Palmyra broke away during the "Crisis of the Third Century" and formed the Palmyrene Empire. It stretched from the southern half of Asia Minor, through Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Egypt. All while the Roman Empire was dealing with a deadly disease, barbarian invasions, and civil war. Honestly? The Roman Empire should have fell during this period. So many disasters happening at the same time, nobody would be surprised if it fell. However, Emperor Aurellian stabilized the situation and put it back together, beat the Palymyrene Empire to bring it back in the fold. It's why Aurellian got the title, "Restitutor Orbis," or "Restorer of the World."
There was no way that Boudicea had 230,000 warriors. All of Britain couldn't have mustered those numbers. 100,000 was the absolute upper limit, and even that's a stretch.
@@Aristocles22 The numbers, as with most premodern reports are much inflated, partly because they were largely guesswork, but also propaganda, to indicate the scale of the victory (or defeat) of the side reporting the event. The figure for Boudica's forces will have included all participants in the revolt, including women & children & many men that were not really warriors, but joined in as 'rioters' do. Still the numbers are too high to be real. The Romans would have a better knowledge of their own sides position, as their troops would be listed in army accounts.
Supplying armies over 40.000 men was an almost imposible task for an unorganized military force. They surely outnumbered the romans, but 100.000 is unlikely.
Yep, remember that armies without logistics had to feed off the land, and such a crowd would evaporate the livestock of entire cities in a single day. Even if the revolution had 100,000 followers (still a stretch) these were allover the country and Budicca couldn't have more than 40 thousand at hand, and not all warriors. And she could control even less...
The Romans had an incredibly efficient postal system known as the Cursus Publicus. Established by Emperor Augustus, this network allowed couriers to carry messages, official documents, and even small packages across the vast Empire. Using relay stations with fresh horses, these couriers could cover up to 50 miles a day! This impressive system is considered one of the earliest examples of a structured postal service in history, showcasing Rome's commitment to communication and administration throughout its sprawling territories.
Yeah was going to comment the same, the Romans just found a hill where they couldn't be flanked and beat the enemy despite being severly outnumbered and the Britons overconfident in victory set up their bagge train and families behind their army so when they routed they trampled their own kid in desperation to save themselves. It was a one sided slaughter.
It's Boudica time again. As most have said further down, she did not bring the empire to it's knees like so many write. BUT, in her time this was something that shook the relative peace of Rome. It probably was disturbing to Nero. It was a big deal to those living it and those that heard about it first/second hand. The civil wars of the Republic and Empire, the Punic Wars, the Serville Wars. Now those were Earth shaking. Why does Queen Zernobia not get as much recognition as Boudica? Well during her little fit of hysteria, she was still acting as a client ruler of a Roman client state. Yes she was taking other Roman client states but she was still returning money and grain to Rome. It wasn't until Aurelian had became the Roman Emporer that she declared her son emporer. Aurelian had a few other things on his mind. First he had to defeat a bunch of Germanic invaders then defeat Zernobia and then he could take out the so called Gallic Empire to restore the pre-crisis Roman Empire. Why is Boudica better known than Zernobia? Because she's from Britian. Britian conquered a large part of the world, gaining an empire Romans could only dream of. It's their world, we only live in it.
aius Suetonius Paulinus (fl. AD 40-69) was a Roman general best known as the commander who defeated Boudica and her army during the Boudican revolt. Additionally, Boudica was able to unite different Celtic tribes under her leadership, which was no small feat, and she is said to have shown great courage and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. These are all qualities that would be considered valuable in a leader
@@CARL_093 But Paulinus was an experienced soldier before he came to Britain, having been involved in other conflicts with tribal peoples elsewhere in the Empire, again successfully. The Romans sent Governors of suitable experience to their Provinces, with similar landscapes & problems to those they had known before. Hence Agricola was made Governor of Britain, having been here twice before during his military career in lower ranking positions.
