Irrational Boudicca

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Well, you know, I think it's a little hard not to be vindictive when you're flogged publicly and see your daughters raped by Roman legionaries. I'm not sure how authentic that story is but I do know it's from a Roman source and see no reason to disregard it.
Wasn't it Legio XX Valeria Victrix that finally took care of Boudicca?

[Conal]

Boudicca had got such good hype as a leader/commander when her army gave such a pitiful (if the sources are to be believed) final display against Paulinus.

It may have had something to do with the fact that along with her 'army' the retinue containing all the wives and children came along to spectate. These were arranged in wagons behind the battlefield on the Britons side.

When Suetonius' forces advanced, and the Britons were forced to retreat, they came upon the solid barrier that was the wagons etc. They had nowhere to go and were slaughtered to a man!

That's just damned careless planning! :wink:

What i do not understand is that when the Romans advance why the Celish-Pretani did not get round the flanks, chatriots are said to have been good at chasing off horse ?

Maybe the advantage was not 20:1 after all :roll:

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

Not wanting to stir the pot too much but to touch on the overconfidence point raised earlier.Didn't I read somewhere the Roman fortifications were
taken by surprise as well as being mostly women and children with very few soldires present who had been away attending to other duties?
I also believe that the "impedimentia" of wagons/spectators was a serious
mistake putting the backs to the wall. If your fighting style is hit-and-run and you can't run to regroup.......ouch.

[Conal]

Stir away :wink:

I take that with a pich of salt ... did they set the wagons in concrete? Send the horses/oxen home.

Hows that for stiring 8)

[sulla felix]

Why specifically Southern Uk ? Take the Canti, of which Ceasar says;

"Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt, quae regio est maritima omnis, neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine."

"Of all these (British tribes), by far the most civilised are they who dwell in Kent, which is entirely a maritime region, and who differ but little from the Gauls in their customs".

I am afraid I am one of those people that do not believe that using the term "Celt" to describe a homogeneous culture, based upon the similarity of archaeological artefacts across a broad geographical region, is either desireable or useful. In the quote from Caesar he specifically uses the term "Gauls", again I believe that this is a Roman term, and may not necessary be how the people in question identified themselves. Professor Collis looks at this from a European (in the geographical sense) perspective (he is widely acknowledged as one of the leading experts in Iron age culture - both academic and fieldwork). I restricted the geographical area in my previous posts to southern UK, mainly because the Romans had not progressed much further than this at the time of the Boudiccan Revolt.

This uneasiness with cultural identity based upon artefact typology stems from some work I did as a student upon "Romanisation". For example, you discover in the archaeological record artefacts that have previously been classified as Roman, lets say Samian Ware pottery. It is discovered in lets say Kent, UK in a dateable context of 50AD or later. However, it is not discovered within a "typical" Roman settlement or fortification, but is actually discovered in a "typical" Late Iron Age settlement, with traces of a rectilinear timber structure overlying an earlier circular timber structure. Conclusion - Roman invasion a few years earlier, local people adopt Roman material culture, therefore becoming Romanised. Why? Well it is obvious, Roman culture was somehow "better" than indigenous culture, and within a few years they were all wearing togas, reading Virgil and laying on a couch to dine from fine Samian Ware pottery.

By applying the term Celt, you are implying that there was some unity, or cultural identity that was constructed by these peoples in antiquity. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that this was the case. Contra to the Romans who, whilst embracing many aspects of the cultures that they came into contact with and absorbed within a geographic empire, were able to project a sense of cultural identity accross both a large geographical area and time period. I think this is best summed up by Virgil;

"On these people I place neither boundaries nor periods of empire; I have granted them dominion without end".

I shall now get off my sopabox and exit stage left to a deathly silence.

[Matthew Amt]

As a racial desription I agree and I confess Celt is lazy shorthand for a broad cultural simalarity, but in the context of this forum I think we all know who we are speaking of, so hopefully I will be forgiven.

Then you should be able to forgive our use of "barbarian" in its common usage, "non-Roman". That's pretty much how the Romans used it, after all.

Wasn't it Legio XX Valeria Victrix that finally took care of Boudicca?

Legio XIIII Gemina and most of Legio XX, plus some auxiliaries. Leg. XIIII receive the titles "Martia Victrix" and Leg. XX received the titles "Valeria Victrix" for their victory in this action. Legio II missed the party, apparently due to the indecision of their praefectus castrorum, who was in command while the legatus was away.

