Ancient and Archaeology permalink
BOUDICA’S FINAL BATTLE
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 14th June 2011
Another great mystery is where Boudica’s final battle took place.
Can we between us using archaeology, textual evidence and likelihood come up with a general consensus of opinion of what happened?
For instance, what time of year did Boudica attack and destroy Colchester?
Why were so few troops available to Seutonius Paulinus?
What evidence apart from a couple of skulls do we have that Boudica destroyed London?
Why didn’t Boudica march on London within a few days of razing Colchester to the ground?
Why would Seutonius Paulinus rush to London with only his cavalry?
If London was evacuated why was it that rich people were left to face the oncoming horde from the East? Rich people never stay in a threatened military zone.
There are so many questions but can we solve these with realistic answers?
Or is it the case that we interpret the facts only one way rather than trying to look at all the possibilities? -
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 14th June 2011
Theoderic,
I find your "realistic" such a to the point and nice wording in this context. For the rest I know only about Boudica from the statue in London I some two times passed during my lifetime. Hmm, perhaps a tiny little bit more, to be honest....
Kind regards and with great esteem,
Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011
Hi TA
I don't know that the site of Boudica's final battle is so great a mystery; after all until the medieval period knowing the exact location of any battlefield is actually rather unusual. There are still contrasting views about Hastings I believe, and notoriously Bosworth has been 'moved' during the last year or two.
We are fortunate that the Boudican rebellion is mentioned by two Roman historians and that Tacitus gives two accounts of it, in the Annals and Agricola. The historians tell a reasonably consistent story and Dio explains the Roman financial practices that drove the Iceni and Trinovantes to despair. Their situation would seem very understandable in Spain and Greece at present I imagine.
I doubt if further discoveries will make the military situation much clearer. In theory Suetonius had four legions available to him and presumably a matching number of auxiliaries. Legio IX was in the Nottingham – Lincolnshire area and Legio II is the west. With large areas to police I would be fairly confident that these legions were not concentrated but vexillations (brigaded with auxiliaries) were widely spread over several sites. After the rebellion ended 2000 men brought Legio IX back to strength which suggests that Petilius Cerialis fought Boudica unsuccessfully with all his cavalry and a four or five cohort vexillation of infantry.
I think it is logical to assume that when Suetonius Paulinus heard of the rebellion he took charge of a cavalry reconnaissance in force, leaving his slower moving infantry to concentrate in his rear and then follow him. Judging that London could not be defended he must have retreated towards his infantry and, I should have thought, would have been certain to use such parts of Watling Street that had been constructed. Presumably the British army was not so committed to the use of roads but, having sacked St Albans, they pursued Suetonius. I doubt we shall ever know exactly where they met but along the line of Watling Street between Mancetter and St Albans would be a fair guess. Graham Webster favoured Mancetter as the battle site.
Archaeology helps a little. There are burned horizons that have been attributed to this period in both London and Colchester.The tomb of the procurator Julius Classicianus exists. Sources suggest he was a calming influence in the post-rebellion period. Neither Roman historians or archaeology will offer insights as to what was happening in Boudica's head.
If you have a new interpretation of the facts I would be most interested to hear it.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011
Hi TP
Well there are a number of points that we can immediately agree on such as the reasons for the revolt in the first place, being the withdrawal of Roman loans, land confiscation and the attitude of the Roman Veterans to the Trinovantes and the Iceni.
There is no doubt in my mind that the local tribes destroyed Colchester and burnt it to the ground killing all therein. This may well have run into the tens of thousands.
But from here on in I think that we need to tread extremely carefully.
So I would like to take this bit by bit.
What time of the year did this destruction take place? This may not seem like an important piece of information but when we look at some of the reasons for later actions it may be key.
We do know that Seutonius Paulinus had started a campaign to quash the Druids at Anglesey. This would have taken a lot of organisation and re-grouping of army units suitable for this campaign as you have stated
It is possible that units from the Ninth and the Second were either with Seutonius Paulinus or sequestered in various other forts around the country?
We do know that a previous Governor had disarmed the Iceni previously when he was on a campaign in South Wales so it would seem that the Romans were aware of a possibility of an attack in their rear and would have manned the local forts accordingly.
So who were with him on his campaign?
The Fourteenth Legion certainly, and perhaps the Twentieth, so was the Second guarding the Southern Welsh who still had not been brought to heel?
The Ninth keeping an eye on the North West and also the Midlands?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 5
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 17th June 2011
Hi All
OK no takers there then...
So it was actually likely that the Second Legion were at Exeter (Maybe with a reduced force as some may have been with Seutonius especially as the Senior Officers were not there).
The Twentieth Legion were based at Usk in this period, keeping the Silures in their place although they may have been split with some parts being at Kingsholm (Gloucester).
The Ninth were probably split over the Midlands at Longthorpe and at Newton on Trent as well as other forts.
The Fourteenth were based at Wroxeter and were the main force used for the Campaign, although Tacitus mentions veterans of the Twentieth being present for the battle against Boudicca, so where did these come from, surely not withdrawn from Colchester?
It would therefore appear that the country was not actually in a completely stable condition or the tribes were perhaps not as placid as we assume.
Tacitus mentions that when Boudica does revolt her armies do not bother attacking the Roman Forts but bypass them but this would also imply that after the defeat of the Ninth that there were no large dispositions of forces to attack Boudica.
Allegedly Seutonius lost very few men at Anglesey and according to Tacitus he only had around 10,000 men altogether when he met Boudica (including cavalry and auxiliaries). If we say that he left 1500 men to guard Anglesey his original force for the Campaign would have been 12,000 men made up of legionaries and auxilliaries.
We are led to believe that a Legion at this time comprised of some 5,200 legionaries and an equal number of auxiliaries, a total of around 10,000 men for each legion and there were 4 legions.
This would imply that 28,000 men were left around the country to keep law and order.
Unfortunately 2,000 legionaries were completely wiped out when a depleted force of the Ninth were ambushed on the way to Colchester and the cavalry escaped, probably to Longthorpe but even so there were probably (if the Legions were up to strength) 26,000 Roman soldiers in Britain on top of the 10,000 men that Seutonius Paulinus had.
So why weren’t the Twentieth Legion used? Surely there was no need of 10,000 men in Usk when there was a desperate problem on the East of the Country?
Or was there a general uprising?
We know that the Second Legion did not go to meet Seutonius - why not?
Any one any ideas?
Kind Regards – TA -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 18th June 2011
Hi TA
I think that you are probably hoping for a greater degree of precision over these matters than is really possible. The Roman Army in Britain in AD 60 consisted of 4 legions and, it is assumed, an equal number of auxiliaries. Say 40,000 men. This sounds like a huge force but it would not half-fill Wembley Stadium. At the time of the Boudican rebellion, AD 60, Britain had been incorporated in the Empire for less than 20 years. Although the south-east, south, and west seem too have been quiet there had been major problems with the Brigantes and virtually continuous warfare with the Welsh tribes.
The legionary dispositions you have described sound reasonable although vexillations might have been operating at considerable distances from the legionary bases, and units may not have been at full strength. I'm not sure how you reach some of your conclusions. On what basis have you decided that 1500 men were left to 'guard Anglesey'? I'm not sure that we do actually assume that the British tribes were placid.
I assume Legio XX Valeria at Usk had the not inconsiderable task of ensuring that the Silures were quiet. From its positioning Legio IX Hispana must have been intended to have the same role in respect of the Iceni and Brigantes. However there can't be much doubt that legio XX fought with legio XIV Gemina in North Wales and at the final battle against Boudica, if their titles Martia and Victrix were given at this time. This is what Tacitus states.The role intended for Legio II Augusta is much more puzzling. There seems to be no purpose in concentrating it at Exeter; perhaps it was spread over several sites in the south west, and in particular supplied a vexillation to replace legio XX in Usk during the Anglesey campaign.
For the final attack on Boudica Suentonius had Legio XIV and some at least of XX. I assume the rest of legio XX was left in the newly conquered territories, for which it was ultimately made responsible from its future base in Chester. Legio IX had been damaged and presumably remained in position. The career of its commander Petilius Cerialis does not seem to have suffered from his failure. Why was Poenius Postumus, a camp prefect, in command of Legio II? Did he feel he had insufficient time to assemble troops from a widely spread force? Did he kill himself for failing to obey an order, or simply because he lost an opportunity for great military glory? If he were at Exeter, and the battle was fought near Mancetter, was there a realistic chance of his participation?
