Page 1 of 5
Boudicca
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:10 am
by gunny
We understand the site of Boudicca's battle with the Romans has never been found. It would seem that at the reported 80,000 Britons killed--men, women, children in the "midlands" in a forest clearing, as reported by the Roman commander, that there should be tons of items that metal detectors could find. Bones---tons of bones eroding out of stream banks. Romans were very exact in their military reports---were there no maps showing the battle site? Or----Or maybe what I am reading is way out of date. Would not be the first time.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 7:23 am
by Beagle
I've also wondered why the site of a battle like this cannot be found. Here is the current thinking on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street
The site of the battle is not given by either historian, although Tacitus gives a brief description.[10] A wide variety of sites, all consistent with an army attacking from the area of London toward the Roman forces concentrating from the direction of Cornwall and Wales, has been suggested. One legend places it at Battle Bridge Road in King's Cross, London, although from reading Tacitus it is unlikely Suetonius returned to the city.
Most historians favour a site in the West Midlands, probably along the Roman road of Watling Street between Londinium and Viroconium (Wroxeter in Shropshire), now the A5. Plausible suggestions include Manduessedum (Mancetter), near Atherstone in Warwickshire,[20] a site close to High Cross in Leicestershire,[21] a small dip at Cuttle Mill, two miles south-east of Lactodorum (Towcester) in Northamptonshire,[22] or a site at Kings Norton close to Metchley Camp in Birmingham.[
They need some metal detectors.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:19 am
by gunny
Lately the UK is a beehive of metal detector clubs. They can find one Saxon bracelet in a hundred acre field. Very strange----farmers with plows should have turned over many items. Perhaps chariot wheels are forming farmers gardens to keep the goats out. The book says her army had women, children, old people, infirmed riding in wagons, cattle, pigs, chickens, and a few warriors. The Romans killed them all. They lost 400 men. It seems the UK is spending many pounds on an obscure castle in Scotland, instead of finding this battlefield. Could it be, like Somme, that defeats should be forgotten?
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:51 am
by Beagle
The Romans would have certainly taken all the "booty" available, but there would still be a very concentrated area of arrowheads, buckles, coins, and leather fasteners. Even combs from their hair would be lost on the battlefield.
It's hard to believe that we still don't know it's whereabouts.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:42 am
by Minimalist
The Romans would, in all likelihood, have had the prisoners gather up the bodies in massive pyres for cremation as that was their general means of getting rid of the dead. They would have picked up their pila (javelins) to have them repaired by the legionary blacksmiths and the same most likely goes for any arrows fired by the auxilia. The British were unarmoured for the most part.
The numbers are probably grossly exaggerated. Suetonius had one legion, part of another and auxiliaries, probably under 15,000 total. It's hard to imagine, logistically, that Boudicca could have moved a huge army without any kind of supply system very far. As Omar Bradley said: Amateurs study tactics.....professionals study logistics.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:57 am
by Ishtar
So .... do we think there's a possibility that she may be as mythical as Arthur?
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:40 am
by Minimalist
No. The burn layer at London is well-attested archaeologically. The tales around her may be fictitious but the revolt was real enough.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:22 am
by Beagle
The numbers are probably grossly exaggerated.
Given the fact that women and children were included, it sounds reasonable to me. And they had already sacked the foodstores of a couple of towns I think.
Someone is going to stumble on the battlefield with a metal detector one day, and we'll be watching a movie of the archaeology they did.
Back to B'ball.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:24 am
by Minimalist
If anyone's interested, here is Book XIV of Tacitus' Annals.
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.10.xiv.html
The story of the British revolt begins about halfway down the page with the line:
In the consulship of Caesonius Paetus and Petronius Turpilianus, a serious disaster was sustained in Britain, where Aulius Didius, the emperor's legate, had merely retained our existing possessions, and his successor Veranius, after having ravaged the Silures in some trifling raids, was prevented by death from extending the war.
If you hit Edit - Find "Paetus" it should take you to the exact line as Caesonius Paetus seems to have accomplished nothing else besides being elected consul.
Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:04 pm
by Digit
Not finding a particular site here in the Uk is not quite as strange as it might seem. Remember this is 2000 years ago, many sites have been 'lost' in that time. Most archaeological sites here are found by accident, by construction workers and the metal detectorists.
What happens then is, if the site is in danger of being lost, an emergency dig will be started, if it isn't an examinination is carried out and the site marked, according to assumed importance, for later research.
What is very odd is that there are no tales or legends about the site.
Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:37 am
by CShark
Digit wrote:...What is very odd is that there are no tales or legends about the site.
Perhaps for the Icenii and other tribal members of Iron age Britain, recalling such a tragic defeat and slaughter, not to mention the aftermath, was simply too bitter. The romans would also like to forget the whole thing, as they were caught with their caligae off!
As for not finding the site, it has not been found
Yet...
Re: Boudicca
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 1:37 pm
by John1
There is a new site/theory doing the rounds for the Boudiccan Battle site;
http://www.craftpegg.com/Battle_Church_Stowe_CP.pdf
Re:
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:14 pm
by Rokcet Scientist
Ishtar wrote:So .... do we think there's a possibility that she may be as mythical as Arthur?
Arthur wasn't mythical. Arthur was a British born (of a royal Celtic bloodline) Roman educated imperial citizen. He was the commander of Roman 'special forces' in Britain who rebelled, with his men, when he realized that Rome was abandoning them before the advancing Saxons. Thus his warrior status.
Re: Boudicca
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:17 pm
by Minimalist
Plausible, John.
One can assume that the site would have been heavily wooded in the first century. Suetonius Paulinus would have been wise to shorten the front as much as possible and, if the woods were thick enough it would have provided a secure anchor to his flanks, This would have left Boudicca with no alternative to a frontal assault on a prepared position ( virtual suicide ) or refusing battle...which would probably not have been politically reasonable.
In either case, the Romans had no reason to understate the number of their enemies. "The more the merrier" dated back at least as far as the Second Punic War.
Re: Boudicca
Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:20 pm
by Digit
The 'Celts' were big on chariots Min, woodland would have greatly reduced their effectiveness.
Roy.