If you want a completely new outlook on discipline and aggression, read Jon Lendon's book "Soldiers and Ghosts". He makes it clear that both the Romans and the "barbarians" they faced were generally extremely aggressive on a personal level. All that kept a Roman legion from erupting into an uncotrolled howling charge like a mob of wet hornets was their discipline. It barely held them in check, most of the time. There are all kinds of accounts of Romans going off half-cocked simply because they wanted to kick butt! So it's no wonder that Boudicca couldn't keep her troops from attacking. They simply hadn't had that discipline drummed into them.

I don't think chariots had any advantage over cavalry--rather the opposite! Caesar's men had been worried about the chariots 100 years before, but by 60 AD they are passe, and there is no mention that they were any special threat. One pilum can take out 2 horses and 2 men. Yawn.

Remember, the Romans also had their backs to the wall. Apparently they did NOT have an entrenched camp to which they could retreat, simply the thick forest guarding their flanks and rear. I'm also not one of those who dismisses ancient accounts of troop numbers and casualties out of hand simply because I don't want to believe them. Caution is good, but let's not assume that everything was different from how it was written! Not much point in studying history if you go that route, eh?

I don't blame Boudicca for revolting! She was very badly mistreated, and the Roman who allowed that to happen was way out of line. On the other hand, according to the Roman law under which her husband had ruled as a client king, he (her hubby) had absolutely no right to try to leave his kingdom to anyone in his will. It was Roman territory, and it was up to Rome to decide who would rule it next. Those were the game rules he agreed to play by.

Valete,

Matthew (Leg. XX)

[AthenaK]

I don't blame Boudicca for revolting! She was very badly mistreated, and the Roman who allowed that to happen was way out of line. On the other hand, according to the Roman law under which her husband had ruled as a client king, he (her hubby) had absolutely no right to try to leave his kingdom to anyone in his will. It was Roman territory, and it was up to Rome to decide who would rule it next. Those were the game rules he agreed to play by.

Valete,

Matthew (Leg. XX)

Boudicca's mistreatment explains her actions but it does not excuse them. Just because Rodney King was beaten to death doesn't mean all American police should die. A revolt is one thing, but the brutality is quite another.

Athena

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

AthenaK said:
"Rodney King was beaten to death "


To DEATH???(then how'd he say:"why can't we all just get along?")

Meanwhile...back to Boudicca.

[AthenaK]

oops! :oops: You're right. I correct myself; Just because Rodney King was excessively beaten doesn't mean all American police should die.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

As the legionary said in his letter home...." Britania is a lovely place, but the natives are revolting...."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

meanwhile, back at the ranch.......

[Conal]

Why specifically Southern Uk ? Take the Canti, of which Ceasar says;

"Ex his omnibus longe sunt humanissimi qui Cantium incolunt, quae regio est maritima omnis, neque multum a Gallica differunt consuetudine."

"Of all these (British tribes), by far the most civilised are they who dwell in Kent, which is entirely a maritime region, and who differ but little from the Gauls in their customs".

I am afraid I am one of those people that do not believe that using the term "Celt" to describe a homogeneous culture, based upon the similarity of archaeological artefacts across a broad geographical region, is either desireable or useful. In the quote from Caesar he specifically uses the term "Gauls", again I believe that this is a Roman term, and may not necessary be how the people in question identified themselves. Professor Collis looks at this from a European (in the geographical sense) perspective (he is widely acknowledged as one of the leading experts in Iron age culture - both academic and fieldwork). I restricted the geographical area in my previous posts to southern UK, mainly because the Romans had not progressed much further than this at the time of the Boudiccan Revolt.

This uneasiness with cultural identity based upon artefact typology stems from some work I did as a student upon "Romanisation". For example, you discover in the archaeological record artefacts that have previously been classified as Roman, lets say Samian Ware pottery. It is discovered in lets say Kent, UK in a dateable context of 50AD or later. However, it is not discovered within a "typical" Roman settlement or fortification, but is actually discovered in a "typical" Late Iron Age settlement, with traces of a rectilinear timber structure overlying an earlier circular timber structure. Conclusion - Roman invasion a few years earlier, local people adopt Roman material culture, therefore becoming Romanised. Why? Well it is obvious, Roman culture was somehow "better" than indigenous culture, and within a few years they were all wearing togas, reading Virgil and laying on a couch to dine from fine Samian Ware pottery.

By applying the term Celt, you are implying that there was some unity, or cultural identity that was constructed by these peoples in antiquity. I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that this was the case. Contra to the Romans who, whilst embracing many aspects of the cultures that they came into contact with and absorbed within a geographic empire, were able to project a sense of cultural identity accross both a large geographical area and time period. I think this is best summed up by Virgil;

"On these people I place neither boundaries nor periods of empire; I have granted them dominion without end".

