Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

Suetonius went to London looking to use it as a "Seat of War". And Sedes Bello is not ambiguous:

sedes: a seat, bench, chair, throne from sedo: to bring to rest
bello: from the verb meaning to wage war, carry on war, war
... it means a sedentary place or seat of war. Clearly not a place of battle.

He was not looking for a place of battle, but a place to sit and develop a military campaign.

Likewise there is no ambiguity in the phrase:

cum omittere cunctationem et congredi acie parat.

Which explicitly says Suetonius had been delaying before he prepared to do battle:
Omitto: to lay aside, let go, give up,
cunctatio: a delaying, lingering, tarrying, delay, hesitation, doubt
et
congredi to come together, meet ... it has the "idea of intention, in a friendly or hostile sense" ...
acie: In milit. lang., the front of an army (conceived of as the edge of a sword), line of battle, battle-array.
paro: to make ready, prepare, furnish, provide, arrange, order, contrive, design . (90.4% of the time)

"He decided to let go delay and prepare to come together for battle."

This tells us he had been delaying, that he decided to prepare to change state to that of "being ready for battle". None of that suggests The "Galloping Horseman" haste, quite the contrary.

You admit Suetonius was delaying, you admit he wasn't being rash, you agree with (almost) everything I said, and then you go back to the mad galloping horseman scenario .... with Suetonius Galloping rushing down the M6 passing numerous places of importance, especially St.Albans, that might be worth saving, to come to the minor settlement of London, which had no importance except that it has a bridge linking the SE and East of England across the Thames and a port. A settlement that doesn't seem to have existed in any meaningful sense until it had a bridge. So, in the 60s a settlement of no consequence, compared to St. Albans. Yet you have him Gallop rush past St.Albans, not once but twice: once on the way down, and then having got to a settlement of no consequence, (as you claim neither the bridge nor port has a strategic value)  ... you then have poor Suetonius Gallop rush back up the way he came, passing the consequential tribal capital of St.Albans and head into the nothingness surrounded by hostile forces.

What was the point in Suetonius going to London?? ... a minor settlement of no consequence? Was it to secure the bridge to the SE? You don't have him do that. Was it to secure supplies from the port? No! You don't have him do that. Instead all you have this poor galloping  rushing horseman do, is to gallop rush down to London and then gallop rush back the same way he came and .... and to do what ... into no where in the midst of a hostile enemy. It's totally defies any military logic as you have him head to a point where there are hostiles:

• To the NW down the M6 where he came
  
• From the NE and the Iceni
  
• To the South where London is taken by Boudica
  

So almost totally surrounded.

Why then  would Boudica bother with him? We are told Boudica was not taking on any defended places:

[Boudica] passed by the fortresses with military garrisons, and attacked whatever offered most wealth to the spoiler,

We are told she didn't attack the ninth:

Cerialis escaped with some cavalry into the camp, and was saved by its fortifications.

So, we are told if Suetonius found a seat of war in the midst of the hostiles, as you would have him, Boudica could just leave him there to rot.

What we are told about London clearly has a strategic value in terms of logistics:

Londinium, which, though undistinguished by the name of a colony, was much frequented by a number of merchants and trading vessels

So, apart from the bridge, the only other explanation for Suetonius galloping rushing to London for those advocating the Galloping Horseman scenario of heading north to an immediate battle, was that London was a port ... which means a logistic supply line. But instead, the Galloping Rushing Horsemen having him gallop away from London where his supply lines are immediately cut off by taking St. Albans, which means there was absolutely no point galloping  Rushing to London.

So, the only reason (except the bridge) for Suetonius to go to London, is to secure the port and his supply lines. Instead, instead you have him head up north away form the port and leaving the bridge to allow Boudica to cross the Thames and take the rebellion all the way down to the south coast, which would mean all of Suetonius' supply lines are totally cut.

You must think Suetonius was totally crazy!