When you try to imagine this beach sacrifice... It should have a huge impact on Roman mentality, I would get back to the boat with a "that's enough for me" face.
Tuong Lu Kim , that's exactly what they were, a drunken mob , stealing looting killing, they had women & children with them too! It wasn't an army with boudicca , it was a rabble .👍
@Tattle Boad I'm rather baffled by this description, the idea of an "objective science" is something I would expect you to mock STEM majors for believing in rather than calling philosophy such. Vast ammounts of continental philosophy have been penned precisely in opposition the notion that objective truth is possible nevermind that there is a systematic way to attain it.
"Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve." - Sun Tzu
"When you surround the enemy Always allow them an escape route. They must see that there is An alternative to death." -Sun Tzu When men see nothing but a death awaiting them they tend to go out fighting like banshees.
Sun Tzu´s art of war is designed to teach rich noble Palace kids the basics its not meant to be the ultimate weapon after all it says stuff like be courteous and never charge uphill look at the battle Munda recently uploaded on this channel Caeser outnumbered 8 Legions to 13 ,,,charges uphill and wins or just imagine you are on a hill and the enemy has catapults while you dont or they cut of your supply line and besiege and encircle the hill and the Marian Roman Legions had quite a lot of battles in which they fought to the bitter end despite having many opportunities to run away Sun Tzu´s Art of War i think puts Sun Tzu to shame since the guy was much more skilled than the Art of War sadly the Basics are all most people know and thats why the Art of War gets hyped so much, despite the fact that a cavemen could understand it
Just imagine what it was like being there, especially considering the Romans were highly superstitious, it must have been absolutely terrifying, no wonder the Romans just stopped moving!
I mean with Boudica invading Rome, celtic warfare, marching North to York, that type of stuff, Ryse son of Rome is filled to the brim with historical inaccuracy, but its a great game for the sons of Rome (*_*) or Daughters I dunt judge.
For some reason I find the rumor about the ruins of a lost civilization appearing beneath the Thames to be the creepiest detail. From what I've learned about Roman Britain it sounds like a horror movie. I would love to see a movie made about Caesar's first expedition to Britain, thrown by storms and met by white cliffs with blue men staring at them, following them silently as they moved down the coast, stalking them in the night. It would have been like unknowingly crossing the river Styx into the underworld.
@@quqbalam5089 That's not true at all. There are countless examples of Romans giving citizenship to Celts (both in Gaul and Britannia) who ally with and aid them. In fact this blending of cultures lead to a group known as the Gallo-Romans, who would be a prominent Celtic culture in Europe all the way until the Franks conquered and absorbed them.
@@jamestown8398 I know the Franks gave France its name, but I would say it was the Franks themselves who were absorbed into the wider Gallo-Roman culture. After all, French is a Gallo-Roman language.
@@jamestown8398 I know the Franks gave France its name, but I would say it was the Franks themselves who were absorbed into the Gallo-Roman population. After all, French is a Gallo-Roman language.
Let's take a moment to understand the shit Paulinus went through. He witnessed a horror movie in the making. A mass sacrifice. Then he went and faced around 100,000 people with only 15,000 himself.
And won the Battle Gloriously.And If my Question in the Comments was Correctly Answered he lead an Revenge Slaughter against the Tribes that Supported the Uprising which costed him his Job because he was too Violent.....sad ending.....
Superior in numbers maybe, but that doesn't make it a superior force. Sounds like Boudicca's rebellion included women and children and a high degree of religious fervor, but not many professional soldiers. The Romans cut through them like butter when it came to a standup fight.
+AngryBeaver1984 We don't know for certain, but it's likely they were cut down because of Boudicca's terrible tactics and mistakes. Numbers aren't exact with almost any historical writing, especially Roman, but they're a general indicator for the size of the force. Non-professional soldiers would bog down the superiority of Boudicca's army, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor of the battle.
AngryBeaver1985 I agree. It sounds more like the Iceni people just uprooted and went at the Romans like wild animals. It is likely that less than a quarter of the Iceni force were fighting age males, and there is no way of knowing how many of them were trained warriors.
it's so weird how the color scheme made me expect a different outcome. I liked it though. not knowing the history it kept me engaged throughout the video
Not really, the most scary part is were they torture the folks in the city. Just think how scary it would have been, seeing everybody getting killed, then they grab you, and, you know... And I thought the battle of Visbey was brutal!
Reminds me of on of the chapter's of The Art of War, Sun Tsu talked of how cornering an army and making them realise that the only way to survive is the fight makes men fight like tigers. The lack of quarter granted to the Romans and promise of atrocious fate didn't weaken them... it strengthened them to fight better than they could have ever otherwise fought.
It didn't work in Cannae because the roman soldiers were too tightly packed to be able to use their swords efficently, there has to be a minimum distance between soldiers in order for them to be able to us them.
ultrasonic22 Yeah, I don't know if Cannae is relevant to the concept of fighting better because you realise it's the only way to survive. I think when you have an encirclement like that it's too chaotic, it becomes a crush as you get a positive feedback loop feeding back to worse and worse collapse. As they are pushed back, they have nowhere to fall back into they crush each other and as the front line is annihilated those further back try to get away only run into others trying to go the other way.
More recent example: The battle of the Bulge. The Malmedy massacre hardened the already beaten American soldier to give battle to the last man since it seemed that surrendering was not an option anymore.
@Machine Algorithm Alpha hard to get religion early game at high difficulty, plus later you can build wide and with beliefs like tithe/church property make a ton of gold
I know you say it as a joke, but from the video, the narrator clearly states that Paulinus didn't think he would live to see the next day. Which is probably why he and the Romans fought so well.
@@abdulrahmanalzaidi But to be fair, when you run it through your mind it does make alot of sense - while internally he was cowering from fear, a commander simply cannot afford to show this sentiment to his colleagues... so while he was scared shitless i do imagine he tried to raise morale with jokes and appeals to intrinsic superiority like that. Which exactly worked out in his favour
It's pretty ironic that boudica put up the carts to stop the romans from escaping so she could slaughter them, but in the end, it was HER army that the carts prevented from escaping, and SHE was slaughtered
I mean how could the romans possibly escape in that direction? Through 100k enemys? I think it was to make sure no roman cavalry would charge from behind. If you have a peasant army a cavalry charge to the rear is desastreus. She propably didnt consider for a second that she could losse in the centre.
The most cynical possibility is that the carts were expressly there to stop the Iceni from booking it, given the reputation of the Roman legions in battle. The most obvious way you could lose this battle is if some morale event occurs and your overwhelming numbers choose not to fight. I'm no expert on horde management, but the first rule of a large, poorly equipped army in an uprising is that not everyone is passionately happy to be there. Lining up some carts as a makeshift barricade is a neat way of discouraging the 'We'll just quietly slip away after the battle has started' contingent of your forces.
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 I disagree on the latter point: it was ultimately necessary to refill the extremely thin ranks of the Legions, and the foederati could have been integrated had the Empire not attempted to exploit them, or, better yet, tried not to pay them with land.
@@reinatr4848 No, they couldn't. In the Late Roman Empire, virtually no one wanted to be a legionary anymore due to lower pay, poor conditions, and a general lack of people truly thinking that the Empire needed their help to survive - If Roma Invicta, why bother trying to keep it alive when it'll survive anyhow? The Empire DID try to recruit more Romans but depopulation and a strong motivation NOT to serve meant that even their conscription measures failed - so much so that people would cut off their thumbs to keep from serving.
"He sent out messengers to every little town along the way, calling up every retired soldier still able to hold a sword and shield" and form that came the motto "There is no such thing as an ex-legionary."
that is why i hit the exterminate option in both it makes you less liked by other factions but it keeps the population in place the worse i ever got was 3-4 slave revolts and a civ war while at war with 10 factions at the same time not going to make that mistake again
Well it was Either Fight and die an Heroic Death to Defend the Civilians or slowly starve with your Army to Death so it is Obvious what everyone would choose.
The brutality the Iceni showed in the first few conflicts meant the Romans were in full "fuck it we ball" mode, because it was either fight until you die, or have your danglies hacked off and shoved up your nose by an unwashed German. The nerve displayed by Paulinus and the simple brilliance of the wedge strategy is honestly very impressive. I'm not surprised Boudicca deleted herself after that.
@@TheGreenTaco999 y'know after I wrote this comment I realised they were not German and then also realised I have no idea what the ethonym for the native people of Eastern Britain in 50AD was so I left it
The part with the druids, human sacrifice and mysterious events that followed is some of the spookiest, most eerie moments in history. Imagine the horror the romans would have felt
Honestly this was pretty enlightening. As a kid growing up I always heard of Boudicca as this fierce 'warrior queen" and the uprising of the Britons as this tremendously heroic event. Unless, I am missing something, it looks in reality it was basically a giant mob that went around torturing and murdering people (including many fellow Britons) And sacking undefended cities, and pretty much getting wiped out by the first real Roman army they came across, even though it was only a fraction of their size. Being a real-time visual representation of things with narration really helps to paint a picture in a way that the text books from school just couldn't quite capture.
pretty much yeh. I've learnt that this boudicca woman was just an idiot basically running on blind rage emotions. I understand her motives, but the stupidity of her tribe to pick her to lead the army.... well... lets just say, I'm glad the romans won.
This is 8 months old, I know, but I just want to say that all of the reports of Boudicca torturing and murdering people comes from Cassius Dio, a Roman senator who would have good cause to demonize her and her people.
8:06 “The healthy human mind doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking this is it’s last day on earth. But I think that’s a luxury, not a curse. To know you’re close to the end is a kind of freedom...”
Interesting fact about Paulinus: He once led an expedition through Morocco into Sub-Saharan Africa before his post in Britain. What a well traveled guy!
@Alvi Syahri Exactly, and the Romans were professional soldiers. Granted, the numbers could've overwhelmed the Romans even if it wasn't 100k vs 10k. We know the Romans had 10K, I'm willing to bet the Iseni had somewhere around 60-80k though. If Boudicca had any tactical knowledge, this would've been the British version of the Tuterbourgh Forrest
@Alvi Syahri Oh no, I'm not saying that it WOULD'VE happened. I just figure that if there had been a more competent person in charge, they could've driven the Romans into a much worse position and attacked them from all sides instead of a frontal assault.
@Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolvocanoconiosis Really? because the examples they bring over and over again (Joan and Boudica) dosent seem very competent to me...
The problem wasn't that "Boudicca was a woman". The problem was that there was no one in the Iceni leadership that was familiar with Roman tactics. Throughout Roman history, the most successful native revolts have barbarian leaders who usually served in the Roman Army at some high level and knew how to use their tactics against them.
I don't like feminism, but plz chill Heart of Fire. Anyways, i agree with you Lew Archer. The problem wasn't because Bodica was a woman, the real problem was that Bodicca didn't show Bob and Vagene~! lelelelel.
Heart of Fire So because of one single failed rebellion led by a woman (That almost forced Rome to withdraw from Britain), you think women can never lead a successful military action? Atleast that's what I assume, because you said fucking nothing with any evidence. OP said; 'The problem isn't that a woman did it, it's that she didn't understand Roman tactics, and the Tribes weren't enough to take on such a disciplined army that had built up for decades'. How you responded; 'It WAS because she was a woman'. Now you're probably very simple, so I'll break it down nice and easy. The reason you're a complete fucking idiot is because this; OP: Makes statement, makes point to prove statement. YOU: Makes statement. This is how not how you argue. You made a contradictory statement that was completely empty. Tell me why it was because she was a woman, not just that it was. You're a fucking idiot.
Ass Wizard Of Siberia It was a joke. Calm down. Also I don't think the Romans allowed women into their army. If having experience in the Roman military was so important then yeah giving command to a woman (who wouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near the fighting) was a big mistake.
There is a perfectly good explanation that could allow the Romans to only have 800 casualties in the Battle of Watling Street but Paulinus needing to ask for three legions from the Rhine (and only getting 6K in an emergency transfer). 2/3 of his army were retired soldiers he coddled together to face the Iceni. Now that the emergency is over, they are going back to their farms. Unless you pay them something like 30X the normal pay, they aren't sticking around.
It's interesting that. being from the area the Iceni were from, I was always taught that Boudicca was brave and strong, fighting the tyranny of the Romans and that she heroically killed herself rather than be captured. The Romans were definitely always the bad guys... Looks like the Iceni weren't so valiant!
I mean, it's whatever. Almost two thousand years after Boudicca's Revolt, and the only sources come from the Romans themselves. You're never going to get an accurate, balanced version of that revolt. It's all fantasy, so believe what you want to believe. If Boudicca is a symbol of bravery to you, she is. If she's a bloodthirsty monster... well, that'd be weird, considering who she's fighting against. But I certainly don't blame people not thinking of her as the good guy.
Wow, taking the brave stance of believing an enemy of bloodthirsty monsters 2000 years ago is a bloodthirsty monster. Truly, you are making a stand when no one else would. What a call-out.
mrkti while the 300 spartans were accompanied by thousands of other greeks at Thermopylae they still did the most work there at Thermopylae was still an amazing feat bearing in mind that the persians prob had at least like 200k men
Vito C I agree, we see it happen time and again in Rome's history. This is something her enemies never seem to comprehend, from Pyrrhus to Hannibal to Sparticus to Boadicca. Winning battles against Rome is no big deal. The Romans had their asses handed to them time and again. But when it really matters, Rome digs deep into her inner reserves of strength, the egotistical 'boys' who got their armies slaughtered are pushed out of the way, the bullshit that caused their defeats gets cleaned up and Rome makes whatever sacrifices, whatever changes/reforms it takes to win! It was Rome's inner strength that built the Empire, and only when she became corrupted from within that the Empire started to fall. Alaric, Atilla and all of their kin could not hope to succed if Rome had not become corrupted. Rome destroyed Rome, the endless civil wars, bad management, stupid or mad emperors, economic stagnation and lead poisoning.
Rome's power came from having a system of military logistics and replacements. A tribe would commit everything it had to a battle for survival and if they lost, they lost most of their fighting men in one battle. If they defeated a Roman Legion the only thing they would see is another legion marching over the horizon towards them. And they would keep coming until that tribe was exterminated.
@@mrblack888 I couldn't even imagine the horror of Germans after Teutoburg forest slaughter, when Romans came back with even bigger number razing everything to the ground. Now you got more of them and way more prepared and set on making you pay for what has happened.
Ward Huyskes ....Yeah, I would have felt that was a lost cause if all I had had was 10K of actual soldiers and another 5K of retierees if I'd been facing half that number
Don't forget, those 'retirees' were veteran legionnaires. 25 years of service. He basicially just got loads of evocati cohorts. No wonder the Romans were like machines
The last British King to rebel against the Romans, Caratacus, was entirely different from Boudica. He used a guerrilla campaign, and he isn't known to have committed mass-murder. When he was captured alive he was taken to Rome in a Triumph, and before his scheduled execution he was allowed to address the Senate. He gave an impassioned speech about how he was just defending his home and would have been a friend to Rome had they not invaded: this impressed the Senate so much that they let him live.
True, they kind of started it. You don't just occupy someone's land, pillage their homes, and rape and sell their people without some hostility in turn.
@o m ...He goes beyond that to say that is why they deserved it. Not that just that's the reason why, but why it's good. That makes it a subjective statement. It also suggests, which is most definetly untrue, that the reaction was measured compared to the original act. Unbelievable, of course.
@@UncleMerlin So? A victory is a victory. Last time Caesar campaigned in Asia Minor and it lasted for a mere 5 days after that one single battle. HAIL PAULINUS IMPERATOR PAULINUS
The legionaries would’ve had more sense than to do that, they’d have sealed his fate if they did. By this point, the last time the legions had hailed someone from outside the imperial household as Imperator was Marcus Crassus, the grandson of the original Triumvir Marcus Licinius Crassus (you know, the rich dude who drank hot gold in Persia) who had been serving as legate during a campaign in Pannonia over half a century ago. When Augustus had heard about this, he’d feared a threat to his power from a relation of one of the old triumvirs and had the man stripped of his spoils, relieved of his command, removed from politics and effectively exiled him from Rome to the island of Capri, where he would remain in obscurity for the rest of his days (sidenote: Crassus wound up building a villa that Emperor Tiberius himself would later utilize after he left Rome) All that under Augustus. Imagine what’d have happened to Paulinus if he’d been hailed Imperator with NERO as Emperor??
He did. In addition to being ashamed of his cowardice, he was also ashamed that he denied his men the opportunity to share in the triumph of that victory.
I watched this in 2160p60 and I must admit, the definition on the square things attacking the rectangular blocks was amazing! Seriously though, that was informative as usual.
What Paulinus did was genius and it started with his speech to his men he put them on dead mans ground he knew exactly what he was doing he maximised his men's potential .
Except the majority , or at least large minority, of the population of the various settlements would have been British(members of other tribes like the Catuvellinani). So even if you somehow think killing roman civilians is justified, plenty of other british tribes were killed as well.
0:45 Rape 1:05 REVOLT AGAINST ROME 1:24 Paulinus Campaign 1:50 Druids, Flaming Sticks, Chanting, Shouting 2:30 Rome Cuts them down. 2:55 This was a massive Human Sacrifice!!! 3:30 Dark Omens 3:59 Boudicca Campaign 4:30 OMG 5:30 The Chase Is ON 9:00 Wedge Charge! 10:00 Battle Became Slaughter
I think one reason the Romans are so incredibly fascinating to read about and have been since I was a child is that they're history's ultimate "bad guys"... As terrible as they were and, if they existed today, as much as we'd all hate them and be horrified by their actions, they're just fun to read about. I can't really think of another group that I subconsciously so routinely cheer against but, at the same time, hope they'll recover when they're down (which is, to me, the ultimate antagonist or anti-hero). Thinking of the Samnites, Hamilcar, Hannibal, the Macedonians and Antiochus III, Boudica, Zenobia... I so routinely find myself hoping they'll succeed despite knowing that they won't, and yet I still love the Romans. A lot of it is probably due to the Roman historians and culture/mindset, which is to say that unlike many historical "victors", they really didn't care nearly as much about being the "good" guys as is evident in their genesis mythos, where Rome was founded on fratricide by a group of pirates and other undesirables that needed a new start and who literally had to kidnap wives just to get started. It's about the least glorious start to a grand empire one could imagine and yet the Romans, who invented and told the story themselves, only really cared about one thing: they won the battles and so imposed their will. This mindset seems to carry on throughout time as, while in the moment they'll often try to claim the moral high ground, within a generation the historians are usually rather blunt about the pragmatic and selfish reasons for their previous actions. All that matters, in the end, is that they were the victors on the battlefield, and so some truly capable and threatening opponents are preserved in their histories as it further glorifies their eventual victories (which also opens the door to embellishment, though I don't believe that was the case with Boudica or Hannibal), whereas in most other cultures that I read about the opponents are often described as hapless cowards or, sometimes, even erased from the historical record. The Romans didn't really seem to care if you perceived them as the "bad guys" and often even reveled in it, so long as you acknowledged their martial superiority. It makes for fascinating reading.
Well you are right:They are like the Only Empire which Fells "Human" as in like they are Neutral.One knows their Great Archievements in History,as example their Streets and Citys and the Fact that they Practically made Society.Also the Franks (Todays French and Germans) would never have been nearly as Powerful as they were when there never was the Roman Conquest of Gaul.On the Other Side we always have the Lingering thought that the Romans Just did their Conquest to Further their own Power and that they Brutally defeated Uprisings against their sometimes Oppressiv Government....all in all they are like an really fleshed out Villain/Anti-Hero in an Novel or Series which we know has done some Evil deeds but we can't do something other than root for them. (BTW I am German so please excuse my bad English)
They may have been "bad" to everyone around them. But through their deeds and conquests, everyone in Europe and who came from Europe are connected on a level that is not seen anywhere else in the world. They may have forcefully converted everyone to Christianity through force, but we are also connected on a deep moral and ethical foundation because of it. Odd, but is what it is.
I think a lot of the "cheering against Rome," not all or even necessarily yours, comes from class warfare reflex. Two equally bad societies: the bigger one gets dumped on. The "underdog" gets a free pass. At least that's what I've noticed from a lot of modern critics. Just my two cents.
@phoenixkhost if those tribes has the technology of Rome they proved time, and time again that they'd use it for destruction. I think the sentiment that "Rome was Civilization." For its time period is 100% acceptable. (Of course some exceptions exist like the Parthians who were.... eh I guess I'd say.)