Best wishes
TP -
Message 7
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 19th June 2011
Hi TP
Many thanks for your reply...
Although there is much I can agree with, I can find no mention of the Twentieth being in North Wales only that the veterans of the Twentieth were in the battle with the Fourteenth against Boudica.
I think that there is more than one interpretation here.
It is perhaps assumed that because the Twentieth were with the Fourteenth and fought Boudica they must have been with the Fourteenth in North Wales.
Is this necessarily the case?
The interpretation is that Seutonius split his forces and taking his cavalry rode post haste to London.
Why would he do this?
It is not said that he does this at all. Tacitus states that he marches to London through the enemy.
This implies that the country was unfriendly. To split your forces at this time would have been risky at best. Without his baggage train he could have marched at around thirty miles a day, not much less than the cavalry.
From the dispositions of his forces it would seem that he only took a comparatively small force with him to Anglesey and left most of the country garrisoned albeit thinly in places. He unlike Cerialis does not seem to be a rash man but perhaps even cautious or at the least careful.
If we take the Twentieth out of the picture as they were controlling the Silures and Ordovices in Wales that leaves us with three Legions, the Fourteenth who were with him, the Second who were in Exeter and the Ninth in the Midlands possible split as you state.
Possibly his plan was to combine his forces and wipe out this rebellion deciding on where to attack Boudica as the reports came in of what was happening.
Once he heard the news that there was an uprising in the South East he would have made his plans and sent messages to the Ninth and to the Second to meet up with him, where we do not know.
Unfortunately by the time the messenger left for the Ninth half of the Legion had already been wiped out and their commander bottled up in Longthorpe. It seems strange that they did not try to break out but perhaps it shows the level of the population that had risen up against them.
We assume that the Second got the message but we do not know what happened to them.
I agree that there is a mystery here as well
Perhaps they were a depleted force with some of (or even the majority) of the Legion being away on some other mission, the top commanders were away somewhere else which would tend to support this argument. Had the country risen in the West as well?
Were they bottled up like the Ninth in their fortress? Were the instructions given to the Prefect to hold the fortress by his commanders until their return?
Had the main part of the Legion in fact done the same as the Ninth and as soon as they heard the news of the uprising implemented a defensive plan?
We will never know but again it is a mystery as to why a full Legion cannot be accounted for as they are not mentioned as being with the Fourteenth at any time during the Campaign.
The suicide of Poenius Postumus smacks of a "scapegoat" action, and the consequent dispersement of the Legion across the country does seem harsh if the fault only lay with one man.
The other great mystery is why did Boudica wait so long before she attacked London?
Best Wishes - TA -
Message 8
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 19th June 2011
Hi TA
I'm afraid that speculation is almost always going to creep in when we discuss the dispositions of Roman armies. We end up by trying to interpret the sources in terms of what we think is militarily reasonable, with the result that we reach different conclusions.
You are perfectly correct in saying that Tacitus records only that vexillations of legio XX fought Boudica with legio XIV. Actually he doesn't comment on which formations were involved in the attack on Anglesey at all. My own feeling is that to conquer hostile North Wales and maintain his lines of communication with the Midlands Suetonius would have used the greater part of two legions. The fact that these two legions seem to have been awarded their honorifics (Victrix and Martia) after the Boudican rebellion suggest to me that they formed Suetonius's battle group. But cerainly this conclusion is not inevitable although I'm comforted that Gut de la Bedoyere seems to agree with me.
My translation of this portion of the Annals says that Suetonius 'made his way to London through the midst of the enemy' not 'marched' so I think I can hypothesise a cavalry force legitimately. My presumption is that Suetonius would need accurate information quickly and wouldn't have had time to summon all the infantry to an assembly point, Wroxeter perhaps or Mancetter, before setting off for the capital.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 9
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 21st June 2011
Hi TP
Thanks for your observations.....
Even Guy de la Bedoyere does not definitely state that any of the Twentieth were with the Fourteenth at Anglesey as all of this is speculation.
This is the point I am trying to make.
There seems to be strong support for your view that Seutonius needed to get information quickly and could not rely on his scouts or his information service to get accurate information for him.
Firstly why the rush? Tacitus does not mention that there was any rush at all and it seems particularly unlikely that Seutonius would enter blind into a situation that was changing swiftly and whose opposing forces and numbers were unknown.
To risk being isolated with a small cavalry force in the middle of an enemy country seems ill considered in the extreme. The Iceni also had horsemen and fast chariots so Roman cavalry itself would not be able to outpace the enemy if they were encountered.
Also how much time would be saved? Cavalry could cover 40 miles a day and soldiers with a pack and rations would be able to make 25 to 30 miles a day. So he wouldn’t be saving that much time anyway and he and his force would be more secure.
Lets try a timeline that is possible based on a scenario that despatch riders were still able to operate.
The following is obviously complete speculation but
Day 1 – A message is sent from Colchester to the nearest authority (Catus in London) who sends 200 soldiers. Perhaps messages (1) were sent to the Ninth Legion and on to Seutonius.
Day 2 / 3 The 200 soldiers arrive in Colchester (message (1) arrives at the Ninth Legion in Peterborough and the Ninth Legion make ready to advance on Colchester)
Day 4 The Iceni and Trinovantes attack Colchester (message (2) sent to the Ninth Legion and again possibly on to Seutonius) The Ninth depart Longthorpe, after sending a message (3) to Seutonius that they are advancing on Colchester.
Day 5 The Iceni and Trinovantes destroy Colchester and overcome final resistance in the Temple. (The Ninth will have covered 50 miles of the 100 or so miles they need to reach Colchester and they receive message 2).
Day 6. The Iceni and or Trinovantes ambush The Ninth Legion, destroy 2,000 troops and the Cavalry manage to escape. Seutonius receives the first message that the Iceni / Trinovantes are looking a bit threatening, (message 1) delivered by despatch riders at 50 / 60 miles per day). .
Day 7- The Iceni /Trinovantes destroy any surviving Romans in the area and recover their lands. The Ninth arrive at Longthorpe and raise new defences. Message(4)sent to to Seutonius informing him of their defeat and possibly that Colchester has been destroyed.
Day 8. The Iceni /Trinovantes destroy any surviving Romans in the area and recover their lands.
Day 9. The Iceni /Trinovantes destroy any surviving Romans in the area and recover their lands (this continues)
Day 10. Seutoninus receives Message 2 that Colchester is about to be attacked and at the same time Message 3 from the Ninth that they are to advance on Colchester. Seutonius turns his attention to the South East and starts to gear up to get his Legions down to the South East to sort out the rebellion.
Day 11. Time to get the garrison troops set up in Anglesey and to start making arrangements to move the Fourteenth Legion south.
Day 12. Possibly Seutonius receives word that Colchester has been destroyed and that the Ninth has been badly mauled and is effectively under siege in Longthorpe ).
(The latter may not be the case as we do not hear of the Ninth cavalry being relieved which you would have thought might have been the case if Seutonius had known this.)
The last two messages may not have reached him however.......
In any event, perhaps he sent a message to the Second to meet him in London as a combined force to take on Boudica.
So we are now some two weeks into the crisis and the first real news that Seutonius gets is Day10 yet by Day 13 he realises that he has a major problem on his hands.
Day 14. Seutonius starts with his Legion to move from Anglesey towards Wroxeter beginning his move South....... Boudica still hasn’t moved on London some 9 days after destroying Colchester the Roman Capital, and will not do so for some considerable time ....... another 14 days at least – why not?
All speculation of course but no more so than popular thinking.........
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 22nd June 2011
Hi TA
There is absolutely no reason at all why you shouldn't model Suetonius's campaign, but inevitably the more detail you want the greater the degree of speculation required. I suppose I am a little intrigued that by your wish to plot out the rebellion on a day by day basis anyway. If you don't want Suetonius travelling back to London with cavalry that's fine, it's your model after all, but I would question three of your assumptions: that any cavalry force had to be small, that it might have encountered enemy chariots, and that it was isolated in hostile territory.
