Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

I have provided plenty of evidence for that and you have not given one credible reason to reject it.

You have 'provided' little but heated bluster, fanciful assertion and scorn.

Evidence for destruction at Southwark, and Dio's reference to fords of the Thames*, are both 'credible reasons' to think that it did not form an impassable barrier. I have not 'asserted' anything as fact, while you have done so repeatedly.

I have shown, firstly that the "destruction of Southwark" is undated and a very limited fire as there are DATED evidence for buildings on the south of the Thames standing throughout the period ... so no general destruction on the south. Moreover, I had explained how the lamp which shows signs of starting the fire ... so nothing to do with Boudica.

* Dio 60.20.5-6: "Thence the Britons retired to the river Thames at a point near where it empties into the ocean and at flood-tide forms a lake. This they easily crossed because they knew where the firm ground and the easy passages in this region were to be found; but the Romans in attempting to follow them were not so successful."

LOL! The lake or pool is a well known feature of the Thames, as is the ford under the Roman bridge. And, it is easily crossed for a few minutes a day at the right point of the tide. And it is also easily defended because there is only one easy passages and if you had been paying attention you would have known that.

Might I ask whether you have any actual evidence, which I have not already covered and/or already shown to be irrelevant ... and indeed the slightest explanation as to why Suetonius travels all the way from Wales to a small unimportant settlement, bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans ... and then according to you ... he just turns around and heads back into the midst of hostile forces, bypassing the important settlement of St.Albans.

Seems as if you have no idea that London was an insignificant settlement at the time of the Romans!