When it came to the real battle it was not hard at all... Two legions, 10.000 disciplined and organized legionaries defeated 100.000 of those wild warriors of Bodicea which were no match to the Roman war machine.
There weren’t 100,000, don’t try and act smart. Their force of warriors was likely twice maybe three times the size the romans mustered. And likely the Romans mustered more than stated; as they always understated their forces and overstated the quantity of their enemies.
Was it really ‘so hard’? She just massacred a few cities and won only against a surprised army at the begging. When she faced a normal legion, she lost the first battle.
I think the Romans grew arrogant and let power get to their head thinking they were unbeatable that no one would be brave enough to do what Boudica did
Rome did have a long tradition of treating poorly the people in the provinces. It even stretched as far back as the Repbulic itself where governors were posted for limited tenures. In that limited time they'd take anything that wasn't bolted down to enrich themselves. The whole thing was pretty corrupt.
It looks like a Roman win, rather than a Britton fail. Centuries later Belissarius was called to suppress the revolt of Nika and massacred a whole hyppodrome full of rebels with a couple of thousand household troops. The death toll reached 30 thousand caualties in a few minutes, and that's a rather realistic number, given the volume of the riots.
In my opinion saying it was only 10 thousand men, it's part of a fear tactic, in order to make them be seen as stronger and more powerful already than they were. The history is always written by who wins the battle... Often the same event has 2 versions...
The Boudican Revolt, led by Queen Boudica in AD 60-61, was one of the most significant uprisings against Roman rule in Britain. Despite early victories, including the destruction of Roman settlements like Londinium, the rebellion was ultimately crushed by the Roman army. Boudica's defiance, however, remains a symbol of resistance and courage. Learn more about this historic event in the World History Documentary series!
Celtic warriors were fought furiously with narrow passant and undeciplined confronted standing rather than poor war equipment armed .. above all, Roman deciplined armored warriors realized how they defeated Celtics on French,& Spanish territorial clashing named Gull wars previously
Why would Boudica lead the men into an obvious Roman maneuver? She moved them into the fight in the perfect way to give the Romans every advantage they have as a force! She should've known that allowing them to fight in a closed fulcum formation. She should've also noticed that the Romans were creating a bottleneck with the terrain to eliminate her advantage of numbers. Alas, passion and vengeance are great motivators for rebellion and to stoke morale but you also HAVE to have cool headed generals to conduct battles without over the top emotion distorting their view of the battlefield. It seems the Celts were driven into the battle with fury and a somewhat haughty attitude as if the battle was already won!
Imagine serving your 25 years in the army.. you finally got what you fought and hoped so hard for just to be slaughtered by a bunch of savages and a woman going through menopause.
Simple: She was leading a mass of disenfranchised mobs against mobs with proper training, discipline and cohesion with experience of dealing with these kinds of situations. As Alexander the Great elucidated: it is better for a Lion to lead an army of Sheeps than a Sheep leading an army of Lions. Average Celts will demolished an average Roman, but maximum organisation and discipline prevails against an disorderly ranks.
All the Britts who knew from start what the Romans would bring and resisted but failed cause tribes like Iceni didn't wanna help but now alone trying to resist when its to late:😑😑😑😑
Not understanding Roman tactics and charging the Romans open terrain in good weather, so if you do that only when the Romans are on uneven ground and visibility is poor.
@@williamwallace5857 Because it was a disorganised rabble from varied & competitive 'tribes', taking on a professional army, which was used to winning.
