03-18-2021, 07:36 PM
(03-10-2021, 12:06 AM)Theoderic Wrote:(03-09-2021, 11:26 PM)Renatus Wrote: There was a typo in the last sentence of my last post which I have now corrected. I have added 'not' before 'imply'.
I think that is fine.
The included diagram shows that the wagons could have enclosed the site.
Where the waggons are situated there is a full view of the battlefield.
As you can see from the Roman lines the waggons wrap around the battle site, because they have to.
OK,i will admit i've still not read all the posts ,but I think it is time to reconsider what we should be looking for based on our knowledge of Roman warfare and Paulinus's miltary career.Briefly,no very briefly,Gaius Suetonius Paulinus had a good reputation as a miltary commander following his campaign in North Africa and was chosen to continue the conquest of Britain.At this time the Roman army built Marching camps ,where they stayed for a few days while suppressing the local tribes.This provided them with a safe base where they could rest and prepare for the following days.Paulinus was a careful commander,not one for rash behaviour,so we are told.So surely with a few days to prepare,he would build a camp.He built camps everywhere he went so to think he did not build one for his troops and the civillians beefore the battle would seem out of character for him and the Roman army.Fighting up hill,thats no good ,and the wagons spreading out ,but being unable to move doesnt work either.If they are spread out,then they can easily move.If they are crammed into a narrow area then there movement is constricted.Wherever the battlefield is Paulinus thought it held enough advantages that he gave up London and St Albans.I cant see waiting in a ditch below your enemy has that much going for it,sorry.
Ian
