Boudica's last battle: Was she naive?

[GhostOfClayton]

For anyone interested, here is an article I found online.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/theromans/Exploding-the-Boudica-myth.2398809.jp

 

A very nice article! Well spotted, ParatrooperLirelou. I very much like both her way of thinking and her style of writing. I may well investigate her work further.

[Maty]

For anyone interested, here is an article I found online.

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/theromans/Exploding-the-Boudica-myth.2398809.jp

 

A very nice article! Well spotted, ParatrooperLirelou. I very much like both her way of thinking and her style of writing. I may well investigate her work further.

 

Agreed - written with great flair. Not sure what the lady has against chariots - we know the Britons really did use them, and to great effect. Caesar and Tacitus among others are very clear on this. Also that stuff about 'We lived in a highly organised, structured, creative, peaceful society until Rome came and wiped it out.' contains at least two errors.

 

I'll agree with the highly-organized and structured bit, not least because these two are basically the same thing. Creative, certainly. Peaceful, definitely not. What we know of pre-conquest Britain involves the usual tribal warfare which got pretty intense at times. (Or does this writer think that the Brits spontaneously developed a talent for war when they gave Caesar such a hard time? Nor did people live in hill forts for the view.)

 

Next, the Romans did not wipe out British culture - that's one of the myths she should be exploding. Archaeology makes it clear that Romano-british culture retained a unique identity through the life of the empire.

[Kosmo]

"So - what did the Romans ever do for us? They taught us genocide and the advantages of spreading propaganda about the enemy. On principle, don

[GhostOfClayton]

Not sure what the lady has against chariots - we know the Britons really did use them, and to great effect.

 

My view was that she was right, but could've put her point more clearly. She questions their use in the way that it has been popularly reproduced by the media, as a method of attack. I agree with her that attack would not prove a useful application for a chariot. Getting a foot soldier (or two) quickly from A to B - where B is a particular part of a battlefield where they are needed to hop off and do some traditional ground-based fighting - is a more practical use. Obviously it would only be one tool in the battlefield logistics toolbox, but it obviously worked well enough to leave a physical archaeological record.

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

"So - what did the Romans ever do for us? They taught us genocide and the advantages of spreading propaganda about the enemy. On principle, don

[Hus]

So Manda Scott thinks that the Celts were 'peaceful until the Romans came along'? Dreeeeaaaaaaaam on, girl, try reading history books?

 

We well know that there are myths to be expounded, but at least the rest of us don't make idiotic claims like the above?

 

Her name may well indeed simply be an epithet rather than a personal one- perhaps even a posthumous title award her by erstwhile followers, or later Roman historians for dramatic purposes? Even if it was contemporary, it may have only been a name coined in the revolt, either by Boudicca herself or her followers.

 

Boud- and Bod- are well known as components of place names and mean, roughly,

Edited May 11, 2011 by Hus

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

So Manda Scott thinks that the Celts were 'peaceful until the Romans came along'? Dreeeeaaaaaaaam on, girl, try reading history books?

 

We well know that there are myths to be expounded, but at least the rest of us don't make idiotic claims like the above?

 

Her name may well indeed simply be an epithet rather than a personal one- perhaps even a posthumous title award her by erstwhile followers, or later Roman historians for dramatic purposes? Even if it was contemporary, it may have only been a name coined in the revolt, either by Boudicca herself or her followers.

 

Boud- and Bod- are well known as components of place names and mean, roughly,

[Melvadius]

I suppose it could be her training and experience as a Vet rather than a historian or archaeologist coming to the fore as some of what she has apparently said aligns well with more recent research and thoughts about the period.

 

However, there is always the slight suspicion with articles like this that they have been cut about a bit by the journalist writing them so may not necessarily reflect what was originally intended by the author.

 

I must admit I did wonder about her 'academic' as opposed to 'novelistic' credentials when I saw her speaking on the recent Time Team special Boudicca's Lost Tribes. She spoke well but there seemed a some small but significant knowledge of what is now 'known fact' about the period missing.

[Hieronymus Longinus Rufus]

With the Roman flanks secured by deep gorges and a dense forest to the Roman rear, maneuver battle, such as envelopment, was not really available to Boudica. Lacking any artillery, the only thing she could hope to do was to either overwhelm the the Romans by frontal assault, or to draw them off the hill, much as William did at Hastings. A third course of action would have been to lay siege to the Romans and starve them, or to clear the area and hope to catch them in the open where her numbers would have been more effective.

 

Boudica could not withdraw when her assaults failed because the wagons containing all the families got in the way and trapped the warriors. The wagons had been drawn up in a semi-circle across the rear of the Iceni forces so the families could watch. Instead they acted as a wall penning them in.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Hieronymus Longinus Rufus

[DecimusCaesar]

I found the Manda Scott article a good read, although I have to disagree with her claim that the ancient Britons were peaceful. Excavations at the Iron Age hillfort at Danesbury in England show remains of tribal warfare, including a warrior who was killed with a sword or spear blow to the skull. I also disagree with some archaeologists who claim that swords buried with Iron Age Britons were nothing more than fashion accessories. These weapons seem to point to me towards a society that valued warriors, even if the British tribes were not always involved in incessant warfare with each other, as some people believe.

[Here Wordus]

My first post! Hi guys.

 

Following on from a great and informative BBC thread about Paulinus & Boudica's campaigns of ad61, I have been reading a few sources and thinking about Boudica's tactics which largely employed ambush (and siege?) as a winning strategy until the end, in which she seems to have ditched her winning strength and opted for a disastrous pitched battle?

 

This has been excused over time as over-enthusiasm due to being flushed with victory or the geographical terrain at that last battle which necessitated a head-on assault only?

 

But in order to take on Paulinus in that last doomed pitched battle, why didn't Boudica send a large force of local foot warriors to ambush, or harass, the Roman rear?

Ambush was a tactic which had served the Britons well against Roman armies under Caesar and Scapula, and latterly the IXth Legion under Cerialis?

 

It didn't have to be a full-blooded and serious attempt to cut through the Romans in a true pincer attack, but with overwhelming numbers it would serve to distract Paulinus's comparatively tiny army, or perhaps spread fear as a psychological factor?

Boudica had the vast numbers to do this and, no matter where the battle was actually fought, some of her inter-tribal army would have known the terrain very well- hunting, etc? Examples where ambush or psychological panic routed armies were;

 

• 
   
  
• Pharsalus - the sudden revealing of Caesar's charging infantrymen behind his cavalry routed Pompey's cavalry under Labienus? Similarly, Hannibal used ambush twice in his battles of 218-7bc?
  
• Hastings - the effect upon the indomitable Normans when the word spread that 'William had fallen'? Then later in the same day, Harold!
  
• Agincourt- the effect of near-panic upon the English when word of their baggage train in the rear was being raided by the French? It actually wasn't in huge numbers, but the effect galvanised the desperate English, fearful of losing a desperate battle on two fronts?
  

If the woods and shrub were as dense as Tacitus and some scholars suggest, making the use of throwing weapons awkward (hindered by woods and trees), then why not at least do it for fear value?

It's not so much the actual firepower (or lack of) from the woods behind the Roman lines, but the sheer psychological effect upon the opposing force's ability to function/focus when suddenly presented with the enemy to the rear, even if tactically it is not threatening?

 

Surely not ALL tactical command had totally broken down by the time Boudica and her chieftains had sacked Colchester, London, St.Albans (and Staines and Silchester?)?

Or, as some scholars and net amateurs like me have suggested, was Paulinus's deliberate ravaging of British sacred groves/sites (to lure Boudica to him?) so successful that it made the furious British 'hoarde' lose their military sense?

[GhostOfClayton]

My first post! Hi guys.

 

Hi and welcome.

 

 

Message for the 'powers that be' on UNRV - maybe this post could be tacked on the end of this thread. it seems pretty relevant to that discussion.

[Melvadius]

Good suggestion Ghost but this one seemed much more appropriate.

[caldrail]

Following on from a great and informative BBC thread about Paulinus & Boudica's campaigns of ad61, I have been reading a few sources and thinking about Boudica's tactics which largely employed ambush (and siege?) as a winning strategy until the end, in which she seems to have ditched her winning strength and opted for a disastrous pitched battle?

 

This has been excused over time as over-enthusiasm due to being flushed with victory or the geographical terrain at that last battle which necessitated a head-on assault only?

 

But in order to take on Paulinus in that last doomed pitched battle, why didn't Boudica send a large force of local foot warriors to ambush, or harass, the Roman rear? Ambush was a tactic which had served the Britons well against Roman armies under Caesar and Scapula, and latterly the IXth Legion under Cerialis?

