Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.
You do realise there is a price on my head in Mancetter for being sexist and ageist? (and a Boudicca at Mancetter denier)
https://atherstone.nub.news/n/atherstone...nal-battle

and for the record "typography" has never, ever, been a part of my thesis !!!!


543,057

(10-21-2020, 02:01 PM)Nathan Ross Wrote: John1this thread has been running for over 10 years

So it has! I think this post was close enough to the decennial anniversary. A long strange journey indeed!

Does this make it an "X" rated thread? - I'll get my coat......
Reply
Oh God!  They call it the Roman and BOUDICA Centre!  And I see that Margaret Hughes is playing the gender card.

When I spoke to the Secretary of the Atherstone Civic Society to order a copy of her book, he complained that the Britain's Lost Battlefields programme had placed greater emphasis on Church Stowe than on Mancetter.  Perhaps the makers of the programme realised that Church Stowe was the more plausible site.
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 am certain it was not Margaret, it smacks of a journo trying to trigger people on the basis of some perceived offence. Margaret's great and not responsible for other peoples story telling.

I think if you total up actual screen time, including the Mancetter reenactor, it's pretty much an even break. Plus I did pay Rob Bell a tidy sum to get more camera time and to cut the scene where I'm chased around a freezing field wearing nothing but woad and a stick.
Reply
John1 Wrote:I did pay Rob Bell a tidy sum . . . to cut the scene where I'm chased around a freezing field wearing nothing but woad and a stick.

That sounds like money well spent.
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 been reflecting on Dio's description of the battle.  It is markedly different from that of Tacitus, of course, and Tacitus' description is generally held to be the more accurate, I believe.  Nevertheless, it raises questions of its own.  Dio says that Paulinus could not extend his line to match that of the rebels because, even if he drew his men up one deep, his line would not stretch far enough.  On the other hand, he dared not form up his force in a single block for fear that it would be surrounded and cut to pieces.  Accordingly, he separated it into three divisions and made each so strong that it could not easily be broken through, in order to engage the enemy at several points at the same time.

The first question is whether this tactic is an invention of Dio's or of someone earlier in the chain of transmission, who may have known little more than that the Romans had prevailed against overwhelming odds, or whether it had a precedent.  Do we know of any other Roman commander who adopted similar tactics against a numerically superior enemy?

The second is how effective would such a tactic be, anyway.  Would not each of the three divisions be similarly in danger of being engulfed and overwhelmed?  Dio seems aware of that possibility when he comments that, having broken through the enemy line, the Romans found themselves surrounded and had to fight everywhere at once.

Any thoughts?
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
(10-25-2020, 10:10 PM)Renatus Wrote: Any thoughts?

I confess I have long assumed that Dio merely invented the three-fold battle line to give himself an excuse to compose three different rousing pre-battle speeches for Paulinus. So much of Dio seems to be a bare narrative frame on which to hang rhetorical exercises.

It does seem a little strange otherwise. I suppose we might guess that the constricted terrain compelled him to place the three divisions of his army at such a distance that he could not address them all together?
Nathan Ross
Reply
Nathan Ross Wrote:I confess I have long assumed that Dio merely invented the three-fold battle line to give himself an excuse to compose three different rousing pre-battle speeches for Paulinus . . . I suppose we might guess that the constricted terrain compelled him to place the three divisions of his army at such a distance that he could not address them all together?

I think I see where you're coming from.  The three-fold battle line certainly gives Dio the opportunity to concoct three speeches but my assumption has been that this was not its sole purpose.  It is my belief that Dio or his source did not have the benefit of access to Tacitus' account and accordingly thought that the battle took place on an open battlefield and felt the need to invent a formation that might explain how Paulinus avoided being encircled by the vastly greater numbers of the enemy.  He seems to be unaware that the Roman army was drawn up in a defile which provided that protection.

Having said that, it does appear that someone in the chain of transmission had some acquaintance with a description of the encounter similar to that of Tacitus.  Dio says that the Romans slew many 'beside the wagons and the forest', without having mentioned either beforehand.  The reference to the wagons is obvious but the only forest that we know of is that protecting Paulinus' rear.  If that is the forest in question, its role in the battle has been misunderstood.  This is not surprising if the story had been transmitted orally, as well as in writing, and had been subject to the distortions that can occur in that means of communication over the period of a century and a half.
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
(10-26-2020, 04:36 PM)Renatus Wrote: It is my belief that Dio or his source did not have the benefit of access to Tacitus' account and accordingly thought that the battle took place on an open battlefield... If that is the forest in question, its role in the battle has been misunderstood.