@@unitor699industries The Roman never 'left' Britain. Some, not all of the Army went overseas with Constantine 3 rd, & he was successful for a couple of years, & would certainly have wanted to keep Britain secure, if only to retreat to. He could hardly have persuaded all the garrison of Limitani stationed around the country to leave the places they had been born & bred in over 350 years to fight abroad. In fact they would have been of limited use there. Those who likely did go with him were the troops of the mobile field army, the Comitenses, most of whom were recently arrived in Britain in the expedition of Stilicho in 401/2 AD. When Constantine was defeated his troops would have been reassigned elsewhere by the Emperor, & not allowed to return to Britain, if any remained from there. The Britons having rejected Constantine's administration, either themselves or under orders from Rome, the central Government was unable to send a new Governor & staff to Britain because of the serious situation on the continent, with Barbarians threatening Italy itself. So the Britons, including all the surviving Romano-British soldiers, would from then on have to take care of things themselves. But no one could have expected that Rome would never re-establish control of the Province, & the Roman way of life would have continued as best as it could, for as long as it could, until pay for the soldiers & other imports failed to arrive. Without this money the economy would collapse, so specialised crafts, & services which depended on it would have failed or faded away. But there was still enough military to offer a decent defence against invaders, shown by the 'Aleluia' victory under Germany's, which indicates there were troops of different types, & they were able to construct defensive camps, as in the high days of Roman power, & to win battles & drive the enemy out of the land. It then took some 200 years for the Germanic invaders to establish themselves in 'English' Kingdoms, during which time the newcomers too had largely intermingled with the local people.
seems steeped in roman bias, especially with the numbers of celts. if there was truly 230000 soldiers, they would not have been able to use all of them in the fight and they definitely would have sent troops through the trees cause why wouldn't you if you have 100000 soldiers sitting around.
There is no evidence that the Iceni, or any of the tribes of southern Britain were 'Celts'. They are just as likely to be more Germanic, like the Belgae, & Parisi, for we are told of the relationship with those people across the sea, which means the semi German Belgae of Gaul, & north of these the fully German tribes, Batavians & others. Celts belonged further west , in Cornwall, Wales etc. These were related to other Celts in Armorica & Iberia. Indeed the ONLY people the Romans called Celts were the Celtiberi, in the Iberian peninsula. It is a mere assumption, based on a mistaken orthodoxy, that claims much of Europe, & all of Britain as a monoglot widespread Celtic cultural zone. Really much of this vast region was as much, if not more, Germanic, including the 'founding' cultures of La Tene & Hallstatt. This had come overland through the main river systems, to northern Europe & eastern Britain, while the 'celts' developed from groups who had migrated along the Mediterranean to Iberia & expanded along the Atlantic coast to western Britain.
@@Aristocles22 If you look at the place names of Roman Britain, as published by Rivet & Smith, 1979, they show that many of the recorded names are NOT definitely 'Celtic', especially in a large part of the south & east. Many of the British names are tagged by them as of an unknown origin & meaning, not known to be 'Celtic', but likely to belong to a different tongue. Where there are similar elements in British names with continental ones they are assumed to be 'Celtic' by those who follow the conventional view that Europe was predominantly an almost totally 'Celtic' region. This is clearly wrong, as Caesar, Tacitus etc record that the peoples north of the river Seine were the Belgic & other 'germans' who had in recent generations 'crossed the Rhine' , the boundary of true Germania, & that these people joined the great revolt against Rome with their 'fellow germans'. Meanwhile, archaeology has shown that the Parisi 'tribe' of east Yorkshire have clear affinities with the people of the same name located in the area of the modern French Capital, which is on the Gallic-Belgic boundary, marking them as at least partly, if not quite totally, Germanic. There are some differences in the archaeological evidences of these cross sea related peoples, but this is because the migration into Yorkshire had taken place several generations before, with the British portion having particular developments that were not present in Gaul. Tacitus says that the peoples of Britain were related to those nearest to them across the local seas, in both appearance, language & culture, which is reasonable, if a bit simplified from the real, more complex, story. Thus, he relates how the Silures of south Wales are like the swarthy people of Iberia, where the 'real' Celts dwell, the Celtiberi. This indicates that these Celts are an Atlantic coastal people then, & have remained so ever since. The SE Britons were quite recent arrivals in Britain, Gallo-Belgic, that is partly Germanic, while the northern British were akin to the people's across the North Sea, that is the German tribes of Germany & Denmark, where he records a Baltic people, the Aesti as speaking a similar language to the Britons, which has to have been a Germanic tongue so far north. Oppenheimer, in The Origins of the British' 2006, has indicated how 'English', or it's forebear within Britain, has to have had much deeper routes than an origin in the 4/5 th centuries AD, & belongs to a low Germanic/Norse language line, not a later form. The DNA of British people shows a gradation from east to west of Germanic to 'Celtic' which is not simply the result from of post Roman events but goes much further back in time, indicating a regular exchange of people by migration across the narrow seas, from the whole coastline from Scandinavia to Iberia, with the British Isles.
