WI: Boudica Tries Something Different at Watling Street

Boudica's revolt, along with resistance against Roman rule in the southern half of Great Britain, came to an end when her forces were decisively defeated at the Battle of Watling Street, and she subsequently died (either poisoning herself or catching a fatal illness). While it's not clear how badly the Britons outnumbered the Romans, or what the casualties on each side were, it was nevertheless an impressive Roman victory, which was at least partly due to Boudica unwittingly playing to her enemies' strengths rather than her own by ordering a frontal assault. Because the Romans had the high ground, the power of the charge was reduced, while the Romans had an easy time cutting down lightly-armored Britons with their pila and then their gladiī. Also helping the Romans was the fact that the Britons were funneled into a gorge, which negated their numbers advantage. This clever use of terrain was one of the main reasons the Romans carried the day.

Suppose Boudica had done something different, though. Here's a scenario, based on a comment I read on a Kings and Generals video:

Boudica realizes why the Romans chose that area in particular to make their stand. So she refuses to play into their hands with a frontal assault. Instead, she turns the terrain in her own favor and uses her numerical advantage to cut off the Romans' supply lines and let them starve on the hilltop. The objective is to force the Romans to abandon their advantageous positions and sally out, so she can effectively bring her superior numbers to bear against them.

Could she have won had she done this? And if she had, what would the effects have been?
 
Last edited:
Boudica's revolt, along with resistance against Roman rule in the southern half of Great Britain, came to an end when her forces were decisively defeated at the Battle of Watling Street, and she subsequently died (either poisoning herself or catching a fatal illness). While it's not clear how badly the Britons outnumbered the Romans, or what the casualties on each side were, it was nevertheless an impressive Roman victory, which was at least partly due to Boudica unwittingly playing to her enemies' strengths rather than her own by ordering a frontal assault. Because the Romans had the high ground, the power of the charge was reduced, while the Romans had an easy time cutting down lightly-armored Britons with their pila and then their gladiī. Also helping the Romans was the fact that the Britons were funneled into a gorge, which negated their numbers advantage. This clever use of terrain was one of the main reasons the Romans carried the day.

Suppose Boudica had done something different, though. Here's a scenario, based on a comment I read on a Kings and Generals video:

Boudica realizes why the Romans chose that area in particular to make their stand. So she refuses to play into their hands with a frontal assault. Instead, she uses her superior numbers to cut off the Romans' supply lines and let them starve on the hilltop. The objective is to force the Romans to abandon their advantageous positions and sally out, so she can effectively bring her superior numbers to bear against them.

Could she have won had she done this? And if she had, what would the effects have been?

Things like you proposed are working with the disciplined armies but she did not have one. AFAIK, her force was an assembly of the tribal units over which she had only a marginal authority and none of which was capable of an advanced tactical moves. Forcing them to just stay somewhere looking at the enemy would not, most probably, work for any prolonged period of time and who said that the Romans would not suddenly attack as soon as they see any slacking of a discipline on the Britt's side? Most probably, even before this happens, some of the tribal leaders would accuse Boudica of indecisiveness, attract some other tribes to his side (with a perspective of loot) and launch an attack (with a lesser force) providing the Romans with even better than OTL battle scenario.
 
If Suetonius has marginally more difficulty getting from Anglesey to London ahead of the Iceni/Trinovantes group and doesn't manage to evacuate ahead of their arrival, then Boudica takes out her wrath in the same way as she did in Colchester. Perhaps he attempts to defend the city, refusing to face another Colchester - either way, Rome faces defeat.

It's a minor factor, but a morale booster for the rebels and a morale crusher for the Roman, unless Suetonius can galvanize the remaining Legions under his command. But doing so could open pockets of weakness that the rebels can therefore exploit with guerrilla tactics, using the landscape to their advantahe, leading Suetonius' forces to be weaker than IOTL.

Even if Watling St still occurs, the Iceni and Trinovantes could hold a significantly greater numerical superiority than IOTL.
 
Unfortunately the situation appears to be one where the Romans only have to win once since they had a stronger hold on southern Britain than her allied tribes.
 
Top