Perhaps Suetonius didn't travel from North Wales to London with a cavalry force but had he chosen to do so it need not have been the 'small' force that you describe. Now of course we don't know the size of his original battle group, nor the names of the units. But if he took two legions and a matching number of auxiliaries to Wales we could surely allow him the all the legions' scouts and a couple of cavalry alae for what I described as a 'reconnaissance in force'; he could easily have had 1000 mounted men and perhaps as many as 2000.
Tacitus states that one reason Suetonius had for abandoning London was 'the small number of his troops'. I interpret this to mean that he had arrived with less than the full army, and what more natural for him than to move with those who could travel most rapidly. So, how far could Roman troops travel in a day in fact? For cavalry not in company with infantry your figure of 40 miles seems about right. But I doubt if fully laden infantry could manage 20 miles per day, if as much. The distance from Caernarvon to London is about 250 miles, so with cavalry Suetonius could be assessing the situation for himself in less than a week. A week is also a reasonable time for Boudica to persuade her successful forces to sober up and march from Colchester to London. If we allow Suetonius his cavalry you don't need to postulate Boudica sitting on her hands for more than a fortnight before moving to attack the capital.
If attacked on the move could his mounted force have encountered 'fast chariots' and British horsemen? Surely not. As part of the pacification process the Britons were not allowed to keep weapons, except for hunting. War chariots would have been top of the list for scrapping. Chariots are mentioned by Dio (but very definitely not by Tacitus) in the final battle, but I really can't believe that this was correct. Doubtless the Iceni had horses as you say but true cavalry warfare was never a British technique. With 1-2 thousand mounted men it seems to me that Suetonius had a small mobile army that could easily escape from any force too large for him to engage.
Would the country he would have been riding through have been necessarily 'enemy' territory justifying movement with the full army? Tacitus certainly does describe Suetonius's journey as being through 'the midst of the enemy'. Well I suppose it might have been in a notional sense but he doesn't say that the Midland tribes joined the rebellion. I don't see why, in his journey south-east, Suetonius needed to face anything worse than grudging neutrality. On the other hand if you insist that the Midlands was genuinely hostile you can't, in your model, really permit any of the mounted messengers to reach Suetonius's HQ since they, obviously, really would be highly vulnerable!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 11
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Hi TP
Many thanks for the reply and the alternatives......
The reason to try and establish a timeline is to show that events had moved quite considerably before Seutonius realises that he has a crisis on his hands.
As you say if the country was up in arms (after Colchester was sacked) the messages that Colchester had been destroyed and that the Ninth had been defeated may not have reached Seutonius.
He would have sent messages to the Ninth and the Second (although as you say if the country was up in arms they may not have got the messages). Now that is a thought could it have been that the Second never got the “Call to Arms”?
I am prepared to accept that Seutonius may have had a quantity of horse with him (Tacitus mentions that the crossing of the Menai street some soldiers used swimming horses so perhaps this was a tactic) however it is unlikely that cavalry alone would have been able to overcome a marching army by themselves (let’s ignore Dio for the moment) other wise Cerialis may have had more success against the Iceni / Trinovantes.
So to take 2,000 horse down to fight an unknown army does seem to be a little suspect.
If on the other hand Seutonius felt he could not rely on a scouting force to reconnoitre the situation (which you would have thought was their role) why would he take 2,000 horse with him away from the army?
Regarding the army travelling times:
I think the accepted times for a mounted messenger (dispatch rider) was 50 miles per day, the Roman Cavalry was 40 miles per day, Roman Army with a baggage train was 15 miles per day, for the army on a forced march (with packs) 25 miles per day, a rabble (like Boudicca’s army with families) has been estimated at 10 miles per day.
(So the saving of time between them would have been 4 days over a 250 mile journey (not a lot) but this is not the whole story.
Using your figures it would (at the very best) have taken 6 days for the cavalry to reach London. It must take some time for Seutonius to evaluate the situation, wait for the Second (who don’t show up), organise refugees into his army (Tacitus) and then decide to abandon London to its fate. We could allow 2 days but it could have been longer.
The decision is done with regret but it is done on the spot and he leaves. (Interestingly Tacitus states that part of this decision is made based on the destruction of the Ninth which implies that Seutonius knew of their fate at this time.
According to established thinking the Roman Cavalry now returns up Watling Street and meets the Army at Mancetter where they prepare to stand and fight.
A dispatch rider might have been sent to stop the Army from advancing farther down Watling Street but would have met them within 1 days march of London if we look at the figures.
When he leaves London 8 days have passed. The infantry marching at even 20 miles a day would have covered 160 miles but probably 200 miles.
If we add another day of travel to allow the two bodies of soldiers to meet it would have been about 225 miles. They would have met at St Albans.
(This of course does not allow for the refugees who would have slowed down Seutonius).
It would therefore seem that even if Seutonius had gone down to London first to try and find out what was happening, the Army would have been close behind.
So in either scenario the whole army would after 9 – 10 days have been in or near London.
In theory we are now around Day 24 (but this is probably longer as marching horses or soldiers at breakneck speed for that distance would have needed more rests so perhaps we are really looking at Day 26 or longer)
(Boudica still has not appeared at London some 21 days after destroying Colchester – some hangover!)
I think there is another reason.....
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Hi TA
Thanks for the very detailed post. Reading it reminds me how much we don't know.
If the revolt of the Iceni, the transformation from brooding discontent to open rebellion I mean, occurred rapidly and unexpectedly then the other British tribes may have heard about it much later than Suetonius. At least the Roman's had mounted couriers and Suetonius may have made special efforts to be contactable whilst campaigning in North Wales. Personally I doubt if the whole country was 'up in arms'. I think that your model can allow for all Roman messengers to get through successfully, but consequently my model must be allowed to let Suetonius to make dispositions without being attacked by anyone except Boudica.
The rate at which Roman Infantry could move depended on many factors. If they had to build marching camps at the end of each day this would slow them up. If there was a chance of their being attacked on the march then I don't think their generals would be prepared to force march them day after day. It follows that I believe that there is a far greater difference in the time it would take for infantry to reached London from the time taken for cavalry.
I don't think you can have it both ways. If Suetonius knew that legio IX had been attacked he would also have known that their commander had escaped 'with his cavalry'. "Ah" says Suetonius to himself "even in defeat the cavalry escaped from the Britons; I'll take a bigger force of mounted soldiers with me to London."
I sympathise with both commanders. Suetonius was also Governor of Britain. He needed the type of intelligence that took a personal inspection by him and his staff. He had to go south with all possible speed, which meant he had to ride. Boudica was in the same position as Ulysses S Grant. Conquering territory from the Romans and destroying their towns was insufficient. All the time there was an ably commanded enemy army in existence 'British Britain' would never be secure.
TP -
Message 13
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Hi TP
Thank you for your analysis
I think we may have to differ on this time line.
As I said previously although I don’t think that Seutonius would have split the army as you state, even with this split I believe that there would have only been a short time difference between the cavalry getting to London.
If the infantry had to build a marching camp by the same measurement the cavalry would also have had to had some defence overnight as well.
It also depends on how you perceive when Seutonius got the information about the Ninth defeat.
Was is it as part of his fact finding mission in London which would seem to be reasonable as he did not attempt to get the Ninth’s valuable cavalry to join him by relieving them with his large force?
The fact that Seutonius would have needed local information to proceed with his campaign against Boudica I readily accept and would consider that this would take some time to have his scouts and agents gather information for him.
There was also another reason that Seutonius chose London and that was because he could re-supply his men there.
He would have already have made huge inroads into any food storage on his journey South and Tacitus makes remarks about the importance of wheat to the armies.
By holding London Seutonius would have been able to fight a long campaign being supplied from the granaries in London and to have had them replenished and reinforcements sent his way.
He was also awaiting the Second Legion and when it did not turn up realised that he could not (even with his whole force (which did not in my opinion contain the veterans of the Twentieth at this time) advance against an army of the size that was already deployed by Boudica.
Deployed but held.
Because Boudica was expecting Seutonius to attack her army with his Legions
as had the Ninth.
But Seutonius decided to leave London the “busy centre, chiefly through its crowd of merchants and stores” to its fate because it was not possible to defend.
So he would have been fully aware of what he was doing.
