Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

... are you suggesting they are not forts? Clearly we have to rewrite all Roman history...

Building a fortification as a supply base or to camp while on the march is quite different to 'getting behind a secure wall' when attacked.

Suetonius Paulinus did not build or seek a fort from which to fight his battle. He fought in the open, as most Roman commanders did in this period. No 'rewriting of history' is required.

The Romans were engineers who used engineering to create one of the most effective armies in the ancient world. A defensive line, massively increases the defensive as well as offensive ability of a force, and there is no doubt, if anyone looks at the Roman world, that they were positively obsessed with walls and walled forts.

So, to suggest that the Romans, being obsessed with walls, then ignored their obsession with attacked by a force so superior that they had to give up London, is really quite ridiculous.

Paulinus is clearly in a defensive position when he gets to London. He is clearly not in a position to attack, he does not have the numbers and he has no secure base from which to plan and launch an attack as he cannot hold London. THAT IS A DEFENSIVE POSITION.

If, as you appear to be saying, the Roman tactic in that defensive position is not to seek the benefit of a line of defence aka wall, then are you suggesting that walls are offensive ... if so, what is the comment "Romans fight in the open"?

Or, are we back to the idea that Forts & walls are just luxury villas ... with no offensive or defensive military purpose?

having studied the hydrology of thames, probably in more detail than anyone else

Then you will know all about the ancient ford at Cliffe, the ford at Lambeth, and the ford at Brentford (where the water was only 3 feet deep at ebb tide as late as 1695)?

The Thames in the Roman period was probably 10-15 feet shallower than it is today.

Cliffehistory: "It should be pointed out that during the Roman period the River Thames was at least 9 feet lower than it is today" ... and it should be pointed out, that basic hydrology means the river level is set not by the sea level, but by the flow and sediment coming down the river. The result is that the river, in the tidal part, is not that different than it is today. It would have been slightly wider in the centre of London, so slightly shallower, but whilst that does improve fordability, it doesn't change it much. And, given the Thames is almost impossible to cross, except at very low tides and very low flows, it would still be extremely difficult to cross in the Roman period.

The ford at the House of Parliament is likewise an extremely difficult crossing, attempted once in modern times, again at very low flow and very low tide ... with the result the noble lord attempting it had to swim. It is one of the handful of sites, that might have been crossable at some low tides and low rivers ... and again easily defended with a small force.

Brentford is a ford on the river Brent. I could find no credible evidence of a ford across the Thames there. [Addendum: however, I think there is one suggestion it was a really muddy horrible place to cross ... it's not out of the question, but the evidence is slim]

What you must also be aware of, is that when people refer to a "ford" they also mean a shallow or fast section of river. So, for example when they dredged the "fords" of the Clyde, what they meant is they dredged the shallow bits of the river. However, only a few of these have any evidence that they were habitually used to cross the Clyde.

There is another potential fording site at Chertsey, which has some credibility as the site chosen by Caesar to cross the Thames, but above that the nature of the Thames seems to change as there are almost no records of any fords above that despite the size of the river getting smaller. Then you get to Goring and from there to Oxford there are plenty of likely fording sites.

So, as I said, there are only a handful of fording sites up to Goring. Each of these is extremely easy to defend, because most are tidal and only crossable for a short time at the lowest tides and at the lowest river flows. Being difficult, there is only a small path across the wide river, and it is extremely easy to block off that path ... and with a very short time to make it across, a small force can easily hold back any attackers until the river is again uncrossable.

with the north up in revolt

The revolt was in East Anglia, not the north.

Sorry I though St.Albans was North of London ...Cerialis set out from his base in Lindum Colonia .. I recollect his camp was north of London (but I cannot find that now)

I never suggested the Belgae were allies.

"the friendly pro-roman Belgae tribes" suggests allies, no?

I'm not sure where we got mixed up. The Brigantes, Welsh and Iceni would have had his northern troops in a British Sandwich. When they moved east into England. We know the Iceni were revolting and were taking or about to control the land north of London. We know the Brigates and Welsh had no love of the Romans and strong enough to take them on. And we know the other tribes didn't give a lot of resistance to conquest. So, when we look at where the army ends up, it is with a "horse shoe" of strong roman-disliking tribes, with the only exit being straight down the middle of the country toward somewhere between Gloucester and Oxford.

However, if we look at a Roman road map of Britain, we find that the roads when going south either head to Cirencester or to London. And, as London and its surround were controlled by Icenis shortly after Paulinus leaves, that means the army can only get to Paulinus by road if it heads to Cirencester.

The Belgae I refer to are the Gauls who invaded Britain around 150BC and who both caesar and Tacitus refer to. There is plenty of historical evidence for these Gauls in the "SE" of England. They were an elite, who clearly took over much of the SE, so it is reasonable to suppose that the area to the South of the Thames was controlled by the Gallic elite.

they have to pretty insane to walk into the area they do not control, without their calvary support, without the ability to know what is happening, and without secure supply lines.

Walking into areas they do not control is what armies commonly do in wartime. Paulinus had cavalry support, he had scouts, and nothing (aside from your own inventions) suggests that he was cut off from his supply lines.

I'm not sure, by the way, if all the bizarre stuff about duck ponds, mobile phones etc is simply intended to be funny - sometimes these things do not come across all that well in this medium!

"Walking into areas they do not control is what armies commonly do in wartime." ... when they are attacking. When they have had time to prepare. When they have a "base" from which to fight the war. But Paulinus had none of this.

By the time he got to London, he didn't even know if his own army had also been attacked and wiped out. He was alone with the Iceni hoards a matter of days away. There was no time to fortify London, all he could do is to evacuate Londoners across the Thames and retreat with them and use the Thames defensive line to hold back the Iceni with his small force, until the bulk of his army arrived.

If he didn't hold them at the Thames ... they would swarm across the Thames and drive him down to the south coast and across the Channel. And, if he headed north ... for a start, his mad dash down to London, meant he had no time or resources to secure control over this route to his army. With the ninth and St.Albans falling we can be sure that Boudica would quite capable of intercepting any messengers between Paulinus and his army using the same route Paulinus took ... because this exactly where Boudica would have placed some forces, to block the roads, and having defeated the ninth, we have to assume she was now in control over the countryside north of London. If Paulinus attempted to retrace his route, without the infantry to take on defended positions, it would be extremely easy to halt cavalry with a few stakes and so he would be trotting into an ambush ... at best, he would end up stuck in his encampment like the ninth ... surrounded, with supply lines cut and with Boudica able to cross the Thames with ease and the whole of Britain lost.