Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

So, St.Albans wasn't ransacked?

Of course it was - after London. As Tacitus tells us: 'a similar disaster befell the town of Verulamium'.

If Suetonius had been in St.Albans, then being the more important town, that would have been the focus of the narrative and London would have been mentioned only in passing: "a place called London was also ransacked". Instead it is St.Albans that gets the incidental: "and St.Albans was also ransacked". That shows St.Albans was not part of the main narrative and Suetonius never went there.

So Suetonius had no problem building a camp to hold London.

Whyever would he do a thing like that? The last thing he'd want to do was build a fort so the enemy could besiege him with their overwhelming numbers.

Roman commanders only fought from behind fortifications when they had no other options - and Suetonius, as all this discussion proves, had several other options.

Suetonius specifically says that he decided London was not a "seat for war" ... we are told in very explicit terms he was NOT in a position to fight. So to argue on the basis he was wanting to fight is totally erroneous.

Moreover, it is ridiculous comment to say Romans did not build forts to fight from when Agricola built a line of forts across the Clyde-Forth line before advancing to meet the Caledonians. Likewise, when the Ninth were attacked on the way to Mons Graupius ... yet again they retreat behind the fort. Likewise the Ninth when attacked by Boudica, they again retreat to a defensible position. Likewise, when Agricola advances on the Caledonians ... every 15miles he builds encampment. When Romans go to battle ... they build forts, you cannot deny that, because that is the historical fact.

For you to make the assertion, that Roman commanders, never used fortifications ... because in Suetonius defensive position unable to hold ground, that is what you are saying ... is totally utterly bizarre. The reverse is the truth: THEY ALWAYS TRIED TO HAVE A DEFENSIVE POSITION WITH STRONG WALLS. As such Suetonius clearly crossed the Thames as that was an obvious defensive "wall" which fits the normal Roman tactics in every campaign from Agricola to Severus.

stop all this nonsense that the Thames, one of the best defensive walls in Britain ... was ignored by Suetonius

It was also ignored by Tacitus and by Dio, who mention nothing about rivers, fords, or defensive walls. You can invent your own imaginary version of this campaign if you like, but it might be better to stick to the evidence we do have.

But we are told about the Thames in that it cuts off those who failed to cross it:

Those who were chained to the spot by the weakness of their sex, or the infirmity of age, or the attractions of the place, were cut off by the enemy.

If they were just "fleeing before" they are not "cut off". That they were cut off, requires that they are prevented from all means of escaping. That, within the environs of London, only fits with crossing the Thames where the few fords and that defensive line means that they are "cut off".

And let's be clear: it's a bit hypocritical for you to criticise the crossing of the Thames, when there is absolutely nothing at all about heading north!! The only direction we are told the Romans are heading is toward Gaul ... no one heads north!

But, why would we expect more detail? It's a few sentences and even if it were not, on the way to Mons Graupius they cross at least a dozen major rivers, numerous mountains, the Forth-clyde line, ... and almost nothing of them is mentioned, and that is in a much much longer text.

Numerous pieces of detail are missing: Tacitus and Dio don't mention the road they took, they don't mention which towns they stopped in, they don't mention what food they had for breakfast, they don't tell us how many men are in the army going to London, they don't mention the time of day of the battle, they don't tell us the route Suetonius took to London ...

Are you saying they didn't have breakfast because it isn't in the text. Yet they were cut off when the crossings over the Thames were taken, so it is there in all but name.

the nonsense that started with the insane Gallop down Watling Street... this ridiculous mad dash up Watling street... the stupidity of the first narrative of a dash down Watling street...

Hang on now - is it a dash up Watling Street or down Watling Street that you find so insane, ridiculous, stupid and nonsensical - or both, perhaps?

As far as I can see, you are the only person here saying anything about 'mad dashes' in either direction!

It's only to the NW of London that we get the hills which produce the Ravines necessary to fit the battle site description. So, people needed to find an excuse for Suetonius to head NW ...

Take a moment to think about the logic of that statement. Something may dawn on you...

What dawns on me, is that you are not looking at the situation that Suetonius finds himself in London, but instead looking for a way to justify a move North which is not in any way supported by the text.

It is not the gallop that is daft ... it is the idea that Suetonius heads out along Watling street, seeking a "seat for war".

Yet according to your narrative, not only does he ignore the most defensive barrier in the whole south of England of the Thames-ridgeway-Seven, but he also totally ignored St.Albans.
Even if you suppose that the present stone wall wasn't there, it was a tribal capital with its own defences, so why didn't he make use of the Iron age earthworks at Beach Bottom Dyke and Devil's ditch or those at Prae Wood?

In contrast, I am not trying to shoe horn the narrative to fit an ancient and false idea of heading north developed from this infamous gallop. Instead, I have looked at the text not just of this battle but of numerous others. I look at the situation in which Suetonius finds himself, and, based on what Romans did in other campaigns as described in the texts and through archaeology, I know where Suetonius will go, because he clearly did not make St.Albans his seat for war. And, we are told that that is what he is looking for, so the only alternative, was to use the area south of the Thames as his defensible seat for war.