As Tacitus states “The laments and tears of the inhabitants, as they implored his protection, found him inflexible: he gave the signal for departure, and embodied in the column those capable of accompanying the march: all who had been detained by the disabilities of sex, by the lassitude of age, or by local attachment, fell into the hands of the enemy.”
Seutonius had refugees with him when he left and would have taken all the food that he could carry with him.
As he left he would not have given Boudica any advantage of him and probably destroyed any granaries or food or weapons storage that the Army could not remove, a “scorched earth policy” of any army on retreat. (This would seem to fit the case for the destruction of the warehouses of Southwark).
Perhaps the responsibility for the fires of London were not only down Boudica.
Seutonius used London to delay and even to stop Boudica hoping that she would run out of food and retreat back to her lands.
The abandonment of London also allowed him to cover his retreat and to possibly regroup perhaps not only for the immediate present but for the Fighting Season as Dio indicates.
On my Timeline we are still around Day 26 - Day 30
A month has passed but what month would this be July, August, September?
As you say there is so much we just don't know.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Hi TA
Should we leave it there and wait to see if we get any other interested posters do you think? With only two of us it is really hard to determine a majority view.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Hi TA
Should we leave it there and wait to see if we get any other interested posters do you think? With only two of us it is really hard to determine a majority view.
Kind regards,
°Ő±ĘĚý Hi TP,
Kind regards and with esteem,
P -
Message 16
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
Hi TP
Well it looks like Paul is looking (Thankyou) but I am happy to leave it there for now if you like........ unless others would like to take it further......
Best Wishes - TA -
Message 17
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
Until someone finds a gravepit or the like the site of Boudica's final battle will remain speculative.
Of the two most common assertions, Mancetter and Potterspury, I think Mancetter is the most likely: lovely broken landscape to create that deadly narrow defile.
John Waite in his book `Boudica's Last Stand' opts for High Cross also known as Venonis where Watling Street (A5) crosses the Fosse Way (B4455). It is a reasonable argument fairly presented.
I have recently finished reading Guy de la Bedoyere's piece on Boudicca in his `Defying Rome' anthology. He has some interesting observations as to the timing of the revolt which speculate that the rising was planned rather than spontaneous.
There are extensive burnt layers at Colchester, London and Verulamium as well as destruction at Park Street near to St. Albans. The termination of a Late Iron Age site at Fison Way, Thetford suggests some Roman retaliation.
In the absence of contemporary records a certain amount of joining the dots becomes necessary. -
Message 18
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 6th July 2011
TA and TP
dont wait !!
you two keep going lol
i have read these posts with great interest - full of great technical details discussing what i have always wanted to know
my interest in roman history started by reading Imperial Governor by George Shipway - a novel but superbly researched
it dealt with the whole reign of seutonius paulinus and finished with the boudicca battle
given modern technology how can that battle site still be hidden - tacitus described it - sites can be CGI identified and surely metal detectors can narrow the search down
obviously tacitus exaggerated but weapons must be buried in the soil and we must be able to search the few possible sites for bones etc
they have found the teutoberger wald sites so surely we can find this momentous battle site
keep going chaps lol
st -
Message 19
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 7th July 2011
Hi paul;, stanilac and stalti
Many thanks for your interest........ and insights
OK - from now on it is speculation and joining the dots. It is trying to show that there is more than one interpretation of a limited story which can be spun more than just the Roman way......
I agree that this was a planned rebellion and not spontaneous. The more you look at events up to the point that Seutonius decides to retreat from and abandon London, Boudica and her forces were in control.
They destroyed the capital of Roman Britain, defeated (virtually annihilated) the Ninth Legion and retook the lands that the Romans had taken from them in a few short days.
They also managed to bottle up all the Roman troops in their forts in their area by not attacking them. Finally they didn’t go on the rampage down to London even though it was wide open to them.
This in my opinion shows an iron discipline and in depth planning of a large body of well armed men not a rabble of peasants or as I will show later probably made sure that they took in the wheat harvest.
Why did Boudica wait in her homelands?
Probably she was expecting an attack by Seutonius with the Fourteenth and the Second Legion at the very least. After all he had been advancing for days down Watling Street and could have invaded at various points on her borders.
She would have wanted to have laid an ambush for Seutonius where the Romans were at their weakest and with her farmers being local would have been able to call on them when necessary.
For Boudica and her army this was not about wealth, this was about freedom, ridding themselves of the hated Romans who had treated them so appalingly on the admissions of their own historians.
Instead of Seutonius attacking (which was presumably normal Roman Army practice), once he realised that the Second (if he was expecting them) weren’t going to join him, he retreated taking refugees with him and in my opinion used a scorched earth policy to cover his retreat.
Why, because he had to.
He could not afford for Boudica and her army and followers to be able to pick up the spoils from the harvest, the weapons in the arsenals or gold or bullion held in safety.
These either had to be transported out of harm’s way (perhaps by ship) or taken with the Army or had to be destroyed.
There is no reason at all to think that he would not have burnt the Warehouses in London or have sent a small force to St Albans to prevent Boudica from gleaning food from the granaries; and the archaeology can support this theory.
Actually by retreating he wrong foots Boiudica for the first time anmd regains the initiative whether by design or luck (you must put your own interpretation on it).
Perhaps the first that Boudica’s scouts realised that Seutonius was leaving was the flames from London burning.
I am making a leap of faith next and using a reference of Tacitus to the fact that Boudica was relying on capturing wheat from the Romans.
In this case I think that the granaries would have been full in the UK during August sometime.
If we take the timeline that it has taken virtually a month from the attack on Colchester to the arrival of Seutonius in London.
So he would be finishing his campaign against the Druids sometime during July which at least is probable considering a campaign of this magnitude.
So Seutonius probably was in London at the end of August beginning of September.
This means that the army of the Iceni and Trinovantes (who probably had a fair proportion of farmers in its ranks) may have harvested their crops in August but didn’t have time to plant their crops before they set after Seutonius at the beginning of September.
Perhaps we are looking at Day 32 for the Iceni and Trinovantes to leave (let’s say Colchester) for London where Seutonius and his army was last sighted.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 20
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 8th July 2011
TA
The Ninith Legion was given a good thumping but was not nearly annihilated as you say. They lost a substantial vexillation which had to be replaced with 2000 troops from Germany after the rebellion was put down. Also Cerialis came back to Britain as a general later on which he would not have been allowed to do if he had lost a legion.
The question of the harvest is a vexed one. I have been hauled over the coals for suggesting that the Iceni did not plant crops that year. I accept the point that there is no evidence to support that view but the question remains how do you get so many people to rise at the same time without a plan? Did the rebellious British have a plan? De La Bedoyere has some interesting thoughts on that matter.
The evidence suggests that Suetonius waited for Boudicca to draw her out of her backyard as it were. Waite suggests that he may have achieved that by being beastly to the Midland tribes to provoke her. Again it is a matter of opinion but lets be honest Suetonius had to put the rebellion down quickly and Boudicca did not go south from London, she turned and went north looking for the Roman army. If she had gone south then she could have cut the Province off from the rest of the Empire ensuring Suetonius could not resupply. Quite simply the rebellious British were also living in the short-term.
My own view is that there was a conspiracy of sorts as there are always headbangers, this exploded spontaneously following the violations and acquired a credibility that it could not sustain. The rest is just anger at Roman incomers and their British collaborators. The rebels got lucky at Colchester and with The Ninth, Suetonius did not have the forces to protect Verulamium and London so he made a tactical withdrawal pending the advance of his battle hardened legions. He then chose the place for his battle and waited the rebellious British there. All he had to do was get them to come at him which they duly obliged. -
Message 21
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 8th July 2011
ta and tp
your duel is as good as it gets
2 people who know their subject posting technical details - superb
but am i the only one who thinks that the whole thing is the perfect example of ad hoc history
seutonius paulinus needs to smash the druid culture
at the same time - behind his back a tribal leader is being flogged and her daughters raped
all hell breaks loose and its lucky that the man in charge is paulinus
st -
Message 22
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 9th July 2011
Hi Stalti
Perhaps it is a tad more detailed than you imply.
It shows that Seutonius Paulinus actually under estimated the Brythons.
If you think that the Romans had been here for 17 years and had still not conquered the Welsh, it had taken them a long time to hold the early conquests.
The locals in the South East respected that Romans who in fact became exceptionally greedy and treated them with disdain robbing them even though they were supposed to be allied to them.
This doesn't really smack of high moral values and respect.
Many people attribute the Romans with fair play and high moral standards but they were no better than imperial explorers and adventurers like the Conquistadors or the British east India Company or the RAJ.
They were sophisticated but much of this was for themselves. They built towns but this was as a control of the population and they increased reliance on coinage but agagain a method of control..
They were a military based society who dominated those they invaded and cruelly put down any rebellion (in fact Seutonius nearly destroys entirely the Iceni in cold blooded reprisals for months after the uprising).
Nero recalls Seutonius after all of this and the following Governor does everything in his power to "calm" the Province and get it back on its feet financially.
So the idea that Seutonius was the right man at the right time is not a judgement that I would entirely support. After all he nearly lost the Province in the first place and Nero nearly abandoned it we hear.
Ad Hoc History - not to my way of thinking anyway....
Best Wishes - TA -
Message 23
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 9th July 2011
Hi TP
Many thanks for your views.
Although there are many points that I can agree with you on there are some fundamental points that I have a different opinion.
In my opinion the Romans totally under estimated the Brythons and got badly caught out.
I agree that it was not all of the Ninth that got wiped out but 2000 troops were destroyed and Cereialis only escaped with his cavalry. Obviously the rest of his troops were somewhere else (probably keeping an eye on the Brigantes).
I suspect that the Romans believed that the Brythons had no weapons but obviously that was not the case.
You say that this was not a planned uprising but the fact that the Ninth was ambushed would tend to support good planning by the Brythons catching the Romans at their most vulnerable.
I do not think that the uprising was spontaneous as it would appear to have happened when the Romans were at their weakest. No this was planned and may have even allowed for the harvest to be taken in.
None of the forts were attacked according to Tacitus – the Romans were bottled up.
It seems that Boudica was waiting for Seutonius to attack her, which would have been the normal Roman practice but in fact he didn’t.
I still don’t see any evidence for Seutonius going back North. Most of his Legions were based in the South (Second and the Twentieth) and as I have stated previously I believe that the Fourteenth were with him.
To use your argument, if he went North he would effectively cut himself off from his own troops and also risk the Province being cut off. In fact I think that this argument may well have been why he went down to London in the first place, to ensure that he wasn’t marginalised or stopped from being re-supplied
The argument that Seutonius had to put down the rebellion swiftly again would support the idea that his original thought was to attack the Iceni and Trinovantes immediately but realised that they were better armed and more formidable than he originally assumed.
I think that you are perfectly correct in that the harvest was not planted. It may well have been thought that they would be back to plant it by the end of September and certainly Tacitus states that the Brythons were expecting to capture the Roman grain supplies.
Another reason why I don’t think Seutonius went North is that he was weighed down by refugees (Tacitus) and would have been travelling at about 15 miles a day. It would have taken him about 6 days and he might well have been caught by Boudica’s army.
No all the logic points to Seutonius going West where he could get to the South Coast for reinforcements, over to Exeter to regroup with the Second or across to Usk or Caerleon to join up with the Twentieth or a combination of all three......
Kind Regards - TA. -
Message 24
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 10th July 2011
Hi All
So where was Seutonius, his army and refugees heading for?
Seutonius was not looking to take Boudica head on, he was in retreat according to Dio to regroup to re-attack the next year.
In my scenario he leaves London to its fate about Day 30, perhaps the beginning of September with his army, a baggage train and refugees.
It is interesting that he leaves civilians behind, although some obviously feel that London is worth fighting for but it seems unlikely that we are talking of tens of thousands as London was not surrounded and people could have moved either away to the South or to the West.
How many people were left in London we will probably never know but they wouldn’t have stood a chance against a vengeful people intent on destruction. Whether the reports of the atrocities are accurate or purely propaganda is pure conjecture. There is no confirming archaeology to support mass genocide.
Seutonius however can only travel at around 10 - 15 miles each day but he has a head start of perhaps 5 days.
So where can he go, where can he pick up reinforcements?
The obvious move is to go to the West to link up with the Second and if necessary units from the Twentieth or indeed a large part of the Twentieth which would give him around 20,000 troops immediately and would also allow him to get other troops from Gaul etc.
Also with refugees he is not going to head for a confrontation, the refugees would not have gone where they felt they would be in danger.
So he sets off towards Staines (Day 30) on the first leg towards Silchester where he still has a has a number of options open to him and perhaps the Second might show.
Boudica hears about this and knows that she has to bring Seutonius to battle. She doesn’t need him to get reinforcements and will have a good estimation of his forces from her scouts.
She knows she has overwhelming forces at her command before he meets up with his other Legions so she must march immediately with her army.
If she is at Bury St Edmonds (being central to her kingdom) or the surrounding area she is around 75 miles away from London, about 3 days for the army to march.
If we allow for the army to be assembled in the 2 days after Seutonius leaves London, Boudica then leaves on Day 32.
The camp followers trundle on behind bringing food in their wagons and won’t reach London for 5 days (at 15 miles per day) on Day 37.
To recap: End of Day 32 finds Seutonius at Staines (30 miles from London) with his army and refugees, Boudica is 50 miles from London with her troops and the Camp Followers are 60 miles away from London.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 25
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 11th July 2011
Hi All
OK - this is becoming a monologue so I am probably boring the pants off everybody who is perhaps sick and tired of Boudica and the various endings with limited data but I will leave you with one last post.....
To continue:
Day 35 Boudica arrives in London and comes across three things. No wheat or weapons and various people some who were prepared to fight.
It would have been a massacre....... as we read, but no different to the Roman massacre of the families and cattle of the Iceni and Trinovantes at the final battle (and that was before the Romans would have known about the massacres in London).
I think that it is important that although a lot is made of the atrocities in London by the Brythons, this is not unusual in a wartime scenario even today. These are recent events which in some ways reflects both the Brythons and the Roman Army at this time.
The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass murder of an estimated 800,000 people in the small East African nation of Rwanda.
Over the course of approximately 100 days (from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira on April 6) through mid-July, over 500,000 people were killed, according to a Human Rights Watch estimate. Estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the country's total population.
It was the culmination of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the minority Tutsi, who had controlled power for centuries, and the majority Hutu peoples, who had come to power in the rebellion of 1959–62 and overthrown the Tutsi monarchy.
The Srebrenica massacre, also known as the Srebrenica genocide, refers to the July 1995 killing of more than 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys, in and around the town of Srebrenica in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by units of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) under the command of General Ratko Mladić during the Bosnian War, in the largest mass murder committed in Europe since World War II.
A paramilitary unit from Serbia known as the Scorpions, officially part of the Serbian Interior Ministry until 1991, participated in the massacre and it is alleged that foreign volunteers including the Greek Volunteer Guard also participated.
Regarding beheadings it is common place today as part of Sharia law and also is used by Muslim fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan and more recently by gangsters in Mexico and we should not forget the killing fields in Cambodia.
So much of what has been written by the Roman writers about the atrocities needs to be put in context.
On the one side you had a brutal occupation and the hate levelled against these invaders and the tribes who sided with them.
On the other hand you had an Army of occupation who were still fighting a number of Brythonic tribes in Wales and had to defeat the Iceni and Trinovantes and as can be seen from the aftermath the Romans set about a form of genocide to ensure that the tribes in the East of the country never challenged them again.
So the Iceni and the Trinovantes now have no food having used up their rations. Seutonius has removed the food, weapons and bullion from London. So what does Boudica do now?
Seutonius is fading into the distance on Day 36 (by this time he and the refugees would be at Silchester 60miles away).
Boudica’s baggage train would still be two days from London but her and her army need food - remember they have been travelling for 3 days....
Where is the next town that would have granaries? Verulamium 25 miles away to the North but on a roadway that leads to Silchester and to Colchester. She would send messages to her Baggage Train to meet them at Verulamium.
Boudica leaves London on Day 36 and arrives at Verulamium on the same day to find it deserted and burnt with no food stocks, as part of Seutonius policy to deny Boudica’s army of food and to stop them or at least to slow them down.
She is now forced to raid the local countryside for food and wait for her baggage train with supplies. This does not arrive until the evening of Day 37 and her army would probably have been without food for a couple of days.
Seutonius is now at Silchester with his army and the refugees.
The Second Legion still hasn’t arrived and Seutonius needs to regroup. Silchester has food and shelter and is an excellent logistics base. A time for his weary army to rest. They have been travelling virtually constantly for some 30 or so days
We are now into September, nearing the end of the Campaign Season and as Dio states (and Tacitus implies) Seutonius is not really looking for a fight at this stage.......
Boudicca on the other hand certainly is......
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 26
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 12th July 2011
Hi TA,
I'm no Romanist, alas, but let's look at this from Boudicca's point of view.
She knows that she is not leading a populist national resistance. She is leading the confederations that make up her own people and their allies. She is aware that other tribes are holding the line against Wome, but they are too far away to make any short term link up possible.
Undoubtedly, there would have been a history of conflict with other tribes, particularly those nearby. The Roman invasion presumably put a lid on that, but one thing she cannot rely on is that her actions will light the blue touch paper and spark a co-ordinated national resistance to Wome.
Boudicca therefore has two very good reasons to sit it out in or near East Anglia. In East Anglia, she is as secure as she can be. She is close to home, in friendly country and there is less chance of mass desertions when the initial fuss has worn off and her men are casting half an eye homewards. She can raise her tribe, but she cannot keep it fed and watered in the field long term. She needs a quick, decisisive battle with the remaining Roman forces. The worse thing for her is to remain unfought. If Wome doesn't come, her army will have to disband and she is a sitting duck for the next campaign season - unless she can stir up the passions a second time. Burning towns and killing Romans makes it more likely that she can force a battle and also gives her lads something to do in the meantime. No one wants a bored army.
Secondly, if she decamps too quickly, her neighbours may take advantage of her absence and start raiding her own lands. The Romans are in no position to hold order until Boudicca is dealt with, so it's a great opportunity for hostile tribes to loot the Iceni homeland, paying off a few old scores in the process and setting themselves up as Friends of Wome in the event that Boudicca loses. Furthermore, if she decamps her forces, any checkmate position she has established over nearby Roman detachments is immediately lost.
So, perhaps the advance on London is an attempt by Boudicca to force battle, keep her troops busy and take a bit more symbolic revenge in the process.
Regards,
A R -
Message 27
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 13th July 2011
Hi AR
In most respects I agree with you.
There is the Roman side which states that Boudica, the Iceni and the Trinovantes were intent on plunder and revenge by destroying Colchester, then London and then St Albans.
Yet if this is what the Brythons wanted to do they had plenty of time to destroy Colchester, defeat the part of the Ninth Legion that was sent against them and then march down to London.
If this was their intention they could have easily done this before Seutonius Paulinus had even heard about Colchester being destroyed.
Therefore there would not have been a London for Seutonius to visit or in fact a St Albans so this scenario does not stand up to scrutiny.
The Iceni and the Trinovantes must have been pretty wealthy otherwise the Tax Gatherers would not have been sent to them in the first place.
No this was a planned uprising to coincide when the Romans were fighting the Druids and may have had links to the South West (according to recent archeological evidence which shows some fighting down in Devon at this time, perhaps timed to the uprising in the East).
This was against the Romans a concerted effort and it may well have been the burning of Colchester was designed to bring the Romans in and ambush them (as happened to the Ninth).
The trouble was that Seutonius never attacked and therefore Boudica had to chase him to bring him to battle as you rightly say.
To imply that this rebellion was a knee jerk reaction to the abnoxious behaviour of the veterans of the Twentieth in Colchester, the beating of Boudica and the rape of her daughters and the Tax gathering of the Procurator is to underestimate the Brythons as the Romans did......
No, Boudica went to London to finish off Seutonnius and the Fourteenth Legion because she knew that there would never be a better time when he was so weakened and his forces so overstretched.
A thought has just occurred to me re the distribution of the Legions during the Campaign.
We think the Ninth was split in two a Lincoln and at Longthorpe and possibly that the Twentieth was at Usk and at Kingsholme, the Fourteenth were with Seutonius and the Second were at Exeter with a substantial number perhaps putting down an uprising in Devon.
Perhaps the Commander in Exeter had been told to stay put by his commanding officer out on his own campaign
Whilst the majority oft he Twentieth was fighting in South Wales.
All too thinly spread.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 28
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 13th July 2011
hi u 2
i still dont know why u think this isnt an ad hoc revolution
paulinus had in his sights the destruction of the druids
not for their religion but because they were the central point of resistance to the roman occupation
if it was just a religion they would have been ok
so he goes to wales when the southern brits are subdued - no problem
when he is away the beauracrats take over and commit rape and humiliation to tribal leaders
from then on the whole of the iceni and allied tribes revolt - dont blame them
even boudicca doesnt have complete command of the ensuing holocaust - it just happens and the romans were lucky that paulinus was the man in charge
cool calm and calculated
st -
Message 29
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Thursday, 14th July 2011
Hi Chaps,
I suspect I stand somewhere in the middle between TA's unified rebellion and stalti's ad hoc uprising. I'm not sure we can say with any certainty that Boudicca's revolt was a pre-planned event in a concerted and centrally organised nationalist rising against Wome, but by the same token, she must have seen that the time was right, given how stretched the Roman forces were.
Rome was in a difficult position - like trying to play three or more games of chess at the same time. Detachments are safe in their forts, but when large swathes of the country have risen against you, freedom of movement and supply can easily be compromised. That said, Wome must have known that the idea of a unified British national identity simply didn't exist - Britannia was a collection of distinct tribal groups and doubtless early Roman gains and advances took full advantage of existng tension and rivalry. This allows Wome a breathing space. You might lose a few towns, but ultimately large sections of the country are likely to remain friendly, or neutral, so it's really just about the logistics of which problem to deal with first. The disposition of forces as suggested by TA may have made the logistics more complex than they otherwise might have been, but a cool head could prevail.
This might all be hogwash, of course, but I think we always have to be careful about viewing these things in relation to our more modern preoccupations with the concept of the sovereign nation state.
Regards,
A R -
Message 30
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 14th July 2011
Hi AR and Stalti
An excellent point about the tribalism and splits across the Brythonic peoples, held together a little by the Druids, sadly how much we will never know.
The destruction of the Judges and Historians of the Brythons was something that was high on the Roman Agenda and had been understood by them for a number of years.
Was there some cohesion based on their judgements and ideas?
Certainly they were regarded as very powerful by Julius Caeser and they had to be destroyed to make the breakthrough by the Romans in the defeat of the Brythons.
Interestingly they were not finished by Seutonius Paulinus and this task had to be completed by Agricola a number of years later.
I would however agree that basically there was no great alliances between the tribes and many including the Iceni were “Clients” under the Romans. This was the same for many tribes and it was mainly the tribes in the West and Wales and eventually the North that fought
It was only when the East of the country was raped financially and the locals evicted leaving them with nothing that two tribes (the Iceni and the Trinovantes) plotted the overthrow of the Romans. Effectively the local inhabitants were being reduced to a second class nation where prior to this they had been a wealthy tribes
More recent evidence suggests that the rebellion happened in AD61 not AD60 which indicates that this was a planned revolt a while after the beating of Boudica, the rape of her daughters the sequestering of the Iceni and Trinovante property on top of the arrogant attitude of the local Romans..
They must have known that the retribution that the Romans would meet out on them would be severe if they lost.
You don’t have a knee jerk reaction to something when you know the probability is that you will be killed – things must have been desperate.
I agree that a cool head was what was needed and an experienced one and Seutonius had both in spades, which again is another reason for this seasoned leader NOT to rush down to London with his cavalry and splitting his army in two.
To say that a cool head would inevitably prevail is perhaps to miss the point.
There was more than one cool head in this contest and not just on one side......
This was life and death stuff....
.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 31
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 16th July 2011
hi ar and ta
good points both and both legitimate arguments
i dont pretend to be an expert but have read a lot about boudicca and it is SO interesting - course we didnt learn about it at school (but we did the corn laws)
i agree the brits were probably simmering and thinking about revolt but the absence of paulinus while being a good time to go for it needed a catalyst - if boudicca wasnt violated - would it have happened then - after paulinu returned it would have been too late
also the rebellion - the rebels torched colchester - it was a symbol of hatred - but of no danger to the rebels - london - so what full of brits and anglo romans - no tactcal or strategic importance - vengeance !!
i believe that boudicca - although a figurehead had no tactcal control over the army - it was more - are there romans - lets kill them
the final battle was fought because there were romans there - we are here so lets get them - there were no tactics and the brythons attacked a bad position because they couldnt be controlled
we all know what happened then
(((
st
(only a thought lol) -
Message 32
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 17th July 2011
Hi st
I don't think that it was the violation of Boudicca and her daughters that was actually the catalyst.
