At the Battle of Watling Street, why didn't Boudica's British try to outflank the Romans?
Yes, I know that the forest made things difficult, but why would Boudica be dumb enough to send all of her army rushing into a bottleneck that neutralizes her greatest advantage (numbers)? Once she knew the Roman position, why not delay long enough to send at least a few thousand men to bushwhack around the Romans and put some pressure on their rear? (And if it were forest, maybe it'd be hard to judge British numbers.)
Even if splitting her forces drew the Romans out, it'd still make them discard their superior position. Was the British army too amateurish & unruly to pull off a flank or anything more complicated than a mass charge? Or am I underestimating the roughness of the terrain, such that a few detached Romans could have blocked such an effort?
BRET2017-04-03T12:10:51Z
Favorite Answer
They tried to coax them from their strong position. The charioteers probably initially swept parallel to the Roman position throwing spears and attempting to taunt them into pursuit. But the Romans were having none of it, and remained steadfast. The Britons could have taunted them all day long and they wouldn't have budged.
Tiring of this, and supremely confident of their enormous numerical advantage, they charged. And who could blame them? The Romans themselves must have had some serious reservations about the situation, even with Paulinus' attempt to calm their nerves. I doubt that Boudicca and many, if not most, of the Britons had any real knowledge of the physics of crowd control in battle as the Romans did. Some of her lieutenants may have tried to dissuade her, but their faith in their numbers and bloodlust prevailed.
The Britons had total victory before them. They completely destroyed the Roman capitol, Londinium, and Verulanium, in addition to annihilating an entire legion sent from Lincoln to relieve Camulodunum. They must have had little doubt that the gods favored them, and would grant them victory.
The Roman flanks were secure the mass attack used by the tribes does not work with a forest in the way. She was not a General and up against the best army in the world at that time. As she could not break the Roman line, she was never going to win.
Its not that simple. The Romans were well organized and well trained fighting men. They were well aware of the onslaught outnumbering them. So what they did is form a cordon of men representing a diamond shape. So you have the first diamond shape connected to the next one. So every single man was shoulder to shoulder with shield in front of him in tight formation. They were ordered to keep stabbing from behind their shields and at the same time push forward no matter what the odds were against. As the body count mounted (and then some) the Romans would step over the dead bodies but keep pushing forward. There is 15,000 Romans doing this against a hoard of some 170,000 untrained (fighting) civilians charging against them. To offset the possible flank scenario where-by the British try and get to the rear, the Romans had the cavalry and scouts watching for such a possibility, so there was no way they would be taken by surprise in this way. With the Romans pushing hard forward - continually stabbing at any body part they could see beside their shields, the British panicked and withdrew. Whilst the British were withdrawing the Roman Cavalry charged from behind the line from both sides to follow though on the fleeing Britons. The Romans now had the Britons dispersed and as a consequence they were slaughtered. After that the Romans back tracked to catch up with the women and children and non fighting men behind the lines on their side and slaughtered every single one of them. If you add it all up, the Roman army was well prepared, equipped and organized to deal with this threat.
If they had Ar-15s they wouldn't have had to rush anyone, Who knows why but i can say war is a series of bad decisions. You learn what not to do if you live to regret your mistakes.