15.50 ...as they continued their glorious war march through England's southeast... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣in those days the Anglo-Saxons lived in mud huts but somewhere else and Britain was occupied by a foreign power, by the Romans not the Anglo-Saxons!!!! but how much nonsense this odd funny guy goes on about, it seems that the Romans were fighting against the Anglo-Saxons actually it was another completely different people
It wasn’t that hard. You seem to lack understanding of Roman history. This was a minor revolt compared to other parts of the empire. You really overstate this. Change the channel name to No Knowledge 😂😂😂😂
Ha ha ha💀💀💀💀💀💀!!! hilarious this funny guy how he pronounces Latin names of Celtic Britons with American English pronunciation😭😭😭😭ignorance is never small
I feel the rebellions in Judea were more serious and so was Spartacus too.
The real deal was the Illyrian revolt
The Jews just hid in fortresses like cowards.
@michaellopresti6795 In some ways it cost Rome its conquest of Germania.
Palmyra broke away during the "Crisis of the Third Century" and formed the Palmyrene Empire. It stretched from the southern half of Asia Minor, through Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Egypt. All while the Roman Empire was dealing with a deadly disease, barbarian invasions, and civil war. Honestly? The Roman Empire should have fell during this period. So many disasters happening at the same time, nobody would be surprised if it fell. However, Emperor Aurellian stabilized the situation and put it back together, beat the Palymyrene Empire to bring it back in the fold.
It's why Aurellian got the title, "Restitutor Orbis," or "Restorer of the World."
It took literally 1 battle and she was done
There was no way that Boudicea had 230,000 warriors. All of Britain couldn't have mustered those numbers. 100,000 was the absolute upper limit, and even that's a stretch.
@@Aristocles22 The numbers, as with most premodern reports are much inflated, partly because they were largely guesswork, but also propaganda, to indicate the scale of the victory (or defeat) of the side reporting the event. The figure for Boudica's forces will have included all participants in the revolt, including women & children & many men that were not really warriors, but joined in as 'rioters' do. Still the numbers are too high to be real.
The Romans would have a better knowledge of their own sides position, as their troops would be listed in army accounts.
Supplying armies over 40.000 men was an almost imposible task for an unorganized military force. They surely outnumbered the romans, but 100.000 is unlikely.
Yep, remember that armies without logistics had to feed off the land, and such a crowd would evaporate the livestock of entire cities in a single day. Even if the revolution had 100,000 followers (still a stretch) these were allover the country and Budicca couldn't have more than 40 thousand at hand, and not all warriors. And she could control even less...
@@jorgebarriosmur Yea it was probably around 23K. They added another zero. 30-35K at most
The Romans had an incredibly efficient postal system known as the Cursus Publicus. Established by Emperor Augustus, this network allowed couriers to carry messages, official documents, and even small packages across the vast Empire. Using relay stations with fresh horses, these couriers could cover up to 50 miles a day! This impressive system is considered one of the earliest examples of a structured postal service in history, showcasing Rome's commitment to communication and administration throughout its sprawling territories.
wasnt the revolt put down by just 1 legion in 1 battle tho?
