Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

I missed the new text that must have become available with Catus heading to St.Albans ...

Catus Decianus had sent the only troops he had with him to Colchester, where they were wiped out. He had not a single soldier remaining, and so had little choice but to flee to Gaul.

Suetonius Paulinus, on the other hand, had a fully equipped Roman expeditionary force of c.5000 men with him, with cavalry and scouts, when he arrived in London. He was several days ahead of Boudica's advance and had the strategic advantage. His force could move at 16-18 miles a day - 22 at full pace if required - and he knew that additional troops from North Wales and the Welsh frontier would be able to reinforce him provided he maintained his lines of communication along Watling Street and Akeman Street.

That is what he did, and that is why the battle was fought in the vicinity of St Albans, and that is why St Albans is the only place Tacitus mentions besides Colchester and London.

So, St.Albans wasn't ransacked? So, the Ninth weren't confined to their camps. So Suetonius had no problem building a camp to hold London. The simple fact is Suetonius retreats from London ... and as Catus shows, the way to retreat is over the Thames and toward Gaul. Anything else just flies in the face of military logic and denies the simple plain fact that Boudica was overrunning everything north of the Thames.

I'm sick to death of people who read the text, know that the area North of London is being ransacked, know the Romans are heading south, and then claim that Suetonius heads north to St.Albans which they know, rather than holding the only major place north of the Thames, it was abandoned ... leaving the army totally cut off from any port, and about as stupid a position as it is conceivable to be.

When all Suetonius had to do, was walk 100m across the Thames, and he was almost immune from any attack. Why would any sane general give up the strongest defensible position, arguably in the whole South of England?

The Thames was defended as far as Goring ...

By whom? Suetonius's 'cavalry bodyguard'? Or his 2-mile-per-day infantry? Hmm.... Not likely!

The history books have numerous accounts of armies attempting to cross fords, and they are one of the most problematic things for an army to attempt. That is because a ford can easily be held, must in the same way as a gate in a wall or a bridge. Having wrecked the ford and made it impossible to cross, all you need is a couple of old men to watch over it, and enough troops nearby to stop the enemy if they send people to try to repair the ford. It's basically the same force as you get at a mile castle. And, if it's a tidal ford, as most of the lower fords on the Thames are ... they only have a couple of hours a day to do the repair and take down the defences, so you don't even need the old men most of the day.

[quote="MonsGraupius" pid="352787" dateline="1662119864"]
there are good sites where artefacts have been found which I think have more credibility.

That at least is certainly true!

My only reason for posting, is to stop all this nonsense that the Thames, one of the best defensive walls in Britain ... was ignored by Suetonius, one of the best Roman Generals in Britain. It defies all military logic and it is time to ditch the nonsense that started with the insane Gallop down Watling Street altogether. It was stupid at the time, and it is still stupid. Suetonius did not head north after he decided he could not hold London. He went south, and sacrificed both London and St.Albans for the strategic advantage of his secure defence south of the Thames.