Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

I have studied the subject in great detail... I don't think you will get a better opinion on the subject of fording the Thames.

As you have already said that you do not believe the level of the Thames to have changed considerably since ancient times, and Mortimer Wheeler (and others) claim it has dropped by up to 15 feet, an idea supported by the many details in our sources of people fording the river at various places, you must forgive me if I prefer Wheeler's opinions on the subject to yours!

Anyway, this business of defending the Thames is completely immaterial, it turns out (see below).

The land mass of the south of England has been sinking by about 1.5mm to 2mm per year. Which means at the time of Boudica, the sea level would be about 3m lower than it is today. Unfortunately for your and Wheeler's argument, the simple fact of hydrology, means that the river bed would have been 3m lower, the Thames valley being formed from the deposit of Thames gravels into the valley as the sea level rose from the ice-age interglacial maximum when the sea level was perhaps 50m lower. (Or it was at Rome).

So, although the top of the water was 3m lower, the bottom of the water, within the infilling river, was also 3m lower, so the river level, for someone crossing the river, would be the same.

Now, having run a hydrological scale model of rivers, where I've repeated the sequence and ... well it is fairly standard hydrology, the simple fact is that rivers adjust to the changes in the sea level and they adjust in known ways and if Wheeler had known anything about the hydrology of the Thames, he would not have made such silly mistake.

The Road to London is overrun by the Iceni. The Welsh tribes would likely have followed the army out. The Brigantes may have started preparing for war, and not on the Roman side.

This is entirely imaginary. The Iceni were in the vicinity of Colchester, possibly moving as far north-west as Godmanchester. The Welsh tribes were defeated and Paulinus was in the process of garrisoning their territories.

With what ... with the army that was already outnumbered massively by the Iceni? So you're claiming that his army stopped on the way back, built some garrisons, dropped off some of their number and then are we back to: "galloped down to London"?

The Brigates were ruled by Cartimandua, a Roman client queen who had only a few years previously been restored to her throne by Roman troops. She was not about to revolt, and it took another 8-9 years for anyone to try and overthrow her.

So, you are saying that after Boudica is flogged, her children raped, her lands stolen from her and the queen of the iceni treated like dirt, that Queen Cartimandua, is going to side with the Romans? Or let the Romans flog Boudica, rape her children, turf her out of her kingdom ... and somehow when they come to Cartimandua they are going to do what? Treat her with respect, abide by agreements with her, not rape her children?

Queen Cartimandua is going to see what happened to Queen Boudica, and do what?

So, where does he choose as his "seat of war" if not London? ... Up Watling street to Deva? Why? Why not St.Albans, of it not, why Deva? Not exactly my favourite choice for a battle against the Iceni.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Nobody is suggesting he retreated to Chester (which did not exist at this point anyway). St Albans, on the other hand, would make an excellent place to resupply and wait for reinforcements, and is close to the strategically favourable high ground of the Chilterns.

So, if he could have chosen St.Albans he would ... which means he couldn't. Which means that St.Albans was already threatened at the time Paulinus was in London. It was too late to save St.Albans, even before Paulinus left London!!

There must be some reason why Tacitus mentions St Albans, an otherwise undistinguished town of Romanised Britons which archaeology shows to have been at worst only slightly damaged  in the revolt.

The highest ranking Roman cities were colonia of which there was Camulodunum (Colchester), around 49 AD followed by Lindum (Lincoln) and Glevum (Gloucester) by the end of the first century. The second rank were municipium of which St.Albans was the only one. So, technically St.Albans was more important than London.

Boudica thrashes the ninth and then heads toward London. Suetonius takes all he can south abandoning London. Boudica arrives with an army ready to do battle and instead has to content herself with sacking London and then being just a couple of days away, St.Albans.

making Calleva his seat of war.

Aha! You are, of course, not the first to suggest Silchester or the vicinity in connection with the revolt - the 'western route' has been discussed many many times on this thread.

But why would Paulinus bother crossing south of the Thames or trying to hold it as a barrier? If he's going west then he needs only march... west. Along the Portway, over the river at Staines. Very easy, no controversy.

"But why would Paulinus bother crossing south of the Thames or trying to hold it as a barrier?"

I am TOTALLY dumbfounded that you ask such a question. It is as crazy as asking "Why would the Romans hold a turf ditch and bank they call the Antonine wall", or "why would they hold a stone wall called hadrian's wall?" Indeed, why would they bother to garrison a wall around a town .. what is the point? Why would the Romans bother with barriers? ... why would they waste their time building a turf wall across the country ... according to you it's totally ridiculous because you suppose that the Romans just don't bother with barriers ... it never occurs to them to use a barrier as a form of defence ... they just build walls to be pretty?

Come on! Asking why the Romans would go behind a defensive line, at a time when they are under attack is not a sensible question.

...we can assume cavalry can do 30 miles a day .... but only with light packs and fresh horses. His infantry might do 15 miles a day on roads, but their luggage train would take 2-3 days to do that... having galloped with "wonderful resolution" ... he presumably exhausted all his horses, and is now in London ... 

Saints Preserve Us!

We have also, of course, discussed marching speeds and routes and supplies and baggage trains and so on over and over again on this thread. Needless to say, Roman baggage (or 'luggage' if you prefer) does not move at 5 miles a day...

Sorry, that is what it does. It takes 2 to 3 days to move a camp. That is what the historical evidence of those who were involved moving camps using horse drawn carts shows. If that is not what you think ... then you are wrong.

However, I am afraid that at this point, after over twelve years of discussion, I am not in the slightest bit willing to debate the inane and ludicrous idea of Paulinus galloping down to London AGAIN!

The simple fact is that Suetonius went south from London. There is no doubt about that. The Thames-Seven line is the same defensive strategy as the Clyde-Forth line is the same defensive strategy as the Solway firth - Tyne line. It is the standard approach of the Romans in that period in Britain. To use a defensive line across the country from one river system to another. Making use of valleys like the Thames, or Kelvin on the Antonine wall, or the S.Tyne along Hadrians wall.

Whether you like it or not, it is the standard practice in Britain, very well attested and there is no doubt that Suetonius would have also used the same strategy of a defensive line from Thames to Severn. To argue otherwise, is to argue against all the historical facts of the Roman walls in Britain.