Boudica is one of the most overrated historical figures of all time. So she killed a considerably outnumbered Roman detachment of soldiers, burned down three settlements with inhuman cruelty, and was then absolutely annihilated by an army ten times as smaller than hers. Wow, truly amazing stuff...
Why is everyone implying Rome were the good guys? They were invading to rape, pillage, loot and burn out a people so they could build more towns and exploit more land and resources. I love Roman history but they were so good at winning because they were a savage bunch of murderers.
@@kvltizt The people Boudica killed weren't looters, rapists, or pillagers; they were civilians just trying to get by. Boudica's actions are excessively worse than the transgression she was retaliating for. Moreover, the Romans were never exterminators like Boudica. They enslaved enemy civilians, they never exterminated entire population centers.
2:56 That's actually creepy as hell. It's one thing to be trained and experienced in fighting enemy soldiers, but to be subjected to THIS kind of fanatical insanity, basically a suicide charge... it completely changes the scenario. It's dark and primal and strike to the core of your soul (if you have one). A sign of things to come, proved by how following events unfolded.
Great video! Loved that extra detail with the druids. Can't wait for the next, but very good work and I wish to extend a form of encouragement as this channel has formed a very good fan base, and you are one of the only like able Historians on youtube, as myself an amateur historian, I am very satisfied with your tone of voice and genuine interest in the subject. So please I hope you continue this excellent work and do not get down trodden by the inevitable complaints.
No matter how many times I hear it, it baffles me how incredible the roman warriors were. Feels like their soldiers were tanks fighting children throwing rocks.
Ironically that's exactly what it was. You can't compare a professional soldier that it equipped to the teeth to a child with a stick and a few pebbles.
Yes and no. The Persians were professional fighters perhaps but not professional soldiers. The western tradition of battle was shaping up as one of discipline and coordination, the eastern/barbarian way of battle was for every man to be a hero. That just doesn't work against disciplined ranks.
@@mrblack888 such a biased take lol. you really expect an age old civilization like Persia didn't know how to fight as soldiers? What about the 'barbarian' horse nomads that just decimated everyone including Europe?
10:53 "Including children and non-combatants" When woman are in the army, there *are* no non-combatants, since you can't tell the difference between the two. (Same with guerrillas in Vietnam.)
cloudfanlp _Well there are People who are Unarmed_ How long does it take to hide your rifle and change into some civvies? _Maybe the ones who drove the Supply Wagons._ The people who drive army's supply wagons are legitimate targets.
RonJohn63 Well I don't Think Boudicca had Only Soldiers with her.....Maybe they had People who didn't fight and Rather Gathered Firewood or supplys or did some other Work. But you don't have to take me Seriously,I am Just Rambling about this Surprising Battle.
I have a Test on Boudicca and was just searching for some videos to watch when yours popped up. Perfect, I can learn and be entertained at the same time!
Nice video but a few errors. First 80,000 Iceni were not killed, because the Iceni tribe according to the tribal museum in East Anglia only had 40,000 members, men, women, children, old people and babies, the allied Trinovantes only around 30,000 population. Contemporary estimates based on population of the tribes involved would make the British army 20-25,000 strong maximum. Which is consistent with other British armies of the period, such as those of Caractacus, Cassivellaunus and at Mons Grapius which were all around 20-25,000 strong according to Roman chroniclers while Venutius's considerably smaller. Also the tribes/confederations that made these armies were larger in population than Boudicca's. The fact these numbers are so consistent has been noted by military historian as demonstrating the maximum possible army size logistics for Britain at that time. A second error is saying that it was Romans killed by Boudicca. While the Romans in the three cities that were sacked were killed they were a small minority of the population, most of the inhabitants were British. Primarily members of the Catuvellinani tribe, the cities being on their territory, who were the hated foes of the Iceni and Trinovantes. The Catuvellinani tribe had been the most powerful tribe in southern England before the conquest and dominated the smaller tribes such as the Iceni. When the Romans came it was the Catuvellinani tribe that fought the conquest while the Iceni backed the Romans. During Boudicca's revolt she was taking the opportunity to settle some internal British politics. And her revolt killed many times the number of British than it did Romans. Hardly the great patriotic rising............. When you say largest conflict ever to occur on British soil if you mean battle, that would be Towton 1461. If you mean war, it would be the War of Three kingdoms which killed 12% of people in the country and had over a million participants. If by single army, that would either be Severus's invasion of Scotland or Claudius's invasion force.
I think he was saying largest battle to occur on British soil in the Roman period. Since that is entirely what this channel is about. And just because he said Romans were killed by Boudicca does not mean he's disregarding all the Britons who were slaughtered, he used it to emphasise the point that many of the Roman colonisers had just been wiped out. Can I have some sources on the army sizes, that sounds interesting.
As they were called Roman settlements in the video, Boudicca is described as attacking the Roman,s a Roman army is trying to protect them and all the talk was of Romans being killed, whether intentional of not it implies the people being killed and the civilians were Romans. It actually quite a major historical point the civilians were mostly Catuvelliani. Tacitus, Dio Cassius and Caesar's Gallics Wars give commentriess on the early British armies, figures for Mons Grapius come from Tacitus however the Romans tended to overestimate size so they may actuually have been smaller. Figures for the Catuvalliani that militry historians use tends to come from the estimate of 1/3 of tribe available as warriors in tribal societies. The archaeological excavations of Serverus camps in Scotland suggest his numbers, which can be read about here, archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_107/107_092_102.pdf
Alfredo di Nuzzo Nope, Roman citizenship wasn't extended to conquered people for another 200 years. Also had citizenship been extended back then instead of 200 years later, that would make Boudicca and the Iceni Roman too and it would have been a Roman civil war, Roman killing Roman.
Very good mate, thanks for the info ;) I'm gonna research about all this stuff you mentioned. I'm specially curious about this battle of Towton and this war of the Three kingdoms....
@@junjungatbos3548 Obviously not because she had almost no plan to defeat the Romans, no research on how they work and fight,no knowlege of the hundreds of tribes that did the same thing she did and failed. She was far from wonder woman. She was one of the most incompetent field commanders in history. If you want to make a revolt at least do an iota of planning to defeat your opponent.
When you put quantity against quality... all that huge mass of warriors simply dissolved under the fury of the roman legionaries, just like snow under the sun.
@@quqbalam5089 In all his videos he goes over what the Romans did wrong and frequently accuses them of lying to cover up their shit. For example, watch his video on the Roman Triumph and how he describes its propaganda, the cruelty to captives, the thinly veiled deification of generals and he even accuses them of human sacrifice despite Rome officially reviled human sacrifice and claimed to not partake in it. This very video opens with him going over how the Romans exploited the dead king's will to get an excuse to enter Iceni lands to rape, pillage and enlsave the population, and how they humiliated, raped and tortured Boudicca and her daughters too. Where is the apologetics here? If you believe that giving a proper description of Boudicca's own horrific treatment of civilians is somehow apologizing for the Romans, don't kid yourself. It happened and he is absolutely right to bring it up. The Roman treatment of the Iceni was evil, and the mass torture and slaughter Boudicca's army wrought was also evil.
@JL-CptAtom Ok Hitler calm down. The Bengalis died because of scorched earth, you might as well blame the Japanese, it's called war. Dresden is insignificant and really only taken seriously by holocaust deniers and Wehrmacht apologists, it was a significant strategical target and it was war. The potato famine, yeah pretty much the fault of the English but at least it wasn't deliberate, just their own incompetence and pig-headed economic policy.
OH HOW THE GOD'S HAVE BLESSED US THIS DAY! MAY A THOUSAND CHEERS BE HEARD THROUGHOUT MOTHER ROME FOR CIVILIS HAS RELEASED A NEW VIDEO! MAY GODDESS MINERVA HERSELF BLESS THIS DEAR MAN!
Have you got a source on the druids setting themselves on fire? The closest thing I could find was a BBC article saying the Romans burnt them after they died on a make shift funeral pier.
10:45 Kill 'em all and let Jupiter sort 'em out. EDIT: I like to imagine the Romans fighting like the Spartans in 300. "No Prisoners!" "AROO" "No Mercy!" "AROO"
So there was only one real battle, with advantage in numbers and good equipment, but still all went to hell for her in that one real battle. Not really as epic as the "warrior queen" i was taught she was as a queen.
Her only military accomplishment, first to led all of her army to total annihilation vs a force ten times smaller, was to have beaten a small Roman detachment at Londinium, having great numerical advantage, and with the legionaries not able to move (because they were protecting the local population). Not really a great tactician.
I'm glad that your channel is growing so much Historia! This video was an eye opener to some of the brutality of people are capable of. Looking forward to the next video!
and I’d say he knows a little more about fighting than you do, pal, because he INVENTED IT! And then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor! Then he used his fight money to buy 2 of every animal on earth! Then he herded them onto a boat and then he BEAT THE CRAP OUT EVERY SINGLE ONE! and from that day forward, every time a bunch of animals are together in one place it’s called a TZU! Unless it’s a farm!
At first glance this seems to be perfect Hollywood material. Think of it. An overwelming murdering and torturing horde. The last stand of the small detachment sent to defend Londinium. The veterans recalled in haste. The Roman commander offering protection for those that evacuated the city, but only a part of the inhabitants followed him (partly because they had all of their possession there and hoped the devil was not so black as it was painted, partly because they, or their elders, couldn't keep the pace. Families torn apart...). Then, a desperate last stand of the soldiers to cover the fleeing civilians. However we'll never see it because: 1) The Roman commander wasn't some lower officer that had to take the lead after the death of his superior. He was the fucking Governor, so the one that should have prevented the troubles in first place. 2) There had never been a moment, in the final battle, when the Romans were on the verge of annihilation. They won easily. 3) The horde happened to be "British". 4) The amateur tactician that led the torturing horde to it's final demise happened to be a woman, and to depict a woman as an incompetent leader in a movie would be seen as sexism.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Those problems have solutions. 1) You can make the story from the POV of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, a lower ranking Officer in Paulinus's army. Or create another such officer under Paulinus' command (in this case you can add drama by claiming his family died at Camulodunum). 2) It could still be made a dramatic battle. Exhausted, half-starved soldiers (some of whom are aged veterans) fighting against a numerically superior force. 3) As "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" show, British people can be made into villains quite easily.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Hehe, admittedly, this would make it a difficult sell. Plus you wouldn't have a "good guy" per say. But you could make it work. As for the feminazis bitching and moaning that the woman is not portrayed as inherently superior in every way: f*ck their supremacist dogma. Idiots come in both shapes, and all colors. Let's make the movie and let them screech in pain while the rest of the world enjoys the accurate history and good storytelling. ; )
Re: Casualties. The Ninth, which was destroyed (but for its cavalry) was reinforced. Of those 6,000 men you say were sent to Britain, ~5,000 would have gone into reforming the ten infantry cohorts of the 9th legion, which would remain in Britain. The remaining 1,000 would presumably have partially reinforced Paulinus 14th legion (400 for those killed and maybe another 200 to replace those who were injured an unfit for further military service), leaving 400 men to reinforce the 20th legion. Or perhaps to replace town militias/ guard for settlements? Considering the large number of men who went into reforming Legio IX Hispania, I don't think the reports of Roman casualties (Battle vs Boudicca) were exaggerated very much at all. In fact, they seem almost precisely accurate.