It wasnt
She got defeated the first time she encountered a real army
I dont think it was hard? They crushed her rebellion with a tiny force
Yeah was going to comment the same, the Romans just found a hill where they couldn't be flanked and beat the enemy despite being severly outnumbered and the Britons overconfident in victory set up their bagge train and families behind their army so when they routed they trampled their own kid in desperation to save themselves. It was a one sided slaughter.
idk why everyone is pretending boudica was a hannibal level threat
@@alaa6532 it started off good but they crushed it with like 10,000 men
@@Zyzyx442 100% only like 10,000 legionaries against a massive force.
@@stinknugget6446it was anything but tiny
It's Boudica time again. As most have said further down, she did not bring the empire to it's knees like so many write. BUT, in her time this was something that shook the relative peace of Rome. It probably was disturbing to Nero. It was a big deal to those living it and those that heard about it first/second hand. The civil wars of the Republic and Empire, the Punic Wars, the Serville Wars. Now those were Earth shaking. Why does Queen Zernobia not get as much recognition as Boudica? Well during her little fit of hysteria, she was still acting as a client ruler of a Roman client state. Yes she was taking other Roman client states but she was still returning money and grain to Rome. It wasn't until Aurelian had became the Roman Emporer that she declared her son emporer. Aurelian had a few other things on his mind. First he had to defeat a bunch of Germanic invaders then defeat Zernobia and then he could take out the so called Gallic Empire to restore the pre-crisis Roman Empire. Why is Boudica better known than Zernobia? Because she's from Britian. Britian conquered a large part of the world, gaining an empire Romans could only dream of. It's their world, we only live in it.
Boudica: Lets fight.
Romans:Yeah sure whatever.
aius Suetonius Paulinus (fl. AD 40-69) was a Roman general best known as the commander who defeated Boudica and her army during the Boudican revolt.
Additionally, Boudica was able to unite different Celtic tribes under her leadership, which was no small feat, and she is said to have shown great courage and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. These are all qualities that would be considered valuable in a leader
@@CARL_093 But Paulinus was an experienced soldier before he came to Britain, having been involved in other conflicts with tribal peoples elsewhere in the Empire, again successfully. The Romans sent Governors of suitable experience to their Provinces, with similar landscapes & problems to those they had known before. Hence Agricola was made Governor of Britain, having been here twice before during his military career in lower ranking positions.
Just came here too see all the it wasn’t that hard comments 😂 she got beaten by an army a 10th the size
When it came to the real battle it was not hard at all... Two legions, 10.000 disciplined and organized legionaries defeated 100.000 of those wild warriors of Bodicea which were no match to the Roman war machine.
There weren’t 100,000, don’t try and act smart. Their force of warriors was likely twice maybe three times the size the romans mustered. And likely the Romans mustered more than stated; as they always understated their forces and overstated the quantity of their enemies.
Rome still copes today with their ego inflation
@@sutenjarl1162 hes not wrong tbh
Was it really ‘so hard’? She just massacred a few cities and won only against a surprised army at the begging. When she faced a normal legion, she lost the first battle.
army at the begging???
@@williamwallace5857its not so hard to comprehend, army at the beginning
@@egsir I KNOW but that's not what is written.
And so? He can make a mistake while tapping on his phone or claver. We know what he would say.
I think the Romans grew arrogant and let power get to their head thinking they were unbeatable that no one would be brave enough to do what Boudica did
Excellent video!!!
Thank you much.
Good presentation, as always
Politicians should automatically know ALL your videos.
Hi Knowledgia... "it" is missing from the title. Typo.
"Why was *it* so hard..."
"Bar Bar Bar" - Boudicca, probably. My source: A certain Brazilian historian.
He really should have continued after Heraclius.
@@Aristocles22 Well based on a recent community post he made, he might actually be doing that!
@@Onezy05 Is there a link to that?
isnt she the same one in ryse: son of rome?
Yes. Good game but heavy historical fiction.
And imagine this whole revolt and war caused by a handful of bullies.
Rome did have a long tradition of treating poorly the people in the provinces. It even stretched as far back as the Repbulic itself where governors were posted for limited tenures. In that limited time they'd take anything that wasn't bolted down to enrich themselves. The whole thing was pretty corrupt.