Yes, that sounds entirely feasible. Most of Dio's description seems to be a generic 'battle piece', but it would make sense if he had tried to integrate the few details he might have heard about, and perhaps misplaced them.
Nathan Ross
Reply
John,

Neither of us is a fan of Mancetter being the site of the battle but it is always helpful to know what you're objecting to, so I have been trying to get a handle on where those supporting Mancetter seek to place it.  I assume that the site that Margaret Hughes describes in her book is the same as that proposed by Graham Webster.  Looking at the Lidar images in the book and at the satellite view in Google Maps, I conclude that her 'defile' is the narrow strip of land with hedgerows on either side leading down to a kink in the Coventry canal.  She has two photographs in her book, one taken in the 'defile' looking towards the Anker plain but, frankly, I cannot make much sense of the other one.

I believe that you have visited the area.  Do you agree with my assessment of where she places the battle and would you happen to have any photographs giving a better impression of the topography?
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 point where the valley opens up to the plain is close to the canal and White House Farm at SP 32260 95207 (red dot in plans at the foot of the message). Margaret selects this point I am not sure Webster was ever that precise, his diagram which Margaret quotes has no valley.

The valley in question is narrow, the side relatively shallow, with a 10-15m vertical range over 100m at the mouth. This will vary a bit, I measured the knoll NE of White House Farm to the valley bottom. The slope angle is relatively typical of all but the steep ridge top which is really too steep to deploy on and neither Margaret or Webster are suggesting this.

So the slope angle is low, valley bottom narrow. The site can be outflanked and over looked rather easily and the field of view for a commander would have been extremely compromised. I see the networks of valleys supposedly concealing Romans as more of a blind, death trap for those same forces.

The best views would be from the White House Farm Drive or the Canal (I have been to neither I stayed on the A5 and went around Hartshill), all other views are compromised by woodland and hedgerows.

   

   
This one is a 3d Lidar model of the valley mouth seen from the North. I believe it shows the lack of height and slope angle that makes the candidate unlikely, but also how easy it would be to take any defending force from the flanks. Once out of the valley it is a simple field battle that would not go well for the Romans on a numerical basis, but this seems to be one of the potentials advanced in Fig 16 of Margaret's book.

   

   

But Mancetter does not seem to be shifting as the go-to location for the battle in either academia or popular culture, I guess it's a case of the persistence of myth over science.... I won't be making any special trips to shoot Mancetter but if I am in the area I will pop along the tow path for some pictures.

548,313

I've never really bothered to look at the site geology at Mancetter. Michael Wood described it as a "Quartzite Ridge" and Margaret uses the geology in her fig 7 describing a minor fault forming the engagement valley in a 1914 geological map. So for the record, it is NOT a "Quartzite Ridge"* it appears to be comprised of sedimentary, mainly shale, bedrock with Ordovician Lamprophyre intrusions of Silica poor magma, so not really a "quartzite". Whilst the fault may well be there it has not made it through to the BGS map I was looking at and doesn't seem to hold any significance to the battle other than as the ancient origin of one of the small valleys.

   

* but Michael Wood is forgiven for this as it was just TV and who knows what the editors do to you... but not forgiven for starting this addiction when I was in primary school.....

I have criticised Mancetter for valley size, slope height and slope gradient. Here is a direct comparison to scale of the whole Mancetter area (remember lower slope first 3 contour lines -15m) alongside a small section of the CS site. Mancetter could fit into the small corner of CS near Castle Dykes. The height gain and steepness of CS could only be matched at Mancetter if the engagement started far higher up the slope. In terms of Valley we are talking fundamentally different scales. If each combatant on the Iceni side had 1 m2 that would be 25 ha, a good fit for the CS bowl an impossibility at Mancetter unless 90% of the force never entered the valley. Height gain at CS 40m, height gain at Mancetter 15m.

CS is a Battlefield scale valley, Mancetter is a minor skirmish scale ravine.

   
Reply
(11-18-2020, 08:06 PM)John1 Wrote: Mancetter is a minor skirmish scale ravine.

There's barely anything there at all. It's a mere ripple in the ground on the slope of a river plain. This is not a 'deflle'. This is not the battle site.

   
Nathan Ross
Reply
On the fence again then Mr Ross?
Reply
A same-scale comparison with some of the other sites we've been discussing:

Church Stowe
   

Dunstable
   

Tring
   

Newground
   

Aldbury
   
Nathan Ross
Reply
you are making Church Stowe look very good there..... hate the colour scheme though, bit of a throw back to 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMyxLbpxS6U

But if we are going to use that colour scheme here is CS and the Farthingstone valley compared to Mancetter. Do you see the Hartshill Valley? Didn't think so.....

   

   
Reply
(11-18-2020, 10:50 PM)John1 Wrote: you are making Church Stowe look very good there

It's a good-looking site, undoubtably. It's just in the wrong part of the country. Move it thirty miles south-east and maybe...


(11-18-2020, 10:50 PM)John1 Wrote: hate the colour scheme though

I don't pick the decor around here, sadly.
Nathan Ross
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Armchair Wall walking mcbishop 3 3,483 01-11-2012, 03:22 AM
Last Post: Vindex

Forum Jump: