09-03-2022, 07:07 PM
[quote pid="352806" dateline="1662230663"]
Suetonius is not hiding,he marched from Anglesey to fight Boudica and end the rebellion ,not run off to Gaul.He can be supplied from the north and the West and feels the south is probably safe.If you want the Catuvellauni to rebel and join up with the Brigantes then by all means run away, go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.He does NOT need a seat of war, he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies, I'm not sure that he can depend on the Catuvellauni for long LOL.
[/quote]
Suetonius needs to eat. Once a rebellion starts it spreads and none of the north is safe because it is either recently taken or knows it is under threat of being taken. They would all love to chew up the Romans and spit them out.
He has already lost the ninth, he is incapable of holding London, the other Legions are refusing to join him. That is not an offensive position. That is an extremely week position. He has lost territory and needs to move to a defensible position to consolidate, resupply and regroup, so that he is ready to go on the offensive.
That is why Suetonius is seeking a "seat for war" ... that means a defensible position with good supply lines. Was Agricola "hiding" when he built the forts along the Antonine wall? No!! He was preparing to go to war with the Caledonians. Was he ignoring his supply lines ... no!! He was in regular contact with the fleet, indeed it is mentioned that the army and Navy often ... I think it is ate together. An army without secure supply lines under threat from the enemy, as was Suetonius, is very soon a dead army.
The only direction we are told the Romans went was "to Gaul" when speaking of Catus. We are explicitly told that Suetonius could not hold London, he was in a weak position, that is what the texts tell us. St.Albans burnt because he had to sacrifice it by moving to a defensible position south of the Thames ... the "Suetonius Wall", as we might call it.
And, Boudica has no need to go to war with Suetonius. We are told the Iceni did not attack the fortifications ... they had no need, when they controlled all the country around. Like the Ninth, she can keep the Romans stuck within their camps and forts, cut off from supplies and wait for them to starve to death.
Suetonius cannot hold land (London), he, like Catus are on the run and need to find a place to regroup, resupply, etc.
I think that's every point you made well and truly squashed ... LOL
Suetonius is not hiding,he marched from Anglesey to fight Boudica and end the rebellion ,not run off to Gaul.He can be supplied from the north and the West and feels the south is probably safe.If you want the Catuvellauni to rebel and join up with the Brigantes then by all means run away, go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.He does NOT need a seat of war, he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of supplies, I'm not sure that he can depend on the Catuvellauni for long LOL.
[/quote]
Suetonius needs to eat. Once a rebellion starts it spreads and none of the north is safe because it is either recently taken or knows it is under threat of being taken. They would all love to chew up the Romans and spit them out.
He has already lost the ninth, he is incapable of holding London, the other Legions are refusing to join him. That is not an offensive position. That is an extremely week position. He has lost territory and needs to move to a defensible position to consolidate, resupply and regroup, so that he is ready to go on the offensive.
That is why Suetonius is seeking a "seat for war" ... that means a defensible position with good supply lines. Was Agricola "hiding" when he built the forts along the Antonine wall? No!! He was preparing to go to war with the Caledonians. Was he ignoring his supply lines ... no!! He was in regular contact with the fleet, indeed it is mentioned that the army and Navy often ... I think it is ate together. An army without secure supply lines under threat from the enemy, as was Suetonius, is very soon a dead army.
Quote:go south across the Thames, show weakness,and watch the empire burn.But you have just described what we are told happened:
The only direction we are told the Romans went was "to Gaul" when speaking of Catus. We are explicitly told that Suetonius could not hold London, he was in a weak position, that is what the texts tell us. St.Albans burnt because he had to sacrifice it by moving to a defensible position south of the Thames ... the "Suetonius Wall", as we might call it.
Quote:He does NOT need a seat of warWe are told he did: "Uncertain whether he should choose it as a seat of war".
Quote:he needs to bring Boudica to battle as soon as possible before he runs out of suppliesBut we are told explicitly that Suetonius did go straight to battle: "when he prepared to break off delay and fight a battle"
And, Boudica has no need to go to war with Suetonius. We are told the Iceni did not attack the fortifications ... they had no need, when they controlled all the country around. Like the Ninth, she can keep the Romans stuck within their camps and forts, cut off from supplies and wait for them to starve to death.
Suetonius cannot hold land (London), he, like Catus are on the run and need to find a place to regroup, resupply, etc.
I think that's every point you made well and truly squashed ... LOL
Oh the grand oh Duke Suetonius, he had a Roman legion, he galloped rushed down to (a minor settlement called) Londinium then he galloped rushed back again. Londinium Bridge is falling down, falling down ... HOLD IT ... change of plans, we're leaving the bridge for Boudica and galloping rushing north.