And i hate to say it but having the wagons blocking the only retreat was an obviously terrible, terrible idea!
We are Boudica. AI is Paulinus. In 5-10 years from now.
It looks like a Roman win, rather than a Britton fail. Centuries later Belissarius was called to suppress the revolt of Nika and massacred a whole hyppodrome full of rebels with a couple of thousand household troops. The death toll reached 30 thousand caualties in a few minutes, and that's a rather realistic number, given the volume of the riots.
In my opinion saying it was only 10 thousand men, it's part of a fear tactic, in order to make them be seen as stronger and more powerful already than they were.
The history is always written by who wins the battle... Often the same event has 2 versions...
Why was IT so hard for the Romans to defeat Boudicca that drives me crazy 😅
The Boudican Revolt, led by Queen Boudica in AD 60-61, was one of the most significant uprisings against Roman rule in Britain. Despite early victories, including the destruction of Roman settlements like Londinium, the rebellion was ultimately crushed by the Roman army. Boudica's defiance, however, remains a symbol of resistance and courage. Learn more about this historic event in the World History Documentary series!
There's other celtic tribes fighting Rome in Britain. You covered this conflict at least 50 times. What about central Britain or western Britain?
Celtic warriors were fought furiously with narrow passant and undeciplined confronted standing rather than poor war equipment armed .. above all, Roman deciplined armored warriors realized how they defeated Celtics on French,& Spanish territorial clashing named Gull wars previously
Paulinus was the first borg? Well, guess I have to thank him posthumously for Seven of Nine.
Why would Boudica lead the men into an obvious Roman maneuver? She moved them into the fight in the perfect way to give the Romans every advantage they have as a force! She should've known that allowing them to fight in a closed fulcum formation. She should've also noticed that the Romans were creating a bottleneck with the terrain to eliminate her advantage of numbers. Alas, passion and vengeance are great motivators for rebellion and to stoke morale but you also HAVE to have cool headed generals to conduct battles without over the top emotion distorting their view of the battlefield. It seems the Celts were driven into the battle with fury and a somewhat haughty attitude as if the battle was already won!
Imagine serving your 25 years in the army.. you finally got what you fought and hoped so hard for just to be slaughtered by a bunch of savages and a woman going through menopause.
The slave rebellions did more damage 😭
Simple: She was leading a mass of disenfranchised mobs against mobs with proper training, discipline and cohesion with experience of dealing with these kinds of situations.
As Alexander the Great elucidated: it is better for a Lion to lead an army of Sheeps than a Sheep leading an army of Lions. Average Celts will demolished an average Roman, but maximum organisation and discipline prevails against an disorderly ranks.
Boudicca was a beautiful redhead 😍
@@Ghostrex101 She might have been an ugly redhead, no one said she was beautiful.
Boudicca never humiliated Roman Empire. It was the exact opposite.
I agree Queen Zenobia is more important. Boudica is a highly overrated historical figure.
All the Britts who knew from start what the Romans would bring and resisted but failed cause tribes like Iceni didn't wanna help but now alone trying to resist when its to late:😑😑😑😑
Her story would make a great movie TBH
Very interesting
There's a typo in the caption big man
Roma Invicta.
Not understanding Roman tactics and charging the Romans open terrain in good weather, so if you do that only when the Romans are on uneven ground and visibility is poor.
Un video sobre las guerras romano-tracias
I was annoyed by his pronunciation of Iceni and even more annoyed when he said England but included Wales 🤦🏻♂️
It really wasn't that hard...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, Boudica showed no love lol
My answer is that the Romans applied cheat codes to the Total War gaming system
Great video.
Why was so Hard?
Roman military science was centuries advanced over the Celts. Boadicea didn't stand a chance.
A lotta heroes make their names fighting 😂Rome even though they all lost 😞 Boudicca, Hannibal, variathus, Spartacus 😅
Nero the crazy
Nero the Stinky
Fix the title of the video, please. It is really bad English.