I shall now get off my sopabox and exit stage left to a deathly silence.

Whereas I am quite happy to call an Indian an Indian whilst recognising a Sikh is not the same as a Bengali.

I dont agree that by using the term Celt I am "implying that there was some unity, or cultural identity that was constructed by these peoples" but implying that enough simalarity existed culturaly, behaviourally and maybe religeously and physically in such things as arms & armour etc to allow such a term to be used as a broad description.

I am wiling to acknowledge that a Silure of south Wales, who are desribed as short dark & swarthy and a Belgic gaul who is tall blond & pale are different but if they both live in round houses, ride chariots, wear their swords from a leather & chain belt from the right hip, roast hogs & listen to bards sing badly & have Druids to adminsiter law then ..... I will cal them Asterix & Obilix :wink:

[Conal]

Then you should be able to forgive our use of "barbarian" in its common usage, "non-Roman". That's pretty much how the Romans used it, after all.



I don't think chariots had any advantage over cavalry--rather the opposite! Caesar's men had been worried about the chariots 100 years before, but by 60 AD they are passe, and there is no mention that they were any special threat. One pilum can take out 2 horses and 2 men. Yawn.

I'm also not one of those who dismisses ancient accounts of troop numbers and casualties out of hand simply because I don't want to believe them. Caution is good, but let's not assume that everything was different from how it was written! Not much point in studying history if you go that route, eh?


Valete,
Matthew (Leg. XX)

The term "barbarian" can be forgiven if used for someone who thinks that a pilum is fighting fair 8) ... speaking of which you seem to have your cavalry using them now ... good tactics

Casualty caution is good, so is assuming a bias in anything written down on paper in the way of history & coments on history ... thats what makes it fun to study as you have to come to your own biased oppinion.

I will look up Jon Lendons book , sounds interesting ... just bought this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dark-Side-Man-T ... F8&s=books
Men eh :roll: give them a sword and an excuse :twisted:

[sulla felix]

I am wiling to acknowledge that a Silure of south Wales, who are desribed as short dark & swarthy and a Belgic gaul who is tall blond & pale are different but if they both live in round houses, ride chariots, wear their swords from a leather & chain belt from the right hip, roast hogs & listen to bards sing badly & have Druids to adminsiter law then ..... I will cal them Asterix & Obilix

Conal, you illustrate my point perfectly. Because they have left similar artefacts within the archaeological record then they must be similar culturally. In a 1000 years time when we are all dead and gone the archaeological record will reveal strange boxes with glass screens (TVs) over huge areas of the earth. Does this mean that were were all of the same culture?

I am interested in seeing the evidence for Silurian and Belgic law, and the evidence for Druids adminstering that law. Where can I find this?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

The greek term for 'Barbarian' also ment 'non-greek' so perhaps not quite as derisive a term as we tend to use it in modern(ish) language!

[Conal]

I am wiling to acknowledge that a Silure of south Wales, who are desribed as short dark & swarthy and a Belgic gaul who is tall blond & pale are different but if they both live in round houses, ride chariots, wear their swords from a leather & chain belt from the right hip, roast hogs & listen to bards sing badly & have Druids to adminsiter law then ..... I will cal them Asterix & Obilix

Conal, you illustrate my point perfectly. Because they have left similar artefacts within the archaeological record then they must be similar culturally. In a 1000 years time when we are all dead and gone the archaeological record will reveal strange boxes with glass screens (TVs) over huge areas of the earth. Does this mean that were were all of the same culture?

I am interested in seeing the evidence for Silurian and Belgic law, and the evidence for Druids adminstering that law. Where can I find this?

Barry

I am here to serve but is it not a matter of supposition & conjecture ? Its the old absence of evidence arguement isn't it ?

If everyone from Switzerland to Scotland carried very similar swords there must have been some cultural commonality, and maybe enough to infer a cultural similarity. This can be bostered by the fact that societies, especially in ancient times , could be argued to define/differntiate themselves to some extent by their choice of war gear. The Roman military were quite fond of the old gladius & pugio !!

A grave in Kent which has kingly panoply of Germanic/Vendelian origin may contain a native Brit or a German/Nordic type from Gotland. Unless he has a plaque saying I'm Raedwald of ??? we can only guess.

Ref Silures & Belgae ... unfortunately I am conjecturing :roll: but in my defence I did say "but if" as I do not believe that there is any proof and I dont deal in definates, however if Druids were a tradition in Gaul and also Anglesea it would be churlish to suggest the Silures and Belgae were not involved in the same Druidic culture of law ???