alternatehistory.com

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?
Top