But wasn't the rebellion put down by just one legion in one battle? 😶
Un video sobre el comercio de exclavos en el imperio romano
Why did Boudican revolt Fail? I think you mean Why did THE Boudican revolt Fail?
They may take our lives but they'll never take our...FREEEDOM!!!
Dude I wrote a quote here by William Wallace (the freedom quote in Braveheart) and YpuTube censored it! Wtf?
@@williamwallace5857 Because it was a disorganised rabble from varied & competitive 'tribes', taking on a professional army, which was used to winning.
@@danielferguson3784 I was referring to the grammar ffs.
because they chose a female as their leader 😂😂😂
Hi
Y haplogroup E-v13's history
because the britons were always weak. when the romans left the saxons came and destroyed them
@@unitor699industries Did they, it took 200 years for the 'Saxons' to dominate, & these had long mixed with the islanders!
@@unitor699industries The Roman never 'left' Britain. Some, not all of the Army went overseas with Constantine 3 rd, & he was successful for a couple of years, & would certainly have wanted to keep Britain secure, if only to retreat to.
He could hardly have persuaded all the garrison of Limitani stationed around the country to leave the places they had been born & bred in over 350 years to fight abroad.
In fact they would have been of limited use there. Those who likely did go with him were the troops of the mobile field army, the Comitenses, most of whom were recently arrived in Britain in the expedition of Stilicho in 401/2 AD.
When Constantine was defeated his
troops would have been reassigned elsewhere by the Emperor, & not allowed to return to Britain, if any remained from there. The Britons having rejected Constantine's administration, either themselves or under orders from Rome, the central Government was unable to send a new Governor & staff to Britain because of the serious situation on the continent, with Barbarians threatening Italy itself. So the Britons, including all the surviving Romano-British soldiers, would from then on have to take care of things themselves. But no one could have expected that Rome would never re-establish control of the Province, & the Roman way of life would have continued as best as it could, for as long as it could, until pay for the soldiers & other imports failed to arrive. Without this money the economy would collapse, so specialised crafts, & services which depended on it would have failed or faded away. But there was still enough military to offer a decent defence against invaders, shown by the 'Aleluia' victory under Germany's, which indicates there were troops of different types, & they were able to construct defensive camps, as in the high days of Roman power, & to win battles & drive the enemy out of the land. It then took some 200 years for the Germanic invaders to establish themselves in 'English' Kingdoms, during which time the newcomers too had largely intermingled with the local people.
So much for dominating when you dont even lead a genetic lineage
seems steeped in roman bias, especially with the numbers of celts. if there was truly 230000 soldiers, they would not have been able to use all of them in the fight and they definitely would have sent troops through the trees cause why wouldn't you if you have 100000 soldiers sitting around.
You left out a lot of detail in this video on the tactics and movements. I am not sure why you dumb down the history or were pushing the Celtic view.
👍👍
This should be made into a movie
Earliest simps
❤❤❤❤❤
There is no evidence that the Iceni, or any of the tribes of southern Britain were 'Celts'.
They are just as likely to be more Germanic, like the Belgae, & Parisi, for we are told of the relationship with those people across the sea, which means the semi German Belgae of Gaul, & north of these the fully German tribes, Batavians & others. Celts belonged further west , in Cornwall, Wales etc. These were related to other Celts in Armorica & Iberia. Indeed the ONLY people the Romans called Celts were the Celtiberi, in the Iberian peninsula. It is a mere assumption, based on a mistaken orthodoxy, that claims much of Europe, & all of Britain as a monoglot widespread Celtic cultural zone. Really much of this vast region was as much, if not more, Germanic, including the 'founding' cultures of La Tene & Hallstatt. This had come overland through the main river systems, to northern Europe & eastern Britain, while the 'celts' developed from groups who had migrated along the Mediterranean to Iberia & expanded along the Atlantic coast to western Britain.