I think that it was simply the fact that both the Trinovantes and Iceni were so badly treated by some Romans.
We have to remember that as far as Rome was concerned all Provinces had to turn a profit. This underpins the Roman philosophy. The associated civilisations that came along were the controls that were used to maintain the province economically.
It wasn't until the time that Prasutagus died and the veterans of the Twentieth Legion and the Procurator started taking away the nobles rights, lands and wealth that the penny dropped. That they were not even allies of Rome or even clients of Rome but chattels of Rome.
Boudica was someone who people rally round as a figure head but even the Romans attribute the rebellion mainly to her.
Regarding your point about Colchester you are correct but it needed to be removed for two reasons.
Firstly there were too many veterans to leave as a threat and what better way to evict people who had taken your lands and wealth.
Also what other way could Boudica ensure that the Romans would respond and attack her?
Her strategy worked against the Ninth legion but Seutonius was too wise (or perhaps lucky as he had seen what Boudica did to the Ninth, Tacitus confirms that).
Remember Paulinus was extremely experienced but it is an interesting point that he totally missed that the Iceni or the Trinovantes had weapons secreted away considering that they had been completely disarmed only a few years before.
The Romans simply misread the situation and thought that they could walk all over these tribes without any problem at all.
The fact that Catus Decianus only sent 200 auxilliary soldiers to Colchester re-inforces this argument.
Boudica was very close to a complete victory.
Paulinus should never have got himself into this situation but was hampered by the money boys in Rome - much like today......
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 33
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 4th August 2011
hi ta
what u say is mostly correct - BUT i cant believe that u dont agree that the assault on boudicca and her daughters was the catalyst for the firestorm that followed
yes the iceni and trinovantes were at boiling point but firstly they needed a moment in time to go for it - how about the best roman troops away from the area - the best general doing other things and a reason to explode
then a reason to explode - which wouldnt have happened if paulinus was at home
st -
Message 34
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Friday, 5th August 2011
Hi Stalti,
I have to say I rather doubt that the treatment handed out to Boudicca and her gels would have been enough in the absence of anything else to cause pretty much all of East Anglia to rise in rebellion, but you and TA probably know rather more about this period than I do.
That said, those acts may well have been symbolic of a more general, high-handed treatment.
"yes the iceni and trinovantes were at boiling point but firstly they needed a moment in time to go for it - how about the best roman troops away from the area - the best general doing other things and a reason to explode"
There are certainly other examples of this - the '45 for one. I suspect it's rather unwise just to dodge the opposing army and leave it unfought and on your tail, but if the opposing army is on the wrong side of the country, you might have a window of opportunity. The Scottish army totally outflanked the English (whether by accident or design) in 1542 and but for the entirely unexpected English victory at Solway Moss, would have been half way to London before the English army proper had woken up and realised that sitting around in the north east drinking Newcastle Brown and parading around in the permafrost in your t-shirt wasn't the best way to stop a Scottish army which was coming down through Cumberland.
Perhaps it was less of an explosion and more of a level headed plan - the rebellion was going to happen and they picked their time. I suspect Wome would have recorded it as a knee jerk reaction from ill-behaved savages who were incapable of planning and required a damn good thrashing, but are there any clues as to the level of organisation in Boudicca's camp?
Regards,
A R -
Message 35
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 5th August 2011
hi ar
your comparison with the 45 rebellion is interesting is interesting but i feel flawed
the scottish army could well have even got to london but had no chance of victory - it was too small and would eventually have been smashed by the regiments available nearer london - it had no chance of reinforcements
boudicca on the other hand had the chance of smashing the entire roman army in britain - it smashed the vexillations in her path and if she had got her tactics right would have smashed paulinus army
would would have happened then - all roman traces in britain would have been decimated
what would rome have done - another invasion ?
this time it would have been against a united britain - deal or walmer would have been defended by 50000 tribal warriors
less chance of a successful invasion i think
st -
Message 36
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 6th August 2011
Hi st and AR
Regarding Boudica as being the catalyst as in a spark that started the reaction to Rome I don’t think that is quite the case.
For the first time the Brythons realised that even if you thought you were an ally of Rome, that was only the case until Rome thought otherwise
I think that this realisation happened when the Iceni’s lands were taken from them and the Royal line was in effect debased by the Romans.
From what we understand from Tacitus the Trinovantes had their land taken by the Veterans at Colchester but the actual point of a complete peoples being treated as a conquered nation by the State was a shock especially that of a loyal subject.
It appears that Boudica was abused in AD60 but the uprising itself didn’t happen until AD61 so the argument that the rebellion was a “knee jerk” reaction is unfounded.
AR you ask if Boudica planned the uprising.
I am not of the opinion that the Brythons were a backward race as so many other people appear to infer when discussing the difference between the two sides. This is a “Roman” view but doesn’t necessarily “stack up” when the evidence is sifted.
That they lived differently was obviously true and the fact that present day societies are based on the Roman model demonstrates clearly how the Roman Administration has continued to be upheld through the people who could read and write down the ages.
Firstly the Iceni had been disarmed a decade previously so they must have re-armed themselves and this takes time.
It also takes great secrecy and therefore organisation to keep this information from Roman intelligence.
When they were disarmed the rebellion was put down swiftly and effectively so the Iceni would have known what to have expected if they did rise up against Rome.
So this had to be planned.
They had to re-arm and had to form alliances with the Trinovantes. This would infer that perhaps the law givers and judges of the Brythons would have had to be involved which implies that the Druids were also party to this uprising.
There are those that say that this planning goes farther than the Trinovantes and the Iceni and that the Brythons in South Wales and the South West were also involved in order to keep the Roman Legions occupied at the very time that Seutonnius Paulinus was in Anglesey and Boudica attacked.
Was this in fact a plan to prevent the Druids from being exterminated?
I have always wondered if Seutonius Paulinus was completely successful in destroying the Druids in Anglesey, why Agricola had to do the job all over again two decades later?
Boudica wanted to fight Rome on her home turf and in her own way and the Romans nearly fell for it.
They lost over 2,000 men in an ambush (similar to Varus’ legions) which would have required considerable planning and thought.
They attracted Seutonius Paulinus towards Colchester but he was too experienced to be drawn in as might of other commanders.
There is much more to show that it was the Brythons who were controlling events up to the time that Seutonius Paulinus withdrew his forces andf then the tide started to turn.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 37
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Monday, 8th August 2011
Hi both,
Thanks TA. I certainly agee that there is evidence of Iceni planning, even on the Roman account.
Would re-arming be such an issue? I don't know this period that well, but I've always rather regarded the Iceni horde as a huge peasant mass, armed with knives, agricultural implements, hunting bows, slings and bits of cutlery. I seem to recall from Latin classes that their "army" was described as enormous. To me, "diisarming" sounds like something that woud have happened to the warrior caste, rather than something which left the entire tribe with only round-ended scissors and wooden spoons.
The image of the great Celtic warrior on his chariot waving a big sword is perhaps only true for a very small number of the combatants - surely this stuff cost a lot of money and would be well beyond the reach of the average Joe.
Would they have had the chance to loot Roman arms en route?
Stalti - I'm intrigued by this idea that Britain would have rallied behind a successful revolt to resist a further Roman invasion. I've always thought that for many tribes, sucking up to Wome was quite an astute move. If later history is anything to go by, they probably hated each other as much as they hated anyone else. Could a successful East Anglian revolt have created national unity?
Regards,
A R
PS: Wherabouts were the later Roman provinces in Britain located? -
Message 38
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 8th August 2011
Hi AR
The first Iceni revolt was because the Romans wanted to disarm the Iceni (and did only 4 years after they invaded) so the Romans obviously thought that there was a good reason to disarm them when they were fighting in South and Mid Wales.
We have to infer that the Iceni had an effective armed force and were not just made up of a rabble of farmers with pitchforks.
So re-arming would have indeed been a major project.