I've herd claims that Boudica's army was around or over 200,000 Men and Women, and this surprising to see the Romans with only 10,000 crush them. Just wow.
Yeah. She's often considered this great hero, but all she managed to do was sack three undefended towns, murder thousands of civilians and lose the only military engagement she fought. And she lost it so overwhelmingly that she slinks off afterwards and commits suicide. Had this been a man, he would be no more than a historical footnote.
Connor Senier not really...Listen, despite my name, I'm no Roman Empire fanboy. They were narcissistic, psychotic, Imperialists who stopped at nothing to fulfill their vision of world conquest. However; the butcherings of the 3 cities is clearly not a fabrication or even exaggerated, and pretty much every civilization in the ancient world was horrible by modern standards with the possible exception of ancient Persia. Not only is there clear archeological evidence of a massacre at these 3 locations and cities out to the torch, but most of the sources from the era are non-Roman British eye witnesses among the refugees of the destroyed cities, as Romans were still a vast minority in all these population centers. In conclusion, your hatred of Rome is justified, but ignoring the facts isn't, and painting Rome's enemies as saints is just as idiotic as having a positive moral view of Rome.
It's so weird (if you consider how the units in the video were moved) that Boudicca's infantry didn't surround the Roman army completely. If the numbers are true then the celts would've had tens of thousands of reserves that somewhat easily could've done that after the romans pushed through some. Or maybe I'm just being naive.
"We're surrounded? Excellent, now we can attack in any direction." -Paulinus probably
We got them where we want them???
well, that *definitely* wasn't what his namesake Field Marshal Paulus of the 6th Army was thinking in Stalingrad...
It was a target-rich environment.
I read this comment like 2 months ago and it has given me a more positive outlook on life.
Ah yes Paulinus Probablus is likely to have said something like that.
When you try to imagine this beach sacrifice... It should have a huge impact on Roman mentality, I would get back to the boat with a "that's enough for me" face.
BazBattles wait you guys are here but are like a really obscure comment? Also I like your videos
just wait till your commander calls for decimation if you do that.
the Romans couldn't just leave. It would have incited even more revolts in other parts of the empire.
@@vynonyoutube1418 i believe the comander would be the first to turn arround and get back to the boat tou
Not gonna lie, first thought was wait, which metal music video was this?
"A disorderly mob is no more an army, than a heap of building materials is a house." - Socrates
hue hue not really. You can apply philosophy to any profession.
@Tattle Boad U wot m8?
Tuong Lu Kim , that's exactly what they were,
a drunken mob ,
stealing looting killing, they had women & children with them too!
It wasn't an army with boudicca , it was a rabble .👍
@Tattle Boad A good course on practical bayesian statistics implicitly includes an understanding of empiricism and induction.
@Tattle Boad I'm rather baffled by this description, the idea of an "objective science" is something I would expect you to mock STEM majors for believing in rather than calling philosophy such. Vast ammounts of continental philosophy have been penned precisely in opposition the notion that objective truth is possible nevermind that there is a systematic way to attain it.
"Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they
will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing
they may not achieve."
- Sun Tzu
Note that Sun Tzu certainly didn't think it was a good idea to just throw your men into a hopeless situation willy-nilly.
Statistical Insanity You knew him?
Laguce Gothsong No, but I've read his book.
Death ground tactic. Sun tzu
Just be sure not to do so by accident, as Boudicca's army can attest.
"When you surround the enemy
Always allow them an escape route.
They must see that there is
An alternative to death."
-Sun Tzu
When men see nothing but a death awaiting them they tend to go out fighting like banshees.
smart.
inb4 they get surrounded on all sides and are so tightly packed in that they cannot move their arms
*cough* cannae *cough*
Sun Tzu´s art of war is designed to teach rich noble Palace kids the basics
its not meant to be the ultimate weapon
after all it says stuff like
be courteous and never charge uphill
look at the battle Munda recently uploaded on this channel
Caeser outnumbered 8 Legions to 13 ,,,charges uphill and wins
or just imagine you are on a hill and the enemy has catapults while you dont
or they cut of your supply line and besiege and encircle the hill
and the Marian Roman Legions had quite a lot of battles in which they fought to the bitter end despite having many opportunities to run away
Sun Tzu´s Art of War i think puts Sun Tzu to shame since the guy was much more skilled than the Art of War
sadly the Basics are all most people know and thats why the Art of War gets hyped so much, despite the fact that a cavemen could understand it
Hanibal at Cannae would disagree...
goff0103 but very few guys make it through the escape route and the guys who don’t will not fight as ferociously
That story about the giant human sacrifice was creepy as fuck.
Just imagine what it was like being there, especially considering the Romans were highly superstitious, it must have been absolutely terrifying, no wonder the Romans just stopped moving!
Hardcore, creepy: either, both. I think a certain amount of skepticism is due when all we have to go on are Roman records, though.
It's easy to say that there are lots of Extremists in that era.
Ultimate practical joke.
+Boxghost102 just a prank bro!
This particular part of history would make a pretty great movie.
Ryse son of Rome kinda tried that.
We have a regiment on MB that plays Roman mods we used to play a mod about the Roman and Britain wars. Now we just play other roman mods.
+Charlie Pemberton You mean, by bringing elephants all the way north of europe?
with war elephants
I mean with Boudica invading Rome, celtic warfare, marching North to York, that type of stuff, Ryse son of Rome is filled to the brim with historical inaccuracy, but its a great game for the sons of Rome (*_*) or Daughters I dunt judge.
For some reason I find the rumor about the ruins of a lost civilization appearing beneath the Thames to be the creepiest detail.
From what I've learned about Roman Britain it sounds like a horror movie. I would love to see a movie made about Caesar's first expedition to Britain, thrown by storms and met by white cliffs with blue men staring at them, following them silently as they moved down the coast, stalking them in the night.
It would have been like unknowingly crossing the river Styx into the underworld.
The Romans utterly hated the Celts, so it is no wonder they portrayed them as infernal monsters akin to the Gorgons or the Furies.
@@quqbalam5089 That's not true at all. There are countless examples of Romans giving citizenship to Celts (both in Gaul and Britannia) who ally with and aid them. In fact this blending of cultures lead to a group known as the Gallo-Romans, who would be a prominent Celtic culture in Europe all the way until the Franks conquered and absorbed them.
@@jamestown8398 I know the Franks gave France its name, but I would say it was the Franks themselves who were absorbed into the wider Gallo-Roman culture. After all, French is a Gallo-Roman language.
@@jamestown8398 I know the Franks gave France its name, but I would say it was the Franks themselves who were absorbed into the Gallo-Roman population. After all, French is a Gallo-Roman language.
Jamestown Oh yes of course they give them “citizenship” after they had massacred anyone who opposed them and had totally annexed their land lol
Let's take a moment to understand the shit Paulinus went through. He witnessed a horror movie in the making. A mass sacrifice. Then he went and faced around 100,000 people with only 15,000 himself.
And won the Battle Gloriously.And If my Question in the Comments was Correctly Answered he lead an Revenge Slaughter against the Tribes that Supported the Uprising which costed him his Job because he was too Violent.....sad ending.....
+CrooK Doesn't really matter what the numbers were. It was still a superior force.
Superior in numbers maybe, but that doesn't make it a superior force. Sounds like Boudicca's rebellion included women and children and a high degree of religious fervor, but not many professional soldiers. The Romans cut through them like butter when it came to a standup fight.
+AngryBeaver1984 We don't know for certain, but it's likely they were cut down because of Boudicca's terrible tactics and mistakes. Numbers aren't exact with almost any historical writing, especially Roman, but they're a general indicator for the size of the force. Non-professional soldiers would bog down the superiority of Boudicca's army, but it wouldn't be the deciding factor of the battle.
AngryBeaver1985 I agree. It sounds more like the Iceni people just uprooted and went at the Romans like wild animals. It is likely that less than a quarter of the Iceni force were fighting age males, and there is no way of knowing how many of them were trained warriors.
Disturbing lack of red in the thumbnail.
Rome sweats nervously
it's so weird how the color scheme made me expect a different outcome. I liked it though. not knowing the history it kept me engaged throughout the video
Better dead than red.
When you have 1 million subs, rember me
awesomeness2595
Boudicca felt the same way and look how that worked out.
What happened in that island was a fucking scary af
*was scary af
Weeb
Not really, the most scary part is were they torture the folks in the city. Just think how scary it would have been, seeing everybody getting killed, then they grab you, and, you know... And I thought the battle of Visbey was brutal!
King Bullmantei *Visby
Konrad Eklund Thank you.
Reminds me of on of the chapter's of The Art of War, Sun Tsu talked of how cornering an army and making them realise that the only way to survive is the fight makes men fight like tigers. The lack of quarter granted to the Romans and promise of atrocious fate didn't weaken them... it strengthened them to fight better than they could have ever otherwise fought.
Sun Tzu never withnessed Cannae, though.
Alfredo di Nuzzo Maybe the principle holds true regardless of where the lesson is learned?
It didn't work in Cannae because the roman soldiers were too tightly packed to be able to use their swords efficently, there has to be a minimum distance between soldiers in order for them to be able to us them.
ultrasonic22 Yeah, I don't know if Cannae is relevant to the concept of fighting better because you realise it's the only way to survive.
I think when you have an encirclement like that it's too chaotic, it becomes a crush as you get a positive feedback loop feeding back to worse and worse collapse. As they are pushed back, they have nowhere to fall back into they crush each other and as the front line is annihilated those further back try to get away only run into others trying to go the other way.
More recent example: The battle of the Bulge. The Malmedy massacre hardened the already beaten American soldier to give battle to the last man since it seemed that surrendering was not an option anymore.
Also,Boudicca receives faith whenever a Pictish warrior kills an enemy unit
so she never receives faith?
@Machine Algorithm Alpha I don’t think so
@Machine Algorithm Alpha hard to get religion early game at high difficulty, plus later you can build wide and with beliefs like tithe/church property make a ton of gold
NERD
@@mr_mcnuggets_6219 Sorry dude, I actually know a lot about the game and ur wrong
Agricola: Paulinus, we only have 15,000 men! They have thousands more!
Paulinus: then it’s a fair fight.
perhaps
Still not a fair fight......Tell Boudica to go gather another 250,000 men and then it'll be a fair fight.
I know you say it as a joke, but from the video, the narrator clearly states that Paulinus didn't think he would live to see the next day. Which is probably why he and the Romans fought so well.
@@abdulrahmanalzaidi But to be fair, when you run it through your mind it does make alot of sense - while internally he was cowering from fear, a commander simply cannot afford to show this sentiment to his colleagues... so while he was scared shitless i do imagine he tried to raise morale with jokes and appeals to intrinsic superiority like that. Which exactly worked out in his favour
It's pretty ironic that boudica put up the carts to stop the romans from escaping so she could slaughter them, but in the end, it was HER army that the carts prevented from escaping, and SHE was slaughtered
She wasn't
I think the carts were there so no roman reinforcements would arrive from behind.
I mean how could the romans possibly escape in that direction? Through 100k enemys?
I think it was to make sure no roman cavalry would charge from behind. If you have a peasant army a cavalry charge to the rear is desastreus. She propably didnt consider for a second that she could losse in the centre.
Let me get this straight, I'm not trapped here with you, you're trapped here with me
The most cynical possibility is that the carts were expressly there to stop the Iceni from booking it, given the reputation of the Roman legions in battle. The most obvious way you could lose this battle is if some morale event occurs and your overwhelming numbers choose not to fight.
I'm no expert on horde management, but the first rule of a large, poorly equipped army in an uprising is that not everyone is passionately happy to be there. Lining up some carts as a makeshift barricade is a neat way of discouraging the 'We'll just quietly slip away after the battle has started' contingent of your forces.
It's amazing how many times Rome managed to bounce back on the brink of defeat.
The only ones who beat them was their own politics and bad decisions. Byzantine had a good empire but fell on civil war.
@@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014 I disagree on the latter point: it was ultimately necessary to refill the extremely thin ranks of the Legions, and the foederati could have been integrated had the Empire not attempted to exploit them, or, better yet, tried not to pay them with land.
@@danwar2489 yes, but they could've recruited Roman troops.
@@reinatr4848 No, they couldn't. In the Late Roman Empire, virtually no one wanted to be a legionary anymore due to lower pay, poor conditions, and a general lack of people truly thinking that the Empire needed their help to survive - If Roma Invicta, why bother trying to keep it alive when it'll survive anyhow? The Empire DID try to recruit more Romans but depopulation and a strong motivation NOT to serve meant that even their conscription measures failed - so much so that people would cut off their thumbs to keep from serving.
@@danwar2489 okay, okay...
"He sent out messengers to every little town along the way, calling up every retired soldier still able to hold a sword and shield" and form that came the motto "There is no such thing as an ex-legionary."
Yeah, they don't just forget how to soldier just because they called it a day. Veeeery grumpy old men in very heavy armor. Good God, run.
@@gmat5046 'Beware the old man in a profession where men die young.'
@@someoneelse878 Amen. Young soldiers look badass. Old soldiers look TERRIFING. Known as the Plumley effect. Edit last sentence.
@@gmat5046 soldiers that survived 25 yrs of fighting. those probably were freakin elites lol
@@devvv4616 I agree, hence, RUN.
I live in Colchester, modern day Camulodonum, it's an odd thing knowing your home town was savagely sacked over 2000 years ago
Kram I wish My home town was savagely sacked over 2000 years ago):
I mean, if your town is 2,000+yrs old, there's a very good chance.
Kram A justified sacking though.
Imagine if it hadn't been. We could have had a Roman temple in place of the castle.
@@GeorgiawithaG I reckon that the temple would have been destroyed anyway by other invaders like Anglo Saxons or early christian fanatics
Classic British, queuing in the middle of a battle
When you forget to deal with rebels in Rome total war
that is why i hit the exterminate option in both it makes you less liked by other factions but it keeps the population in place the worse i ever got was 3-4 slave revolts and a civ war while at war with 10 factions at the same time not going to make that mistake again
4k quality, what a legend
4K squares best squares
The hero we need
Not the one we deserve
but the one we think we want to need to deserve
We even get 60FPS. What more could we possibly ask for?
I just loved the part where paulinus just turned around and said, "fuck it, we'll fight and die with honor" and then won. Such a fucking bet
Well it was Either Fight and die an Heroic Death to Defend the Civilians or slowly starve with your Army to Death so it is Obvious what everyone would choose.
The brutality the Iceni showed in the first few conflicts meant the Romans were in full "fuck it we ball" mode, because it was either fight until you die, or have your danglies hacked off and shoved up your nose by an unwashed German. The nerve displayed by Paulinus and the simple brilliance of the wedge strategy is honestly very impressive. I'm not surprised Boudicca deleted herself after that.
@@bluegum6438 "unwashed German" they weren't German, though I understand why you'd think they are considering their barbarism.
@@TheGreenTaco999 y'know after I wrote this comment I realised they were not German and then also realised I have no idea what the ethonym for the native people of Eastern Britain in 50AD was so I left it
@@bluegum6438Briton or Iceni
That druid ritual is the most metal thing I've ever heard.
Could you hear the solo in the background as the last torch bearer lit the pure? Anyone? Or was it just me?
I got chills fr it's like something you straight up wouldn't think could even happen IRL
the durids were hard core as fuck
nah brah, no shapeshifting
Druids - antiquity's champion pranksters
They relied on fear and as we see when they came to real combat the Romans fucked them up
Druids lighting themselves on fire going "Just a prank, bro".
Dafuq dude? According to the video there was no proper battle. It was a sacrifice.
That human sacrifice battle, my god that looks like something out of Dungeons and Dragons
Much like modern atrocity propaganda from World War II...
Them Druids were gangsta🙏🏻😎
@gillecroisd 92 Go take your evangelical nonsense somewhere else please.
@gillecroisd 92 Go take your evangelical nonsense somewhere else please.
You've become my favourite channel. Your work is stunning and i sincerely hope you keep it up.
So is it likely that the Druids weren't 'dressed in black' but rather they wore clothes soaked in pitch/tar?
Lemonnater correct
Lemonnater they were still dressed in black
possibly white clothes
though it is pedantic to say so, because the clothes were effectively dyed black if they were soaked in pitch
Sending flaming druids seems like a legit tactic against elephants 😆
@@OneofInfinity. - Probably better to stick with/use the flaming pig tactic against the elephants and simply arm the druids.
The part with the druids, human sacrifice and mysterious events that followed is some of the spookiest, most eerie moments in history. Imagine the horror the romans would have felt
Honestly this was pretty enlightening. As a kid growing up I always heard of Boudicca as this fierce 'warrior queen" and the uprising of the Britons as this tremendously heroic event.
Unless, I am missing something, it looks in reality it was basically a giant mob that went around torturing and murdering people (including many fellow Britons) And sacking undefended cities, and pretty much getting wiped out by the first real Roman army they came across, even though it was only a fraction of their size.
Being a real-time visual representation of things with narration really helps to paint a picture in a way that the text books from school just couldn't quite capture.
pretty much yeh. I've learnt that this boudicca woman was just an idiot basically running on blind rage emotions. I understand her motives, but the stupidity of her tribe to pick her to lead the army.... well... lets just say, I'm glad the romans won.
@@Blake4014 Take this with a grain of salt, but Boudicca used magic to convince the tribe leaders that she should lead.
This is 8 months old, I know, but I just want to say that all of the reports of Boudicca torturing and murdering people comes from Cassius Dio, a Roman senator who would have good cause to demonize her and her people.
@@powertogame5558 It is VERY funny to me you misspelled "demonize" as "demonetize"
@@Galeforce017 Did I?
*checks*
Ah fuck I did
why wasn't this in Ryse Son of Rome. All we got was Boudicca rampaging through Rome on elephants.
That didn't happen?
Cause ryse was never meant to be historically accurate. It's purely entertainment
I actually felt my stomach churn when I saw how big Boudicca's army was compared to Paulinus and then...wow! :D I love these tiny shapes to death!
8:06 “The healthy human mind doesn’t wake up in the morning thinking this is it’s last day on earth. But I think that’s a luxury, not a curse. To know you’re close to the end is a kind of freedom...”
Call of duty modern warfare 2, truly one of the philosophical pieces of our time
Interesting fact about Paulinus: He once led an expedition through Morocco into Sub-Saharan Africa before his post in Britain. What a well traveled guy!
Dear god the lack of strategy
@Alvi Syahri Exactly, and the Romans were professional soldiers. Granted, the numbers could've overwhelmed the Romans even if it wasn't 100k vs 10k. We know the Romans had 10K, I'm willing to bet the Iseni had somewhere around 60-80k though. If Boudicca had any tactical knowledge, this would've been the British version of the Tuterbourgh Forrest
@Alvi Syahri Oh no, I'm not saying that it WOULD'VE happened. I just figure that if there had been a more competent person in charge, they could've driven the Romans into a much worse position and attacked them from all sides instead of a frontal assault.
Certified woman moment.
@Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolvocanoconiosis can you name 100?
@Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolvocanoconiosis Really? because the examples they bring over and over again (Joan and Boudica) dosent seem very competent to me...
The problem wasn't that "Boudicca was a woman". The problem was that there was no one in the Iceni leadership that was familiar with Roman tactics. Throughout Roman history, the most successful native revolts have barbarian leaders who usually served in the Roman Army at some high level and knew how to use their tactics against them.
For example Armenius in Germania. You are definitely right sir.