Nonsense. The native place names given in Britain are Celtic, or at least, definitely NOT Germanic.
@@Aristocles22 If you look at the place names of Roman Britain, as published by Rivet & Smith, 1979, they show that many of the recorded names are NOT definitely 'Celtic', especially in a large part of the south & east. Many of the British names are tagged by them as of an unknown origin & meaning, not known to be 'Celtic', but likely to belong to a different tongue.
Where there are similar elements in British names with continental ones they are assumed to be 'Celtic' by those who follow the conventional view that Europe was predominantly an almost totally 'Celtic' region.
This is clearly wrong, as Caesar, Tacitus etc record that the peoples north of the river Seine were the Belgic & other 'germans' who had in recent generations 'crossed the Rhine' , the boundary of true Germania, & that these people joined the great revolt against Rome with their 'fellow germans'. Meanwhile, archaeology has shown that the Parisi 'tribe' of east Yorkshire have clear affinities with the people of the same name located in the area of the modern French Capital, which is on the Gallic-Belgic boundary, marking them as at least partly, if not quite totally, Germanic. There are some differences in the archaeological evidences of these cross sea related peoples, but this is because the migration into Yorkshire had taken place several generations before, with the British portion having particular developments that were not present in Gaul. Tacitus says that the peoples of Britain were related to those nearest to them across the local seas, in both appearance, language & culture, which is reasonable, if a bit simplified from the real, more complex, story. Thus, he relates how the Silures of south Wales are like the swarthy people of Iberia, where the 'real' Celts dwell, the Celtiberi.
This indicates that these Celts are an Atlantic coastal people then, & have remained so ever since. The SE Britons were quite recent arrivals in Britain, Gallo-Belgic, that is partly Germanic, while the northern British were akin to the people's across the North Sea, that is the German tribes of Germany & Denmark, where he records a Baltic people, the Aesti as speaking a similar language to the Britons, which has to have been a Germanic tongue so far north.
Oppenheimer, in The Origins of the British' 2006, has indicated how 'English', or it's forebear within Britain, has to have had much deeper routes than an origin in the 4/5 th centuries AD, & belongs to a low Germanic/Norse language line, not a later form. The DNA of British people shows a gradation from east to west of Germanic to 'Celtic' which is not simply the result from of post
Roman events but goes much further back in time, indicating a regular exchange of people by migration across the narrow seas, from the whole coastline from Scandinavia to Iberia, with the British Isles.
15.50 ...as they continued their glorious war march through England's southeast... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣in those days the Anglo-Saxons lived in mud huts but somewhere else and Britain was occupied by a foreign power, by the Romans not the Anglo-Saxons!!!! but how much nonsense this odd funny guy goes on about, it seems that the Romans were fighting against the Anglo-Saxons actually it was another completely different people
LOL they retitled the video (and the English is still broken).
Very unprofessional channel
It wasn’t that hard. You seem to lack understanding of Roman history. This was a minor revolt compared to other parts of the empire. You really overstate this. Change the channel name to No Knowledge 😂😂😂😂
الله يرحمها
.
Womp womp
Title missspelled? Bad grammar? Fix it?
misspelled*
Yeah it has to be "Why was it". I'm sure they'll fix it soon :)
Ha ha ha💀💀💀💀💀💀!!! hilarious this funny guy how he pronounces Latin names of Celtic Britons with American English pronunciation😭😭😭😭ignorance is never small
Because she was an extremely angry and extremely strong woman, that's why, and the Romans maybe thought she was gonna be submissive.
well, if she wasn't submissive by nature, Romans made her submissive by good nurture, that is by slaying her enormous but useless army.
She got wrecked though so joke's on her lol.
Boudicca was a actually good topic as literally until the Tudor times a woman had been a strong part in British history
Aunt flos in town ☺️
Is this a joke? 😂 this whole video is a joke.
Shi is not "warrior queen" , just queen.
👍👍