A pitched battle was fairly inevitable. Boudicca's forces had gathered strength once her popularity at winning victories against the Romans won waverers around. So large in fact that she had an identifiable superiority in numbers. Remember that Boudicca was of royal status and had been wronged. Although her husband had opted to become a client to keep the Romans sweet, he had in fact reneged on that contract by leaving half his kingdom to his wife and daughters. Once the Roman agents had moved in, taken what they believed to be theirs (and their slaves raping Boudicca's daughters, plus lashing Boudicca herself - a queen no less!), there was a sense of injustice and once she had proved herself a capable war leader, there was no need for any more incentive to crush these Roman upstarts completely.

 

Unfortunately the Romans were up to the job and beat back the britons decisively, pushing the defeated warriors into the crowd of wives and families the britons had set up as an audience to the slaughter.

 

British belligerence needs to be understood. There was little reason or logic to it. If one side felt slighted or saw an advantage, it was naztural to do something, and expected that men should wield swords in battle if called upon to do so. Their way of life is starkly recorded in the archaeological record with an appalling record of injuries survived. Yet the chaos of the early iron age was giving way to larger scale organisation. The move from isolated tribes/gangs to kingdoms was very much in place, possibly aided and inspired by the arrival of the relatively civilised belgae.

 

In any case, the Romans probably had a hand in forcing the issue. They much preferred to be the aggressors anyway, and since their strategy in dealing with barbarians was to fight formal battles (something at which they were somewhat better prepared in those days) we can see, much like in other cases such as Spartacus, the Druids, the Varus Expedition, the Caledonian Campaign etc, the idea was to force the enemy to meet them head on instead of allowing them to continue harassing and ambushing.

 

If the woods and shrub were as dense as Tacitus and some scholars suggest, making the use of throwing weapons awkward (hindered by woods and trees), then why not at least do it for fear value?

There was plenty of scrubland in Britain at the time, plus woodland clearance had been a feature of the Iron Age. I do agree that the forest remaining would have been a dark and imposing place, but realise that the Romans weren't willing to let themselves get caught in such defiles. In any case, the use of missiles was commonplace on the ancient battlefield and if you were prepared to turn up and fight, the chances were you already accepted the risk of receiving such assaults, thus the prospect of facing spears, stones, and arrows was not in itself fearful - although the results of that assault might clearly affect morale (or in extreme cases, decimate your forces)

 

Surely not ALL tactical command had totally broken down by the time Boudica and her chieftains had sacked Colchester, London, St.Albans (and Staines and Silchester?)?

Tactical command? Who exactly do you think Boudicca was leading? They were not a professional organised army, but groups of warriors led by chieftans and respected warriors. Tactical command in these cases is very limited, and in any case, I doubt the britons were much into tactics anyway. Too complicated. There's the enemy. Let's attack them now!

 

Or, as some scholars and net amateurs like me have suggested, was Paulinus's deliberate ravaging of British sacred groves/sites (to lure Boudica to him?) so successful that it made the furious British 'hoarde' lose their military sense?

Consistent with Roman tactics in Britain at the time, bearing in mind the campaign to finish off druidic influence which had just been fought. I doubt that would actually affect any 'military sense' as such, but it was one tactic to force the Britons into a confrontation. The Romans were well aware that religion was an organisational factor in british life. They were taking their 'wise men' out of circulation - but also bear in mind there was a real religious motive here. By destroying these sacred sites the Romans sent a message that the british gods were not helping them, that Roman strength was defying the british gods, and that the Britons could expect similar harsh treatment for their rebellion.

[Melvadius]

Surely not ALL tactical command had totally broken down by the time Boudica and her chieftains had sacked Colchester, London, St.Albans (and Staines and Silchester?)?

Tactical command? Who exactly do you think Boudicca was leading? They were not a professional organised army, but groups of warriors led by chieftans and respected warriors. Tactical command in these cases is very limited, and in any case, I doubt the britons were much into tactics anyway. Too complicated. There's the enemy. Let's attack them now!

 

To follow-on from Caldrail's comments what you have to realise is that in the period the 'British' army was not a unified fighting force. It was in all likeliehood composed of a large number of individual 'tribal' groups each under the personal command of their own leaders and with disperate equipment.

 

The best that Boudicca could have hoped for in such a large scale battle as finally occurred would be to get them all more or less lined up in one place and hopefully agreeable to attacking when 'asked'.

 

Any 'tactical' command would have been down to individual leaders deciding where and when to send their own force and in the event when to try and run.