We know that they must have been armed to attack Colchester but the amount of weaponry retrieved from there may have been small but there would have been a fair amount from the ambushed 9th Legion.
The following link might help with the Provinces....
Kind Regards - TA
. -
Message 39
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
Thanks, TA
I know wiki has got rather better in recent years, but is it really plausible that Valentia sat above Hadrian's Wall? My understanding was that the area between the walls was a kind of buffer zone made up of tribes who (hopefully) were reasonably well disposed to Wome, but who ran their own affairs.
But I'm no Romanist, so this might be rubbish.
Regards,
A R -
Message 40
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
Hi AR
No you are perfectly right - no one knows where Valentia really was although we have had some interesting discussions about it.
There was a relevant bit about the provinces towards the bottom of the article....my apologies for the Valentia bit........
It has been mooted in the North East, North West, between the Walls or even a sort of greater London.
To be a bit topical - regarding recent events in London it shows that it doesn't take much to loot a town or set it on fire.....
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 41
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 17th August 2011
hi ar
my thoughts on this are that - if they had actually destroyed the standing roman army in britain - they must know that a revenge invasion would be attempted
even though britain was a tribal society with differing tribes - after a victory - suerly they would have stayed together for the onslaught they knew would come
they knew that catching the new invasion on the beaches meant that they could get on with their own lives
st -
Message 42
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 20th August 2011
Hi st
This is a very interesting topic.
More recently historians appear to be realising that the Roman army being based in Britannia was indeed an occupation and enforced strictly. Yes they built cities but these were only methods of ruling the populace through the tribal aristocracies.
As we can all agree from Boudica's experience of what she thought were her Roman allies the Brythons were only tolerated so they could be exploited along with the physical resources and labour (living tools).
Slavery was rife, life was cheap so indeed this was an occupation.
If we remember that the Romans invaded on the invitation and collusion of certain tribes we should also realise that there was much inter tribal warring going on prior to AD43 and it has been said that this animosity continued even during the Roman occupation and it is true that certain parts of society (perhaps as much as the top 10% grew much richer and these were the people with the power).
The Iceni were unusual in that although they were clients of Rome it appears that in fact they didn't take on the Roman customs and kept to the "old ways".
If the Iceni and the Trinovantes had beaten Seutonius would they have gone back to their original territories or would they have expanded?
The Iceni and Trinovantes only came together because of Rome's attitude around AD60 to their aristocracy and land owners......
Would they have continued to be allies after this and would have the other tribes again sided with a new Roman invasion force.... indeed would have the Romans have even bothered?
Nero was all for abandoning Britannia during Boudica's revolt.... which makes you wonder how long the rebellion actually went on for and how much it was costing the State with no returns coming in.
If Rome had been beaten (and I don't think that even if Seutonius was beaten that the other 30,000 Roman soldiers would have gone quietly) the soldiery tied up here was 10% of the total Roman Army for only 4% of the Empire's land mass.
Someting was worth the Romans being here for. Was it slaves, auxilliaries, gold, silver, iron, wheat or just a place for the emperors to keep disaffected generals?
Or was it a combination of this and also keeping the Brythons out of Gaul and stirring up trouble there as they had done against Julius Ceasar?
Obviously the Druids were a major problem for Rome and had been a thorn in their side for decades.
Was it like American foreign policy today - fight on someone elses soil rather than your own (Afghaninstan? Iraq?)
When was the price too high - an interesting connundrum.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 43
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 20th August 2011
hi ta
i always think that the romans kept staying here because it was there
if they abandoned brittania it would have given hope to the rest of the empire - at the time of boudicca it was more a colony that was there - to be taken - rather than a jewel in the crown - they didnt get any advantage from the colony till years later
what i cant understand is why the battlefield hasnt been identified by local lore
a huge battle like that must have been subject to local legend - ie the field over the road would be known as the field of blood at least
why is it still a mystery
st -
Message 44
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 21st August 2011
Hi stalti
Well within the first 4 years ofthe occupation Gold, Lead, Silver and Ion were being mined by the Romans and slaves were also there for the asking, so the exploitation of Britannia began pretty quickly.
To try to answer the point about the battle site, it is reckoned that there are over two hundred possible sites as described by Tacitus within the possible areas that the battle could have taken place.
There are some local legends and even a field accross the road called "Black Field" but even then it is not easy to breakdown and battlesites often don't leave that much evidence even when we know approximately where they were for example Stamford Bridge or the the Battle of Hastings.
Possibly many bodies were burnt and the rest probably stripped of their valuables so the remnants are often few.......
That's what makes it so interesting.......
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 45
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Monday, 22nd August 2011
Hi Stalti,
"they knew that catching the new invasion on the beaches meant that they could get on with their own lives"
With respect, your argument is predicated on our British forebears having the same notion of the primacy of sovereign nation states and ethnicity (sorry, I mean "community") as we do. I am not sure that these are safe assumptions.
Why would the Romans be regarded as the national enemy? Because they came from another country and are therefore less like us that we are like one another?
Many tribes actively welcomed Rome and Roman protection. They wanted the things that being under the pax Romana could bring them. Rome didn't have to fight for every inch of ground between the beaches and the Fosse Way. Far from it.
When it comes down to it, ordinary folk prefer peace to war. They prefer stability to disorder. Ethnic identity comes a poor fourth to staying alive, making a living and copping off with someone pretty. For many tribes - especially those under the cosh from stronger neighbours - Rome may well have presented as the answer to their problems.
By way of an experiment, ask a Yorkshireman if he'd rather be ruled by Lancashire or by Japan. Despite the fact that Lankies are, to all intents and purposes, exactly the same as Yorkies (and leaving aside the fact that the rivalry between the two counties is based on a mass misunderstanding of the difference between a county and an aristocratic house), I'd lay you a tenner that most Yorkies would plump for the Land of the Rising Sun.
Regards,
A R -
Message 46
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 24th August 2011
Hi AR
I think stalti has a point in as much that some of the tribes who had already been under Roman rule would not welcome them back with open arms but soime who had benefitted would have.
Certainly within the first 15 years of occupation the Romans had already made it clear that they would extract a payment from all of the tribes one way or another. Taxation was a fine art of the Romans in most of their Provinces.
Your point that some tribes who had been protected would welcome them back (the Atrebates, Cantii, Belgae, Catuvellauni possily the Trinovantes for example) is true but other tribes like the Iceni, Silures Durotriges, Ordovices etc would not have wanted the Romans back.
It all depends on the Roman experience each tribe (or more importantly tribal leaders) had under the occupation.
Whether of course the tribes would have been capable of putting up a concerted effort is debateable but not beyound doubt.
As I said before even if Seutonius Paulinus had been defeated he could have regrouped with just the soldiers under his command in Britain (a further 30,000 +) and could have also been re-inforced from Gaul on the South Coast which was in friendly hands.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 47
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 25th August 2011
hi ar
what i meant is the scenario AFTER paulinus had been defeated (if he had)
if he had been defeated when he should have been - the britons would surely have united against any further roman invasion for once
ther was nowhere else to go - they had incurred the wrath of rome by destroying their armies - they knew aht was coming
this must have made them unite
st -
Message 48
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 1st September 2011
Hi All
An interesting article regarding Silchester and Boudica...
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 49
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 4th September 2011
I agree it is interesting but someone could just have easily left the kettle on by mistake. Until there is firm evidence all we have is speculation.
-
Message 50
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 9th September 2011
The Iceni first revolted very unsuccessfully in 47ad? Ostorius Scapula (who that year had replaced Plautius as Governor, leading the XIV Legion?) took a hard-nosed approach to the Celts and primarily chose the Iceni (hoping to bolster the pro-Roman Iceni, weakened by Antedios’ loosening grip on power?) among the tribes he plans to forcefully dis-arm, and establish a forward boundary, possibly at the rivers Trent/Severn?
It was from this revolt that Prasutagus became king, either by submitting or (more likely) holding back from the rebellion?
I believe that Boudica's own campaign, the Iceni and Trinovantes (few other tribes as far as we know) was very carefully planned for over a year or so since her flogging, the surviving Druids traditionally being able to unite former enemies and travel at will (incognito?) between tribes unmolested.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
±«Óătv iD
±«Óătv navigation
±«Óătv links
±«Óătv © 2014 The ±«Óătv is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.