I don't like feminism, but plz chill Heart of Fire.
Anyways, i agree with you Lew Archer. The problem wasn't because Bodica was a woman, the real problem was that Bodicca didn't show Bob and Vagene~!
lelelelel.
Heart of Fire
So because of one single failed rebellion led by a woman (That almost forced Rome to withdraw from Britain), you think women can never lead a successful military action?
Atleast that's what I assume, because you said fucking nothing with any evidence. OP said;
'The problem isn't that a woman did it, it's that she didn't understand Roman tactics, and the Tribes weren't enough to take on such a disciplined army that had built up for decades'.
How you responded;
'It WAS because she was a woman'.
Now you're probably very simple, so I'll break it down nice and easy. The reason you're a complete fucking idiot is because this;
OP: Makes statement, makes point to prove statement.
YOU: Makes statement.
This is how not how you argue. You made a contradictory statement that was completely empty. Tell me why it was because she was a woman, not just that it was.
You're a fucking idiot.
Cranaip k VARUS, QUINTILIUS VARUS GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!
Ass Wizard Of Siberia
It was a joke. Calm down.
Also I don't think the Romans allowed women into their army. If having experience in the Roman military was so important then yeah giving command to a woman (who wouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near the fighting) was a big mistake.
There is a perfectly good explanation that could allow the Romans to only have 800 casualties in the Battle of Watling Street but Paulinus needing to ask for three legions from the Rhine (and only getting 6K in an emergency transfer). 2/3 of his army were retired soldiers he coddled together to face the Iceni. Now that the emergency is over, they are going back to their farms. Unless you pay them something like 30X the normal pay, they aren't sticking around.
Plus the fact that the romanscame super close to being compleetly wiped out in Britain
It's interesting that. being from the area the Iceni were from, I was always taught that Boudicca was brave and strong, fighting the tyranny of the Romans and that she heroically killed herself rather than be captured. The Romans were definitely always the bad guys... Looks like the Iceni weren't so valiant!
Dom Jackman hitsory changes from country to country and from man to man my friend
It's a very hard lesson that everyone should learn, sooner or later. This is history, and there aren't good guys and bad guys... only winner and loser
I mean, it's whatever. Almost two thousand years after Boudicca's Revolt, and the only sources come from the Romans themselves. You're never going to get an accurate, balanced version of that revolt. It's all fantasy, so believe what you want to believe. If Boudicca is a symbol of bravery to you, she is. If she's a bloodthirsty monster... well, that'd be weird, considering who she's fighting against. But I certainly don't blame people not thinking of her as the good guy.
Broreale
> Impales women and mutilates and kills entire cities
> Not a bloodthirsty monster.
Idiocy at it finest.
Wow, taking the brave stance of believing an enemy of bloodthirsty monsters 2000 years ago is a bloodthirsty monster. Truly, you are making a stand when no one else would. What a call-out.
That's 300 Spartans shit right there...
mrkti while the 300 spartans were accompanied by thousands of other greeks at Thermopylae they still did the most work there at Thermopylae was still an amazing feat bearing in mind that the persians prob had at least like 200k men
Hollywood should do a movie about this battle, with same jokes and same gore as the Spartans did in 300
@@fraser4982 thermopoly is small pasage 200 or 50 milion mean nothing if u can only move few throgh termopholy
Hendra Gunawan so it was still an amazing feat by the Spartans using tactical ingenuity which is all I said
reaperz it wasn’t ingenuity at all, literally any somewhat competent general would’ve done the exact same thing.
All right, this is getting to the point where I'm gonna like your videos before I watch them. I don't do that very often.
Despite tactical blunders and strategic failures due to arrogance/ignorance,
Rome doesn't f*ck around when things get serious.
Vito C I agree, we see it happen time and again in Rome's history.
This is something her enemies never seem to comprehend, from Pyrrhus to Hannibal to Sparticus to Boadicca.
Winning battles against Rome is no big deal.
The Romans had their asses handed to them time and again. But when it really matters, Rome digs deep into her inner reserves of strength, the egotistical 'boys' who got their armies slaughtered are pushed out of the way, the bullshit that caused their defeats gets cleaned up and Rome makes whatever sacrifices, whatever changes/reforms it takes to win! It was Rome's inner strength that built the Empire, and only when she became corrupted from within that the Empire started to fall.
Alaric, Atilla and all of their kin could not hope to succed if Rome had not become corrupted.
Rome destroyed Rome, the endless civil wars, bad management, stupid or mad emperors, economic stagnation and lead poisoning.
Rome's power came from having a system of military logistics and replacements. A tribe would commit everything it had to a battle for survival and if they lost, they lost most of their fighting men in one battle. If they defeated a Roman Legion the only thing they would see is another legion marching over the horizon towards them. And they would keep coming until that tribe was exterminated.
@@mrblack888 I couldn't even imagine the horror of Germans after Teutoburg forest slaughter, when Romans came back with even bigger number razing everything to the ground. Now you got more of them and way more prepared and set on making you pay for what has happened.
do we know why the primus pilus of the other legion denied the reinforcements to Paulinus?
He probably felt that he could hold the fortress with his 5k better than 10 or 15k could fight the iceni and allies in open ground
Because he felt like facing the iceni in open field was a lost cause. They are estimated to have had 100k soldiers.
Ward Huyskes
....Yeah, I would have felt that was a lost cause if all I had had was 10K of actual soldiers and another 5K of retierees if I'd been facing half that number
Arthour yeah true.
Don't forget, those 'retirees' were veteran legionnaires. 25 years of service. He basicially just got loads of evocati cohorts. No wonder the Romans were like machines
I had just passed a test on ancient Greece and ancient Rome and now I discovered this channel. Awesome work.
You can’t defend what the Britains did, but Rome had no right to be surprised.
The last British King to rebel against the Romans, Caratacus, was entirely different from Boudica. He used a guerrilla campaign, and he isn't known to have committed mass-murder. When he was captured alive he was taken to Rome in a Triumph, and before his scheduled execution he was allowed to address the Senate. He gave an impassioned speech about how he was just defending his home and would have been a friend to Rome had they not invaded: this impressed the Senate so much that they let him live.
True, they kind of started it.
You don't just occupy someone's land, pillage their homes, and rape and sell their people without some hostility in turn.
@@Pantherblack lmao, why not though? Might makes right. If a people is too weak to enforce their claim to a piece of land, they don't deserve it
@o m ...He goes beyond that to say that is why they deserved it. Not that just that's the reason why, but why it's good. That makes it a subjective statement. It also suggests, which is most definetly untrue, that the reaction was measured compared to the original act. Unbelievable, of course.
@@bierwolf8360Wth do you mean “they don’t deserve it”???? that’s like me taking your flag and saying “you didn’t make it so don’t have pride about it”
If I was a soldier I would hail Paulinus imperator after that.
It was one battle, not a campaign
@@UncleMerlin
So? A victory is a victory. Last time Caesar campaigned in Asia Minor and it lasted for a mere 5 days after that one single battle.
HAIL PAULINUS
IMPERATOR PAULINUS
3rd century crisis moment
@@civilsecuritylite12054 He deserved a triumph. If not him then def Agricola.
Imagine the cred of the legions that participated in this battle got...
The legionaries would’ve had more sense than to do that, they’d have sealed his fate if they did.
By this point, the last time the legions had hailed someone from outside the imperial household as Imperator was Marcus Crassus, the grandson of the original Triumvir Marcus Licinius Crassus (you know, the rich dude who drank hot gold in Persia) who had been serving as legate during a campaign in Pannonia over half a century ago.
When Augustus had heard about this, he’d feared a threat to his power from a relation of one of the old triumvirs and had the man stripped of his spoils, relieved of his command, removed from politics and effectively exiled him from Rome to the island of Capri, where he would remain in obscurity for the rest of his days (sidenote: Crassus wound up building a villa that Emperor Tiberius himself would later utilize after he left Rome)
All that under Augustus. Imagine what’d have happened to Paulinus if he’d been hailed Imperator with NERO as Emperor??
Historia Civilis you're the hero we need but don't deserve.
I also believe that the general that did not go and help, committed suicide because of shame
He did. In addition to being ashamed of his cowardice, he was also ashamed that he denied his men the opportunity to share in the triumph of that victory.
I watched this in 2160p60 and I must admit, the definition on the square things attacking the rectangular blocks was amazing!
Seriously though, that was informative as usual.
Ok, now for the next video:
His Year; Scipio (Africanus)
Please.
I second that!!!
Or Gaius Marius
What Paulinus did was genius and it started with his speech to his men he put them on dead mans ground he knew exactly what he was doing he maximised his men's potential .
You’re the sort of guy who reads “the 7 habits of successful people” and think you’re fit to be god emperor of mankind off of that
Damn, this episode literally gave me goosebumps. Well done Civilis!
i was on boudicca's side, then the maiming started and i was reminded that every civilization is fucked up.
rome for life.
Did you forget that the Romans raped her people before she fucked theirs up?
Eye for an eye... leaves Boudicca's army dead, I suppose.
+Firefox is red, Explorer is blue. Google+ sucks and Chrome does too. I think the impaling is was worse then raping
Except the majority , or at least large minority, of the population of the various settlements would have been British(members of other tribes like the Catuvellinani). So even if you somehow think killing roman civilians is justified, plenty of other british tribes were killed as well.
What that officer did was shit, but he was a coward idiot that acted without orders. He even left Britain after the revolt.
He was far too weak military-wise to stop a 30k revolt.
0:45 Rape
1:05 REVOLT AGAINST ROME
1:24 Paulinus Campaign
1:50 Druids, Flaming Sticks, Chanting, Shouting
2:30 Rome Cuts them down.
2:55 This was a massive Human Sacrifice!!!
3:30 Dark Omens
3:59 Boudicca Campaign
4:30 OMG
5:30 The Chase Is ON
9:00 Wedge Charge!
10:00 Battle Became Slaughter
I think one reason the Romans are so incredibly fascinating to read about and have been since I was a child is that they're history's ultimate "bad guys"... As terrible as they were and, if they existed today, as much as we'd all hate them and be horrified by their actions, they're just fun to read about.
I can't really think of another group that I subconsciously so routinely cheer against but, at the same time, hope they'll recover when they're down (which is, to me, the ultimate antagonist or anti-hero). Thinking of the Samnites, Hamilcar, Hannibal, the Macedonians and Antiochus III, Boudica, Zenobia... I so routinely find myself hoping they'll succeed despite knowing that they won't, and yet I still love the Romans.
A lot of it is probably due to the Roman historians and culture/mindset, which is to say that unlike many historical "victors", they really didn't care nearly as much about being the "good" guys as is evident in their genesis mythos, where Rome was founded on fratricide by a group of pirates and other undesirables that needed a new start and who literally had to kidnap wives just to get started. It's about the least glorious start to a grand empire one could imagine and yet the Romans, who invented and told the story themselves, only really cared about one thing: they won the battles and so imposed their will. This mindset seems to carry on throughout time as, while in the moment they'll often try to claim the moral high ground, within a generation the historians are usually rather blunt about the pragmatic and selfish reasons for their previous actions.
All that matters, in the end, is that they were the victors on the battlefield, and so some truly capable and threatening opponents are preserved in their histories as it further glorifies their eventual victories (which also opens the door to embellishment, though I don't believe that was the case with Boudica or Hannibal), whereas in most other cultures that I read about the opponents are often described as hapless cowards or, sometimes, even erased from the historical record.
The Romans didn't really seem to care if you perceived them as the "bad guys" and often even reveled in it, so long as you acknowledged their martial superiority. It makes for fascinating reading.
Well you are right:They are like the Only Empire which Fells "Human" as in like they are Neutral.One knows their Great Archievements in History,as example their Streets and Citys and the Fact that they Practically made Society.Also the Franks (Todays French and Germans) would never have been nearly as Powerful as they were when there never was the Roman Conquest of Gaul.On the Other Side we always have the Lingering thought that the Romans Just did their Conquest to Further their own Power and that they Brutally defeated Uprisings against their sometimes Oppressiv Government....all in all they are like an really fleshed out Villain/Anti-Hero in an Novel or Series which we know has done some Evil deeds but we can't do something other than root for them. (BTW I am German so please excuse my bad English)
They may have been "bad" to everyone around them. But through their deeds and conquests, everyone in Europe and who came from Europe are connected on a level that is not seen anywhere else in the world. They may have forcefully converted everyone to Christianity through force, but we are also connected on a deep moral and ethical foundation because of it. Odd, but is what it is.
Lawful neutral at its finest
I think a lot of the "cheering against Rome," not all or even necessarily yours, comes from class warfare reflex. Two equally bad societies: the bigger one gets dumped on. The "underdog" gets a free pass. At least that's what I've noticed from a lot of modern critics.
Just my two cents.
@phoenixkhost if those tribes has the technology of Rome they proved time, and time again that they'd use it for destruction. I think the sentiment that "Rome was Civilization." For its time period is 100% acceptable. (Of course some exceptions exist like the Parthians who were.... eh I guess I'd say.)
Boudica is one of the most overrated historical figures of all time. So she killed a considerably outnumbered Roman detachment of soldiers, burned down three settlements with inhuman cruelty, and was then absolutely annihilated by an army ten times as smaller than hers. Wow, truly amazing stuff...
@@alexanderwasley5105 thats right bitch
@@junjungatbos3548 idiot
@@junjungatbos3548 For the price of 3 suffering killing entire settlements is just? Get out, she got what she deserved.
Fucking based af
@@user-yd4om1qw3n Historical KDA matters.
Why does history in school always leave out the bad parts of some 'good' people like ffs, they always make Boudicca seem good.
Why not? Everyone loves to read about Romans dying.
But she DID get what she deserved! Cold Roman steel destroying her armies
I mean she only did what the Romans did to her people gave them a taste of their own medicine.
Why is everyone implying Rome were the good guys? They were invading to rape, pillage, loot and burn out a people so they could build more towns and exploit more land and resources.
I love Roman history but they were so good at winning because they were a savage bunch of murderers.
@@kvltizt The people Boudica killed weren't looters, rapists, or pillagers; they were civilians just trying to get by. Boudica's actions are excessively worse than the transgression she was retaliating for. Moreover, the Romans were never exterminators like Boudica. They enslaved enemy civilians, they never exterminated entire population centers.
2:56 That's actually creepy as hell. It's one thing to be trained and experienced in fighting enemy soldiers, but to be subjected to THIS kind of fanatical insanity, basically a suicide charge... it completely changes the scenario. It's dark and primal and strike to the core of your soul (if you have one). A sign of things to come, proved by how following events unfolded.
1:50 This is so metal.
*Brutal*
Great video! Loved that extra detail with the druids. Can't wait for the next, but very good work and I wish to extend a form of encouragement as this channel has formed a very good fan base, and you are one of the only like able Historians on youtube, as myself an amateur historian, I am very satisfied with your tone of voice and genuine interest in the subject. So please I hope you continue this excellent work and do not get down trodden by the inevitable complaints.
No matter how many times I hear it, it baffles me how incredible the roman warriors were. Feels like their soldiers were tanks fighting children throwing rocks.
General Surenas would have a word for you...
Discipline. It's how Rome conquered its Empire, and it's how Europe conquered the World. Discipline is always needed, and in short supply.
@@shorewall and superior engineering
Ironically that's exactly what it was.
You can't compare a professional soldier that it equipped to the teeth to a child with a stick and a few pebbles.
When you are a well-disciplined army on a continent of mostly tribes and nomadic people, you tend to have an advantage.
Another example of why it's a bad idea to corner a fleeing armor... Doubly so when it's a Roman heavy infantry army.
This and Thermopylae prove the power of heavy infantry
Yes and no. The Persians were professional fighters perhaps but not professional soldiers. The western tradition of battle was shaping up as one of discipline and coordination, the eastern/barbarian way of battle was for every man to be a hero. That just doesn't work against disciplined ranks.
Men can stand in a line without it being a disciplined phalanx in the Greek style. You're going to have to do a lot better than that.
@@mrblack888 such a biased take lol. you really expect an age old civilization like Persia didn't know how to fight as soldiers? What about the 'barbarian' horse nomads that just decimated everyone including Europe?
@@devvv4616 Does your entire knowledge of warfare come from youtube "documentaries"?
A real lesson in formation discipline. Like the Spartans at Thermopylae. Discipline overcomes.
10:53 "Including children and non-combatants" When woman are in the army, there *are* no non-combatants, since you can't tell the difference between the two.
(Same with guerrillas in Vietnam.)
Well there are People who are Unarmed,as example Maybe the ones who drove the Supply Wagons.
But that is Just a Theorie.
cloudfanlp _Well there are People who are Unarmed_
How long does it take to hide your rifle and change into some civvies?
_Maybe the ones who drove the Supply Wagons._
The people who drive army's supply wagons are legitimate targets.
RonJohn63 Well I just Tried to Answer your Question and the fact that they were Legitimate Targets doesn't mean that they were not non-combatants
cloudfanlp Ah, sorry. I interpreted your comment as unarmed people always being noncombatants.
RonJohn63 Well I don't Think Boudicca had Only Soldiers with her.....Maybe they had People who didn't fight and Rather Gathered Firewood or supplys or did some other Work.
But you don't have to take me Seriously,I am Just Rambling about this Surprising Battle.
Your videos are fantastic, I'm addicted. Thank you
I have a Test on Boudicca and was just searching for some videos to watch when yours popped up. Perfect, I can learn and be entertained at the same time!
Nice video but a few errors.
First 80,000 Iceni were not killed, because the Iceni tribe according to the tribal museum in East Anglia only had 40,000 members, men, women, children, old people and babies, the allied Trinovantes only around 30,000 population. Contemporary estimates based on population of the tribes involved would make the British army 20-25,000 strong maximum. Which is consistent with other British armies of the period, such as those of Caractacus, Cassivellaunus and at Mons Grapius which were all around 20-25,000 strong according to Roman chroniclers while Venutius's considerably smaller. Also the tribes/confederations that made these armies were larger in population than Boudicca's. The fact these numbers are so consistent has been noted by military historian as demonstrating the maximum possible army size logistics for Britain at that time.
A second error is saying that it was Romans killed by Boudicca. While the Romans in the three cities that were sacked were killed they were a small minority of the population, most of the inhabitants were British. Primarily members of the Catuvellinani tribe, the cities being on their territory, who were the hated foes of the Iceni and Trinovantes. The Catuvellinani tribe had been the most powerful tribe in southern England before the conquest and dominated the smaller tribes such as the Iceni. When the Romans came it was the Catuvellinani tribe that fought the conquest while the Iceni backed the Romans. During Boudicca's revolt she was taking the opportunity to settle some internal British politics. And her revolt killed many times the number of British than it did Romans. Hardly the great patriotic rising.............
When you say largest conflict ever to occur on British soil if you mean battle, that would be Towton 1461. If you mean war, it would be the War of Three kingdoms which killed 12% of people in the country and had over a million participants. If by single army, that would either be Severus's invasion of Scotland or Claudius's invasion force.
I think he was saying largest battle to occur on British soil in the Roman period. Since that is entirely what this channel is about. And just because he said Romans were killed by Boudicca does not mean he's disregarding all the Britons who were slaughtered, he used it to emphasise the point that many of the Roman colonisers had just been wiped out. Can I have some sources on the army sizes, that sounds interesting.
As they were called Roman settlements in the video, Boudicca is described as attacking the Roman,s a Roman army is trying to protect them and all the talk was of Romans being killed, whether intentional of not it implies the people being killed and the civilians were Romans. It actually quite a major historical point the civilians were mostly Catuvelliani.
Tacitus, Dio Cassius and Caesar's Gallics Wars give commentriess on the early British armies, figures for Mons Grapius come from Tacitus however the Romans tended to overestimate size so they may actuually have been smaller. Figures for the Catuvalliani that militry historians use tends to come from the estimate of 1/3 of tribe available as warriors in tribal societies. The archaeological excavations of Serverus camps in Scotland suggest his numbers, which can be read about here, archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-352-1/dissemination/pdf/vol_107/107_092_102.pdf
But.. weren't they citizens of the Empire? This makes them Romans, despite what their ethnicity was
Alfredo di Nuzzo Nope, Roman citizenship wasn't extended to conquered people for another 200 years. Also had citizenship been extended back then instead of 200 years later, that would make Boudicca and the Iceni Roman too and it would have been a Roman civil war, Roman killing Roman.
Very good mate, thanks for the info ;) I'm gonna research about all this stuff you mentioned. I'm specially curious about this battle of Towton and this war of the Three kingdoms....
'I don't distrust you because you're a woman. I distrust you because you're not as smart as you think you are'
He was right! :)
@@junjungatbos3548 her love killed thousands.
@@ignotumperignotius630 maybe they saw it like "if we gonna die, lets all die together"
@@junjungatbos3548 then why did she let them all die while she ran away like a coward?
@@warshipsatin8764 what, you think she was fuckin wonder woman?
@@junjungatbos3548 Obviously not because she had almost no plan to defeat the Romans, no research on how they work and fight,no knowlege of the hundreds of tribes that did the same thing she did and failed. She was far from wonder woman. She was one of the most incompetent field commanders in history. If you want to make a revolt at least do an iota of planning to defeat your opponent.
Damn Paulinus kicked some real ass
Well done with the chanting sound during the sacrifice at Anglesey! It created a great eerie feel. Keep up the good work!
That was a truly fantastic video, great work! I was enthralled the entire way through, so horrible, yet so interesting.
When you put quantity against quality... all that huge mass of warriors simply dissolved under the fury of the roman legionaries, just like snow under the sun.
I went from rooting for the British to rooting for the Romans
you are rooting for a game that ended 2 thousand years ago!
@@quqbalam5089 It's utterly obvious you didn't watch his other videos on Rome
@@quqbalam5089 In all his videos he goes over what the Romans did wrong and frequently accuses them of lying to cover up their shit. For example, watch his video on the Roman Triumph and how he describes its propaganda, the cruelty to captives, the thinly veiled deification of generals and he even accuses them of human sacrifice despite Rome officially reviled human sacrifice and claimed to not partake in it. This very video opens with him going over how the Romans exploited the dead king's will to get an excuse to enter Iceni lands to rape, pillage and enlsave the population, and how they humiliated, raped and tortured Boudicca and her daughters too. Where is the apologetics here?
If you believe that giving a proper description of Boudicca's own horrific treatment of civilians is somehow apologizing for the Romans, don't kid yourself. It happened and he is absolutely right to bring it up. The Roman treatment of the Iceni was evil, and the mass torture and slaughter Boudicca's army wrought was also evil.
@JL-CptAtom you say while watching a video where atrocities are committed by everyone
@JL-CptAtom Ok Hitler calm down. The Bengalis died because of scorched earth, you might as well blame the Japanese, it's called war. Dresden is insignificant and really only taken seriously by holocaust deniers and Wehrmacht apologists, it was a significant strategical target and it was war. The potato famine, yeah pretty much the fault of the English but at least it wasn't deliberate, just their own incompetence and pig-headed economic policy.
OH HOW THE GOD'S HAVE BLESSED US THIS DAY! MAY A THOUSAND CHEERS BE HEARD THROUGHOUT MOTHER ROME FOR CIVILIS HAS RELEASED A NEW VIDEO! MAY GODDESS MINERVA HERSELF BLESS THIS DEAR MAN!
Roman: We can't escape sir.
Paulinus: bad for them.
And the quality yet again rose! This channel has come far!
"They didn't even plant crops"
That's how you know they're serious...
Also, no Romans noticed that awfully strange behavior?
There were no Romans stationed nearby.
The zombie survival guide turns this event into a massive outbreak that the romans quell, it’s a really cool story
WHEN ROMAN LEGIONS PAIRED UP WITH COMPETENT LEADERS...THEY KICKED ASS LIKE NO ONE ELSE!!!!
I would've never ever found out about this epic story if it weren't for your videos, love them and keep up the good work!
Your videos truly are some of the highest quality on youtube right now
Have you got a source on the druids setting themselves on fire? The closest thing I could find was a BBC article saying the Romans burnt them after they died on a make shift funeral pier.
10:45
Kill 'em all and let Jupiter sort 'em out.
EDIT: I like to imagine the Romans fighting like the Spartans in 300. "No Prisoners!" "AROO" "No Mercy!" "AROO"
So there was only one real battle, with advantage in numbers and good equipment, but still all went to hell for her in that one real battle.
Not really as epic as the "warrior queen" i was taught she was as a queen.
She bravely led her people to total annihilation...
+krix pop After heroically butchering and torching civilian women and children...
Her only military accomplishment, first to led all of her army to total annihilation vs a force ten times smaller, was to have beaten a small Roman detachment at Londinium, having great numerical advantage, and with the legionaries not able to move (because they were protecting the local population). Not really a great tactician.
Boudica was a bad military leader AND a bad human being.
It does seem like she had some ability in logistics if she managed to raise such a big army without the Romans noticing.
Yet another great video, keep up the good work. The quality of your research and presentation is always really a joy to watch.
I'm glad that your channel is growing so much Historia! This video was an eye opener to some of the brutality of people are capable of. Looking forward to the next video!
"In Death Ground, fight." ~ Sun Tzu
and I’d say he knows a little more about fighting than you do, pal, because he INVENTED IT! And then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor! Then he used his fight money to buy 2 of every animal on earth! Then he herded them onto a boat and then he BEAT THE CRAP OUT EVERY SINGLE ONE! and from that day forward, every time a bunch of animals are together in one place it’s called a TZU! Unless it’s a farm!
Take a drink when you hear "writing on the wall" in a Historia Civilis video
... but then my liver will be toast! TOAST I say, Sir!
wooooooo Paulinus what a man
Very well done as always! These are very informative and fun to watch! Thanks and keep up the great work :)
You deserve way moar than 100k subs, I think you deserve millions of subs, ur vids are so good.
This would make an interesting, historical movie.
check out the show "Britannia"
At first glance this seems to be perfect Hollywood material. Think of it. An overwelming murdering and torturing horde. The last stand of the small detachment sent to defend Londinium. The veterans recalled in haste. The Roman commander offering protection for those that evacuated the city, but only a part of the inhabitants followed him (partly because they had all of their possession there and hoped the devil was not so black as it was painted, partly because they, or their elders, couldn't keep the pace. Families torn apart...). Then, a desperate last stand of the soldiers to cover the fleeing civilians.
However we'll never see it because:
1) The Roman commander wasn't some lower officer that had to take the lead after the death of his superior. He was the fucking Governor, so the one that should have prevented the troubles in first place.
2) There had never been a moment, in the final battle, when the Romans were on the verge of annihilation. They won easily.
3) The horde happened to be "British".
4) The amateur tactician that led the torturing horde to it's final demise happened to be a woman, and to depict a woman as an incompetent leader in a movie would be seen as sexism.
@@neutronalchemist3241
Those problems have solutions.
1) You can make the story from the POV of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, a lower ranking Officer in Paulinus's army. Or create another such officer under Paulinus' command (in this case you can add drama by claiming his family died at Camulodunum).
2) It could still be made a dramatic battle. Exhausted, half-starved soldiers (some of whom are aged veterans) fighting against a numerically superior force.
3) As "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" show, British people can be made into villains quite easily.
@@neutronalchemist3241 Hehe, admittedly, this would make it a difficult sell.
Plus you wouldn't have a "good guy" per say.
But you could make it work.
As for the feminazis bitching and moaning that the woman is not portrayed as inherently superior in every way: f*ck their supremacist dogma. Idiots come in both shapes, and all colors. Let's make the movie and let them screech in pain while the rest of the world enjoys the accurate history and good storytelling.
; )
Sopranos style ending?
"The Romans would occupy Britain for the next three hun..."
Re: Casualties.
The Ninth, which was destroyed (but for its cavalry) was reinforced. Of those 6,000 men you say were sent to Britain, ~5,000 would have gone into reforming the ten infantry cohorts of the 9th legion, which would remain in Britain. The remaining 1,000 would presumably have partially reinforced Paulinus 14th legion (400 for those killed and maybe another 200 to replace those who were injured an unfit for further military service), leaving 400 men to reinforce the 20th legion. Or perhaps to replace town militias/ guard for settlements?
Considering the large number of men who went into reforming Legio IX Hispania, I don't think the reports of Roman casualties (Battle vs Boudicca) were exaggerated very much at all. In fact, they seem almost precisely accurate.
I love this channel. Never stop
I've herd claims that Boudica's army was around or over 200,000 Men and Women, and this surprising to see the Romans with only 10,000 crush them. Just wow.
Ahhh Boudicca, imortilized for slaughtering villages and civilians and immediately losing to two legions.
Yeah. She's often considered this great hero, but all she managed to do was sack three undefended towns, murder thousands of civilians and lose the only military engagement she fought. And she lost it so overwhelmingly that she slinks off afterwards and commits suicide. Had this been a man, he would be no more than a historical footnote.
@@WOranos be fair. She destroyed the IX Hispania legion in a battle where she outnumbered them 48 to 1
This is our best lead so far. The question of "How many toddlers could you take on at once," the balance starts to favor the toddlers around 48.
why am i so happy the romans won?
Maybe? I mean, the history was written by romans. And the romans got super in to the raping and killing first.
^what chickenmonger said. both sides performed massacres but at the same time both sides see themselves as the good guys.
petargrad How was it good vs evil? Like I've said before all this was reported and recorded by roman historians with biases
petargrad Reported by Romans I'm saying that it is clearly exaggerated
Connor Senier not really...Listen, despite my name, I'm no Roman Empire fanboy. They were narcissistic, psychotic, Imperialists who stopped at nothing to fulfill their vision of world conquest. However; the butcherings of the 3 cities is clearly not a fabrication or even exaggerated, and pretty much every civilization in the ancient world was horrible by modern standards with the possible exception of ancient Persia. Not only is there clear archeological evidence of a massacre at these 3 locations and cities out to the torch, but most of the sources from the era are non-Roman British eye witnesses among the refugees of the destroyed cities, as Romans were still a vast minority in all these population centers. In conclusion, your hatred of Rome is justified, but ignoring the facts isn't, and painting Rome's enemies as saints is just as idiotic as having a positive moral view of Rome.
I just found out about this channel and man its awesome and this is one of the reasons I'd rather pay for internet and not cable lol.
Been listening to the history of Britain podcast, this is a great accompaniment.
It's so weird (if you consider how the units in the video were moved) that Boudicca's infantry didn't surround the Roman army completely. If the numbers are true then the celts would've had tens of thousands of reserves that somewhat easily could've done that after the romans pushed through some. Or maybe I'm just being naive.