up behind him along the same line. The fight must then have taken place somewhere along Watling Street, or near it. It is even possible that it was near Chester, though it is not likely. I prefer my own suggestion, that it was in the southern Midlands. It cannot possibly have been in Surrey, as your reviewer urges, because Suetonius cannot have gone there to meet the troops whom Tacitus says he did meet. Your reviewer does not seem to have grasped either what Tacitus says, or – what matters less – what I have said.’

It may be remembered that I partially reconstructed Francis Haverfield's 1914 letter to The Antiquary on the subject of the Boudican revolt but that there was a section missing.  I have now obtained a full copy of the letter, care of the Roman Society Library, and can supply the missing wording, although it does not add much to what we already have.  The missing section reads:

'The subject has not much to do with invasions of Britain, nor has it much to do with England Invaded, in which I am neither quoted nor named.  But I . . .'

I have also obtained a copy of the review to which Haverfield was responding.  The passage to which he took exception, especially the last sentence, reads as follows:

'Mr. Foord, who is largely responsible for the main part of the history, has suggested some fascinating solutions to old problems.  Most of his conclusions have the merit of being supported by the evidence of first-hand investigation of the places concerned.  The most important of these solutions is the identification of the site of the great battle between Boudicca and Suetonius.  Mr. Foord, in opposition to Professor Haverfield, would seek for it in the districts south of London, and he finally limits the area of search to the neighbourhood of Dorking and Box Hill, where there are sites which agree admirably with the somewhat scanty descriptions we possess.  Mr. Foord's case is completely convincing, and seems to be fully proved, as far as proof is possible; in any case, Professor Haverfield's assumption that Suetonius retired upon Deva is seen to be impossible.'
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
(09-30-2020, 09:46 PM)Renatus Wrote: Mr. Foord... finally limits the area of search to the neighbourhood of Dorking and Box Hill, where there are sites which agree admirably with the somewhat scanty descriptions we possess.

Interesting! - thanks for rooting that out.

The Dorking Gap has been suggested here too, of course - it does 'agree admirably', except for the presence of the River Mole... and Foord seems to have forgotten about the 'closed in the rear by a wood' bit. There's a plausible 'defile' off to the west of Dorking too, beneath the ridge of the downs, around Westcott.
Nathan Ross
Reply
Thanks for the reference, Mr Haverfield sounds like an eminently sensible man.

Sad to report Martin Marix Evans (of the Cuttle Mill theory) died over the summer.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x475kp7

http://towcestermuseum.co.uk/wp-content/...ellion.pdf

538,250
Reply
It would be interesting to know who the reviewer was.  If Haverfield was neither quoted nor named in the book, it looks as if the reviewer was having a private swipe at him.  Unfortunately, the review is anonymous and the only clue we have is a comment made by the editor after Haverfield's letter: 'We should like to have submitted Professor Haverfield's letter to the reviewer of England Invaded, but on account of the war this is impossible.'  I infer from this that the reviewer had joined up on the outbreak of war and had been sent abroad before November, when Haverfield's letter appeared.
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
I thought for fun that I would like to track the development of my ideas on this subject, so I copied the posts in which I made what seemed to me to be half-way significant comments into a Word document.  It runs to 105 pages.  I suspect that, if others here were to do the same, the result would be even longer.
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
I have just looked up Boudicca [sic ] on the online version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and that says that the site of the battle is thought to be near Fenny Stratford.  Where does that come from?
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 3,481 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: