That's a lesson for pretty much any general. Wellington choose Waterloo as the place to face Napoleon. The master of the defensive v the master of the offensive.
So basically Boudica and her rebels were the Hamas of their time and the Romans were Israel. Now i understand why Anglo Saxons think the way they do, The blood of the Romans run through their veins.
Absolutely brilliant historical perspective filling a-lot of gaps compared to others Ive seen and read on our Warrior Queen, the Iceni and Celtic Britain.
I still have a ton of gaps , unanswered questions. These things about boudicca are pretty much the same. They say things like tribes joined her but don't say who They say she had 100k or more rebels but don't say who or where they came from They say she killed 70k But don't explain who or where they all came from . They ignore obvious questions / answers to things like that. The whole population of eastern Britain was much less than that. The places they attacked only had 2/3000 people and thst includes farmers , farmers workers who all knew the rebels were coming and left the cities empty..
@@kevcaratacus9428 They were not technically rebels. They were on home turf fighting invaders who had a reputation of rape, extorsion, murder and inciting revolt of kin against kin.
@@MikeGreenwood51 The iceni were NOT on home turf. They crossed into lands formally ruled by the trinovantes , they massacred mutilated everyone they could and destroyed their homes ( unarmed innocent Celtic people) Archaeology shows they destroyed the whole settlement , it wasn't just an attack on a temple / new Roman city. It was an outrage, disgusting. Then they went on to do the same to people property on route to and including London and did the same along the way and finally to Verulamium, which was the last known place to suffer before Seutonius stopped them. ..All thst happened 20 years after the Claudian invasion, which they did nothing to try stopping the Romans. The Iceni had meetings with the Romans before the invasion when they made a deal to accept Roman rule promising they would remain on their own land and not join any tribes who united to fight the Romans. Whatever the real reason for the uprising it had NOTHING to do with defending their land from invaders. They were 20 years to late for that. Whatever you think about the Romans imo the Iceni did far worse , killing ordinary unarmed Celts and destroying , stealing their property. Which is why is think of them as a lowly band of murdering theiving cowardly rebels . If they were truly anti Roman if they realised they had made a mistake in trusting/ dealing with the Romans 20 years earlier. Why did they go south when the legions their camps were further north ? If the historians are right about the Iceni killing 70.000 people, they were 99.9% unarmed Celts. They did nothing to harm the Romans. They didn't come close to overthrowing Roman rule Whatever their reasons for the uprising they were selfish reasons, they probably expected more , or ...? We will never know what they were promised. But the facts are they didn't fight the Romans when they should have , they obviously didn't hate , wernt against the Romans otherwise they wouldn't have made any deals at all.
@@MikeGreenwood51 the Iceni chose to be allies of Rome., they rebelled against their Roman allies. The Romans invaded 20 years earlier, the people of Colchester and Verulamium fought against the invading Romans. Ok they lost, but they tried. And just because the Iceni felt let down by their Roman allies 20 years later they decide to attack and kill the celts who refused to be roman allies who did fight / die defending their island. Why did she kill those celts of Colchester London and Verulamium? They did nothing to deserve it.
@@kevcaratacus9428 Romans raped both her and her daughters and were in process of conficating the tribal lands supossedly due to a clause in the agreement with her father.
The resistance of Cataractus (Caradoc) lasted for 9 years, longer than Boudica, Spartacus, Arminius and even Vercingetorix yet he is completely ignored by historians despite leading the longest resistance to Roman rule.
Caratacus would've continued if he hadn't been betrayed by queen cartimandaue she drugged his wine while he was resting & she had him tied & handed him to the Romans . He's a local hero, I live in stalbans a city built opposite the old ruins of Verulamium.
Caratacus was a true hero of the time a true warrior against the Roman regime . Boudicca wasn't fit to lick his toe nails. There should be a bronze statue of Caratacus outside parliament and not boudicca. He doesn't get any of the credit he deserves..
Thanks Tristan and team, this is great! The parallels alluded to at the end there might make a good film also? Happy New Year to all at History Hit, and to all viewers and supporters of this excellent channel. ⭐👍
Respect!? Why ? Prasutagus and boudicca chose to be allies of Rome They refused to join the other tribes who united to fight against the invading Romans. The only reason she rebelled was because they didn't get everything the Romans promised them. If they had got everything the Romans promised they would never have rebelled, The people the iceni attacked & killed, From colchester, London and verulamium had joined together b4 the invasion and fought against the Romans Ok they lost but at least they tried. Wheras the Iceni refused to join the tribal alliance and fight against the Roman's they chose to be allies of Rome. She was a traitor the Iceni were traitors, they made a deal with the devil and it backfired. Its called karma. I don't know why these people make videos like this, making her out to be something she wasn't. The real hero was called Caratacus, he never surrendered He would've rather died than choose to be a Roman ally.
@@glen9593 wasn't exactly his choice, he was captured taken to Rome and due to be executed. Big difference to boudicca or the Iceni, they chose to be allies, they chose not to fight the invading Romans. Caratacus fought during the invasion and and carried on for almost 10 years after . If the Iceni had been given everything the Romans promised, they never would have rebelled.
As a resident of Colchester, I have a few issues. Firstly the destruction of the city was huge, levelled and burnt, pillaged and destroyed. Any survivors hid in the temple where that too was eventually torched. Civilians and soldiers included. The soldiers didn’t desert the city at all. The fighting went on for a week. They were just retirees and veterans recouping. They held out for as long as they could. Colchester is also on the highest ground for miles, giving a great view of anyone coming to help
The person tjey should have spoken to is Philip crummy the district archaeologist of Colchester, he knows everything there is to know especially about Roman Colchester. He discovered the site where chariot racing happened. He knows the population of Colchester during the uprising He dismisses the tales about the trinovantes joining the Iceni, Colchester was their capital long before the Romans invaded. They wouldn't attack and kill their own people.. As you rightly say it wasn't just the temple or new Roman city that was destroyed ideas the whole settlement which was much larger than the new city , the people were unarmed and apart from a few retired soldiers the majority of the people were regular trinovantes/Celts . This video is full of misinformation
Thanks enjoyed this. I remember about 40 years ago reading Pauline Gedge's The Eagle and the Raven. It really got me interested in Roman Britain and Boudicca. After i finished the book I went to Colchester Museum and from there London and St Albans looking for traces of the revolt. Been interested in her ever since.
there is a pub at the north end of colchester high street where there is a window in the basement/cellor.. and it faces into the earth.. no light... in that earth, you can see the destruction layer from Boudica's sacking of the town also.. under colchester castle, the cellors of the roman temple is still accessable i saw it as a school kid on a history trip
"I am descended from mighty men! But I am not fighting for my kingdom and wealth now. I am fighting as an ordinary person for my lost freedom, my bruised body, and my outraged daughters.... Consider how many of you are fighting, and why!"- Queen Boudica Hell hath no fury
There is no evidence that she said any of that. In fact there is little we know of her and what we do comes from Roman historian Tacitus who was living at that time. Dio came a 100 years later so would not know anything except what he had gleaned from Tacitus
"Despise the savage uproar, the yells and shouts of undisciplined Barbarians. In that mixed multitude, the women out-number the men. Void of spirit, unprovided with arms, they are not soldiers who come to offer battle; they are bastards, runaways, the refuse of your swords, who have often fled before you, and will again betake themselves to flight when they see the conqueror flaming in the ranks of war. In all engagements it is the valour of a few that turns the fortune of the day. It will be your immortal glory, that with a scanty number you can equal the exploits of a great and powerful army. Keep your ranks; discharge your javelins; rush forward to a close attack; bear down all with your bucklers, and hew a passage with your swords. Pursue the vanquished, and never think of spoil and plunder. Conquer, and victory gives you everything."
8:27 This is what happens when you have foreigners teach you about your history. Multiple times in this piece, we hear references to British or Britain (Not even the Roman terms Britannia or Brittani or Briton). Boudica was a Celt, she knew no such concept of British. They called their island Albion & they identified themselves by their tribe & furthermore as Celts This lady thinks Boudica is her ancestor. In 100 years our children will read that Boudica was the quintessential strong Black woman. And furthermore again, YT will delete this comment & threaten to delete my account for hateful speech for speaking this plain truth
@@japhfo Well then maybe I’m wrong. In his *_Gallic Wars_* memoirs Julius Caesar wrote that the Romans called them Gauls but that they themselves identified as Celts or Celtae, plural. But it’s possible you know something Julius Caesar doesn’t & so I will defer to your knowledge
@@japhfo I literally knew that was where you were going to go with this because you had no other avenue to flee. Of course their were Gauls in Britannia, that is where they fled to after war with Caesar & that is the reason Caesar invaded Britannia in 55 BC. The Britons & Gauls had been intertwined for hundreds of years, passing back & forth, intermarrying, fighting together etc. They shared the same social, cultural, & political circles because they were the same tribe or same confederation. As I already pointed out. But let’s not even go there because that is not what you meant. You thought I was prescribing our modern interpretation of Celts to the ancient world. My guess is that you want to believe “Celtic” is a modern invention & that Celt is a fabricated identity. Am I right? After all, you didn’t say “Actually, Britons were separate & distinct from other Celtic tribes & didn’t identify as Celts” Instead you got snarky & tried to put me in my place . You could have simply disagreed & told me that you didn’t think ancient Celts identified as such, that it was a modern invention., etc. I would understood that. But you are a know it all who can’t acknowledge when he is wrong
She fought as a novice in battle tactics against a foe who had honed their tactics through years of warfare. It was inevitable that she would lose the fight.
Boudica was adopted by the suffragettes as one of the symbols of the campaign for women's suffrage. In 1908, a "Boadicea Banner" was carried in several National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies marches. She appears in A Pageant of Great Women written by Cicely Hamilton, which opened at the Scala Theatre, London, in November 1909 before a national tour, and she was described in a 1909 pamphlet as "the eternal feminine... the guardian of the hearth, the avenger of its wrongs upon the defacer and the despoiler".
Thank you very interesting, I’m not surprised but good to know. She was one hell of a real woman who stood up not for women specifically but for her countrymen which obviously included women and girls and the lands of which they lived and ruled and the right to obtain control back, maintain their culture and way of life and I’m sure avenge her daughters and her husband. She’s a fascinating person
@@PentaRaus judging by how modern women "perform" in sports, STEM, high pressure / risk jobs and whenever military conscription comes up...she probably is the best "hero" for them.
@@teiloturner2760 I never heard that one before,mind you,I'm not Welsh.I also have problems with Mumbai and a lot of other cities around the world,problems remembering not with the changes.
A truly wonderful historical documentary, like all your wonderful documentaries. I truly thank you for what you present from history in an inspiring and beautiful way. We continue to support you for what you present. Greetings to you from the land of the Kurds ..❤🎉🌹🌹
Seneca calling back his loan (all at once) makes me wonder how the Stoic justified his actions after news of the pillage and Boadice's bloody response got back to Rome.
That was a really well-researched, produced and presented exposition of a fascinating element of Romano-British history. I thank you for it amongst so much I’ll-conceived dross which inhabits TH-cam. I get the impression that Dio preferred the more ‘scalable’ aspects whereas Tacitus was constrained by knowing some of those who took part. (He was Agricola’s son-in-law.) One point: I was led to understand that Postumus was Camp Prefect and therefore only acting commander of Legio 2 Augusta at Isca during the legate’s temporary absence. He may have felt that marching through the enemy territory of the Durotriges and Dobunii was too much of a potential risk, or possibly felt he was beyond his competence horizon. Whatever, he failed whilst Cerrialis’ decision to secure what was left of his legion is more understandable. Didn’t he later become Governor? Again, thanks for a refreshing video.
Yes he did Leading the invasion north to take over Cartimanduas realm of the Brigantes after she was ousted Interesting lady herself and has I think an undeserved bad press! Read my novel!! Chris Corbett
She was brave and smart enough to unite the tribes, she however lacked the military expertise to fight the finest army of that hisoric period, her warriors were individually better than the average roman soldiers, she had superior numbers, good equipment and better acces to supplies, the Romans however had way better tactics and discipline
Unite what tribes??? Havnt you noticed the historians never mention who the mysterious tribes were !! It's because there wernt any. The tribes bordering the Iceni were trinovantes and catuvelauni both attacked by Iceni... .
The *BBC* documentary series, _In Search of the Dark Ages,_ hosted by Michael Wood, has an episode on Boudica. Still worth watching, more than 40-plus years later.
@@butzee, Correct. Plus, scores of other excellent documentaries Michael Wood has hosted (see, _In Search of Beowulf,_ etc). I've been a fan of his since my teens, and I'm nearly fifty myself.
The same way that we are about to be obliterated now, by being too laid back and stupid. We need a modern day Boudicca as we don’t seem to have a strong enough man.
"A modern day Boudica?" -- HAHAHA....You mean a modern day guarantee of complete failure? HAHAHAHA....ANY man in charge there would have done better since you can't do worse than total annihilation. @@matildamartin2811
I was also puzzled .. Thoughts : a) Romans wrote the history so it js probably skew! b) Romans had extensive artilllery, . . constantly raining the enemy with projectiles..
Actually, the Roman historians were surprisingly objective for the time, as forensic analysis and independent sources have generally collaborated the accounts. The fact is this Boudica was a dreadful failure. She had to have been aware of Roman capabilities yet directed her people into a veritable buzz saw, exhibiting no strategic ability by creating a barrier of wagons, children and women behind her attackers so an escape was close to impossible. Suitonius was relieved of his command by Nero. If he were given free reign with adequate resources he would have likely destroyed the entire region. A bunch of baloney is made of her because of her gender. @@pchurchill
The term is wreaked havoc and things were in Boudicca's husband's name because the Romans didn't recognize women being in control. The Iceni culture was matriarchal. The women of high station had Shield-Bearers". They had contests were men fought for the right of courtship of women. Boudicca didn't magically get men to follow her. She held authority already.
One problem with this comment. It started off with 'the king' dying and he made a will naming his daughters and the emperor as beneficeries. If it was matriarchal then the succession etc would not come from the king and not have been an issue and allow the romans to act in the way that they did. Women were equal in Celtic society and there are many commentaries of the existance and ferociety of the female warriors.....read Julius Caesar's records of the Gaelic campaign. There are various references to female leaders of warrior bands, so someone of her reputation as a warrior and leader etc would have no problem following a woman. Also remember that the loans to be paid back were from all those that accepted them.....therefore rebellion was a better option than poverty.....therefore joining the Iceni was a good choice if they won
@@iainrendle7989that’s not true about woman being equal in the Celtic society. While they had more freedom to do other things depending on the region and culture all Celts were not the same. Celt’s were any where from Anatolia to Ireland which is a huge area. So to generalize is a mistake.
Have the producers at History Hit every considered doing an interview with the author, Manda Scott? She wrote an excellent series on Boudicca. It is fiction, obs, but really well researched. She offers a more female-centric context that challenges many of the ideas of the traditional Boudicca narrative, given that all of our written sources are secondary and written from the Roman (and very male patriarchal) point of view. She gives a great explanation at the end of the final book in the series as to why she made these choices and why she believes them to be pretty plausible. On a separate note, someone needs to make a good epic film about this story. I know it's been attempted, but we can do better.
Does she give any explanation why the Iceni chose to go south after destroying the temple? The complete opposite direction of any Roman soldiers. Just ordinary innocent Celtic people , living farming working Who had nothing to do with what happened to the Iceni. But she destroyed their city's and killed Celtic people . Instead of going North after the temple towards the Romans and their camps . North Towards the people she was angry with .. .. As you said its fiction But does it say why the Iceni made a deal with Rome before they invaded Britain Promising they would stay on their land and not join the others fighting the invading Romans.. I look at the Iceni as cowards For not joining the other Celts Who fought against the invading Romans. She supposed to hate the Romans but made deals with them. I think it serves them right it all went wrong in the end They trusted & made deals with the enemy Instead of fighting tjem . It serves tjem right shit happened 18 years later. ... maybe if they fought with the other Celts earlier on the Romans would have been beaten & not have invaded at all .. Who knows ..
@@kevcaratacus9428 yeah that’s a pretty fucking far cry. Unfortunately the truth is pretty simple, & typically the simplest explanation is almost always the actual one. The Celts just could not beat the Roman Empire, & to even think that if theoretically the Iceni had actually fought alongside the other Celt Armies against Rome vs making deals with them “The Enemy” (To Which I’ll Agree 100% With You About Them Being Cowards For Such An Absolutely Unfathomably Retarded Decision They Made Which Only Postponed Their Eventual & Indefinitely Inevitable Eradication For Another 18 Years Which I Guess Could Be Seen By Some As The Only Positive Thing They Got Out Of Such A Dumbass Decision To Which I’d Say To Anyone Believing It To Be A Positive Thing That They Are An Imbecile, & To Get An Extra 18 Years Before Your Execution Is Finally Carried Out Inevitably While Also Being Looked Upon By Some For Eternity As The Ultimate Cowards Of Their Own Kind Is Way Worse Than If They’d Have Just Manned The Fuck Up Like The Rest & Fight & Die For Your People With Dignity). Anyway my main point is that I think it’s also pretty fucking retarded to sit there & even imagine such a fanciful & absurdly ridiculous possibility that The Celts “JUST MAYBE POSSIBLY COULD HAVE PERHAPS STOPPED THE ROMAN EMPIRE HAD THE COWARDLY ICENI HAVE FOUGHT THE ROMANS INITIALLY INSTEAD OF MAKING DEALS WITH THEM TO BUY ANOTHER 18 YEARS UNTIL YOU REACH YOUR EXECUTION DATE, I MEAN IT IS A POSSIBILITY RIGHT? I MEAN BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WOULD’VE HAPPENED WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY COULD’VE POSSIBLY STOPPED THE ROMAN EMPIRE….RIGHT????”. WRONG ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY FUCKING RETARDEDLY WRRRROOOONNNNG The Celts just simply weren’t ever capable enough at that time to achieve such a thing. They had some decent military leaders who made good challenges for Rome at times but ultimately NO. The Roman Army & it’s literally countless numbers of tactically genius generals, armor/& weapon technologies seriously seeming AT THAT TIME TO BE WHAT SEEMED LIGHT YEARS INTO THE FUTURE from what The Celts had & the very few military leaders & tacticians who could hardly ever even be considered to be at a level relatively even somewhat close to Rome’s Generals & Tacticians.
Pretty sure Duncan Mackay would give you a helluva explanation. Next time there's another video, get him on. Or at least check out his book/audiobook. Echolands: A Journey in Search of Boudica.
"Mighty Army of Boudicca"? They were an armed rabble, undisciplined, mostly semi trained, and with a reliance on weight of numbers and needing a distinct absence of military opposition to succeed. Their conduct at "Watling Street"showed clearly their lack of not only training but situational awareness.
Even a badly led rabble of 100k should've easily destroyed a small disciplined army . In the 9th c it only took a 1000 Vikings to conquer most of Britain . And they had to fight other armies. So 100 or 150.000 shouldve been unstoppable. That's why I don't believe the historians. There was nowhere near 100k Iceni, not even 50k I'd be surprised if they had more than 5000 actual warriors .
@@pauls3204 I've only had a quick read , the basics the numbers involved. And although I don't much at all about Scottish history especially Scottish/ Roman history, but the date later 1st century and numbers seem way over the top. History 'facts' that come from Roman historians and put together usually by Victorians A time people could afford books had an interest in history. They cut corners , trim, fill gaps, metaphorically speaking. And later historians copy and copy until everyone knows the same version and beleives it They dont question things . Things that archaeologists question , have studied if not regional but generally. Or places focused on by excavation and studying finds Not the obvious not the glamour the gold or silver brooches but the everyday Domestic items, pottery Kitchen wares , broken, each type collected weighed. Sized Indicates amount , used, soil analysis, studied shows what was grown the amount of land farmed , etc etc all together builds a picture of population size , animals enclosures etc A village , land , food, amount ,enough for 100 people ( an example) It's easy to work out the same with other villages , settlements, . When Roman historians talk about 30.000 & the evidence suggests sustenance enough within a 100 miles square for 2300 , you run out of villages and have to question to doubt history books . I don't mean to ramble just give a basic view of how why we know historians are wrong As I mentioned re the Iceni A tribe all the above , & more studied results in a population under 1200 people . Where did the other 125.00 historians claim joined her come from. 're mons ' the stottish federation as they call it of 30k ( some claim more others less) Is more likely to be 1000 v 2000. But as I said I can only do by what I've learned from battles uprisings further south. Roman historians, even Victorian Don't seem to stop and consider realistic numbers, population. They prefer the exaggerate version. As opposed to the realistic most likely facts . Roman historians especially seem to be clueless when it comes to the population of each settlement, they imagine Rome so many people in such a small city and assumes its the same everywhere. ... Basically I agree with you.
@@kevcaratacus9428 I think you misunderstood what conquering was. Your idea of piratical raiding of coastal villages, raping looting and pillaging non combatants is not really conquering Britian. But how about Stanford Bridge when your theiving murderers arrived with 400 ships but left with just a few which were allowed to leave to take the message back to your King. If being slaughted is what you imagine is conquering then you know why your side lost. Even The Duke of Normandy wanted nothing more to do with your marauding theiving robbers and he then denounced his former status as a Viking. Now where would all those tens of thousands have been today if they had had policies of cooperation and and respecting each other? Maybe like lots of MAFIA. They would not have been dead and world wide infamousely notorios. There could have been a Nation of hundreds of millions. Instead of an infamouse little people of a by gone era illegalised by the Heads of their own former Country.
It is shameful that on Westminster bridge her beautiful statue with the inscription of her fighting for britons is obscured by cockneys sell crappy souvenirs and this is across from the houses of parliament . Surely the MPs have noticed this desecration
Shouldn't be a bronze statue It should be turned into scrap. The Iceni destroyed London and the innocent Celtic people living there. They had nothing to do with what happens. Neither did the Celts of Verulamium. She made deals with the Romans before they invaded Britain She took 30 pieces of silver To stay away from the fighting While the real Celts fought against the invading Romans. The Iceni did nothing they stayed at home by they're fires instead of fighting alongside the other Celts..
@@marcobelli6856 he lies The police don't allow anyone near parliament In case of terrorist attacks. He doesn't anything about cockneys either. They come from east London Not Westminster They work hard and people don't mess around with them ..
38:12 That rebellion sounds fascinating. I’d love to hear more about it. I hadn’t heard of that one but it sounds like an equally interesting aspect of history
Our educations system is a disgrace. I was never taught it in school in the 70's/80's but learned everything about the Russian bloody revolution. You need to also look up the 1381 peasants rebellion if you haven't heard of that either. Also the aftermath of and rebellions that occurred after the Norman invasion. That was brutal. Both have been effectively ignored by history.
It looks like Butser Ancient Farm near Waterlooville, Hampshire There was an Iceni Village near Swaffham in Norfolk but it closed in 2014 if memory serves If your near Coventry there is a partially restored Roman Fort near the airport called The Lunt Roman Fort. It is thought to have played a part in the Roman part of this Iceni rebellion.
The last informative book I read about these times pointed out no one knew where the final battle took plabce between the tribes and Romans, who fought who and what happened to Boudica. In fact apart from a couple of lines by a couple of Roman writers years after it was supposed to have occurred, no one truly knows whether she existed at all! There was no one from the tribal side who wrote stuff down. But its exciting and we love a good yarn!
I lived in St. Albans 1971-72. there were mixed emotions about Boudica...Somehow history remains in the blood like a memory of your own life...or at least grudges do?!
@patrickgoldsmith. Those not supportive of Boudicca must be of Roman descent then. She was no doubt a great British heroine and what we need more of today in order to preserve British culture.
I still love in stalbans and worked for the museim archaeology dept. Most people don't care about boudicca, she did very little damage and killed nobody The city was empty . The people who ate interested in history talk more about Caesar destroying our local tribe ( which didn't happen) They chased him out of Britain
Excellent video. Few remarks: according to roman law, women could not inherit properties, let's alone kingdoms. So, the confiscation by the State of Boudicca's share was legal. The beating of the Queen could also be considered "legal" since she opposed to the confiscation and she was not a roman citizen. That means that she could be arrested and punished on the spot by the public authority. The rape of her daughters was on the contrary blatantly illegal, since the Iceni were allied of the Roman State and were theoretically protected by law from abuses of roman authorithies as "peregrini" or " socii".
Romans were very good at dominating large areas with few troops using good diplomacy, except that disgraced idiot who is basically responsible for the whole revolt. Lack of a good diplomatic corps is a good indicator of collapse for any state.
@@kevcaratacus9428 You are totally right. But Braveheart style revolt against the strongest(?) empire is a more selling story than "Romans and Britons got along just fine", which WAS the case on many occasions. By the way thank you for mentioning this, I didn't know of Cartimandaue.
@@kevcaratacus9428 the thing is that Prasutagus wrote a will, according to which his reign should be divided among the Roman State , his wife and his daughters. Since women could not inherit according roman law, the dispositions concerning Boudicca and her daughters were considered null and void . The will was nevertheless still valid , but the only legitimate heir, according romam law, was the Roman State. Cartimandua ' s husband never wrote a similar will and she could stay in power since her position as Queen had been inherited without conflict with Roman Law.
@@antoniotorcoli5740 so because queen cartimandaue didn't sign anything the Romans let her keep her lands and throne. Even though it goes against Roman law ( allowing women ) But because prasutagus made a will ( if he did) the Romans wouldn't recognise his queen as ruler and landowner. Surely the Roman law allows women landowners or doesn't It doesn't make sense to allow one bit not another due to a will. In an era where people died from toothache ( infection) Or infections from small cuts and other minor thinks There must've been other queens whos husbands died . Who weren't treated like 'Boudica ' it wasn't just her the Iceni were treated like scum before prasutagus died. No other tribes were treated like that. So there must be more to the story . Because the woman landowner thing doesn't work Not unless it's the same for them all . But as we know cartimandaue remained queen .
That lady "expert" has no clue - leaving 50% to the Romans was not a voluntary move by a client king but understood to happen automatically at death of the initially by Rome subdued Client King. The Roman strategy was a "softer" assimilation, which in 2 to 3 generations dissolved client kingdoms but left the royal family enough land to remain wealthy and by romanisation stay part of the elite. As important, Cassius Dio is a much less reliable source as Tacitus because Dio was a "creative historian". It should be obvious that the so called speech of Boudicca is pure fiction. No Roman was present at the time in Iceni land and It is certain that Boudicca had very little knowledge about Rome proper and almost none about Nero. Dio simply let her be a mouthpiece of his thoughts about Nero and Roman provincial governance.
Funny, when he mentioned the parallel events I immediately thought of the Trung sisters, but was still surprised when it was them he went onto reference. They are pretty big in Vietnamese History, with a street named after them in every city I have visited '"Hai Bà Trưng", laterally the ""Two Ladies Trung"
It was a second time I saw this wonderful historical coverage episode about a brilliant moment of British history. Episode about revolutionary female leaders of Britain 🇬🇧 rebellious against Roman empire existed in Britain sovereignty. That courageous rebellion leader was the queen (Boudica) ...it was a wonderful historical coverage and introduction
Not only was the revolt doomed to ultimate failure, the Iceni did not have the support of all of " tribal" Britain. Many of these tribes were not only prosperous, but had been " Romanized" to such a degree that their loyalty was not something they simply gave up for a " flash in the pan" like the Iceni Revolt. You can see the lack of discipline and training from the results of " Watling Street"where an outnumbered Roman contingent, by staying together, out fought are far more numerous but infinitely less trained and disciplined opposition. The Iceni had very little to offer such " Romanized" Brit tribes except a natural dominance that certainly would not have been popular with the already " Romanized" aristocracy. And yes, the Iceni and Boudicca herself were once part of this. The Iceni had nothing to offer except their own dominance.
Romans should not be mistaken for Italians as far as I know. Romans were from Rome and formaly from Greece (Rommelus & Remus). The sacked, attacked, killed the locals around their village they called Rome and domiated others subjecting them to subserviance. Rome then expanded.
@@Oath_Keeper1979 That is likly all you can afford after the Northern Tribes sweept in to Rome and took some reparations with out asking. But my guess is you yourself are not a Julio-Claudian Roman so like with other Italians they were not responsible. But had you or other Italians had the same or similar asprirations to dominate, subjugate using murder as your means of persuasions as did The Fasist Musselini when he attacked Abysinnia with Julio-Clausian type ideas of a revival of the tyranny of Empire of the scale of the former Rome. Then Versuvius and all those Vocanoes may become a lesser fear of the tyrants and Italy could end up having more of a revival of 1939-1944 than they desired. Remember also. That it was Italians. Or other Romans (The Senate) who ordered Nero out to commit suicide or be exercuted. Same with Musselini. He was Hung by other Italians who did not share the same villianous desires. I hope you live a ling and good life. I have had good tiimes in Northern Piedmont Regioni in Itally. Found some good people there.
Yeah , we all aspire to have some terrible, living nightmare to befall our family so we can start a futile revolt against an empire. Who needs a happy, living family when a random TH-camr knows your name?
@@raghavsingh5154 lol sigh....she fought back she rebelled...that's the important thing.. The romans treated her badly they treated her daughters badly she fought back...dont have to be a little puppy and let bastards get away with shit...and they wouldn't have treated you nicely there would be no fluffy puppies and nice warm holidays....
And I am free to think and feel about historical events in any way I please. This documentary is not about the struggle against the saxons. Why does my opinion affect you so much? Do you want to know my feelings on all the worlds historical events? I've never felt so important
Very interesting the parallel with the Trưng Sisters rebellion in Vietnam at about the same period, against the Han dynasty, as you pointed out. Not just in timing, of course, but in historical significance and legacy.
What makes you say she was a heroine who stood up to the Romans. Surely standing up to an enemy means fighting against them when they're invading Hoping to defeat & prevent a foreign regime from ruling.? She, the Iceni only rebelled 18 years after the invasion. Before the invasion they made a deal with the Romans agreeing to stay at home and not join the other Celts in fighting them. The Romans didn't keep to the deal & abused her That's called retaliation, That's not defiance .. Or heroic. They were traitors to the other Celts to the people on the island.
I truly believe that if our female ancestors such as Boudica and Cleopatra had been victorious, our ancient and arguably modern history could have been dramatically different for women. Their victories were so close, and unfortunately, history is predominately written by the victors.
Doubt it. Raw power was still king. Britain and the countries in have had quite well respected women throughout history. Elizabeth 1st went down to face the Spanish armada in a dress and armour and gave the whole "I have the heart of a king and king of England too" speech but nothing really changed. Egypt was the same Cleopatra gets a lot of recognition but she wasn't even that liked. Egypt has had a lot more well respected and just better female leaders than her. It didn't change anything.
It's a bad documentary. Full of fiction and lies . The whole thing happened within a 30 mile radius, land formerly ruled by the catuvelauni. 80% of Britain wouldn't have had any clue about it at the time. Then exaggerated would have started to spread after it ended. The area today Hertfordshire and Essex meant nothing to tribes south of the Thames or beyond the Midlands and the North. Only Colchester suffered deaths bc they had no warning But London ( in 61ad village & nothing like the image in the video) and Verulamium people warned to End evacuated And rebuilt a few weeks later.. There wasn't enough people in the whole of middle Britain for an army of 80/100k & another 80k killed. The whole thing ( rebels & people attacked) involved much less than 10k Archaeological evidence. Population of the Iceni was under 1500. ..Trinovantes ( Colchester) Under 4k London's & Verulamium under 5k..
I suggest finding an adblocker app or subscribing to You-Tube. Either method gets rid of the annoyance. Nothing worse than being yanked out of your immersion by some crap ads.
You gotta remember a lot if British tribes wanted the Romans here . Including the Iceni, they made a deal with Rome before the invasion promising to stay on their land snd not fight alongside the tribes that didn't want the Romans. So the Iceni stayed at home But 18 years after the invasion shit happened and they suddenly wanted to fight the Romans. They should have joined the other tribes in 42 ad But they didn't, Serves them right for making deals when they should've been fighting together . 18 years later was too late the Romans won and mafe peace with the tribes who fought against them and life in the South was good . But the Romans obviously respected the ones who fought against them More than those like the Iceni Who were treated like the cowsdlly scumbags thsy were Serves them right for not gighting when they should have , in 42ad not 60 . When it was too late
@@Heavilymoderated I always beleived the story on history books , or documentaries presented by historians . I never thought about questioning what i read. But when I started reading about the facts ,provided by archaeologists , it made me think again, I wanted to know why the people who supposedly stood up to the opresseors, who wanted to rid Britain of the hated Romans ( As the stories tell us) Why didn't they try stopping the Romans from invading Why didn't they join the other tribes who put aside their differences to join and fight against the Romans. Why did they speak to the Romans and make deals before the invasion ..it all contradicted the story of being anti Roman & wanting tjem out of Britain. You don't make deals with a regime you hate You don't stay at home away from the fighting making it easier for the Romans to defeat the other tribes.. Turning against the Romans 18 years after they invaded . 18 yrs After the other tribes have made peace. . I had other questions , if they suddenly hated Rome and wanted to kick then out of Britain Why didn't they attack the Romans after destroying the temple , why did they go in the opposite direction south, knowing the Romans were up north , the camps the forts were all up north . Not south, Only Celtic people were south Farmers , undefeated towns . Why did they attack destroy and kill the undefended Celts. They were the people who fought the Romans when they invaded , they tried stopping them. So why did the Iceni choose to kill destroy the Celts who didn't stay at home , .. There are many questions that go against the usual story . I also looked at the latest archaeology re population of Iceni, trinovantes and Verulamium. I wanted to know where over 150.000 rebels came from who joined the Iceni. ..the population of the Iceni was under 15 hundred.. The population of the trinovantes was under 2300 hundred . The population of the Catuvelauni ( London Verulamium) was no more than 3000 people. They were the people the tribes in that whole region, that part of Britain. There were no other tribes no other people , yet combined amount of rebels and those killed according to the history is nearly a quarter of a million people!!! An impossible amount . The people in the South had made peace & were doing well They wernt unhappy there were no other tribes rebelling That why the Romans had no soldiers or military bases in the South . They had moved them all 500 miles away up north , where they were needed , But the people south who probably thought they would all be killed & have their lands stolen, be treated like slaves . But a couple years after the invasion they realised none of that was going to happen, they kept their land & former kings were given positions of power , instead of being kings they became the equivalent of senators , prime ministers , Rome ruled but the Celtic people administerd the laws collected the taxes ( like they did before the Romans came, people paid taxes throughout history & we still do today . So after 18 years life was better , they weren't constanfightung each other like they had before the Romans came, Basically life was peaceful, they had no reason to rebel. So they had no reason to join the Iceni. I don't think the Iceni rebelled for reasons historians tell us . I think there more to it , but I'm still reading researching and like a detective looking for clues , I have a couple of theories, but I'm still putting it all together . It's sonething I've been working on for a few years Started durin covid , staying indoors, bored so I started getting into the details of the Iceni uprising.
Wonderful true story. I admire Boudica as well as the Roman general who defeated her. Correct me if wrong, Iceni were among the tribes driven out of modern day Belgium by J. Caesar's campaigns to seek refuge and settle in Britain. They must have undoubtedly mixed up with the Celts there. Olga Kurylenko will finally play Boudica in a full feature film, been waiting since Centurion by Neill Marshall.
Tbh Boudica wasn't a very good fighter or general more so the Romans were pretty understaffed and spread too thin as Britain was the edge of their empire. Obviously in the main showdown a much smaller Roman force annihilated Boudica's army very quickly. Historically was Boudica a great orater and galvenizer? by most accounts yes. But was she ever realistically going to defeat the Romans or create serious damage? no. I would say Queen Zenobia and Cleopatra was similar to Boudica but a step above in terms of tact, charisma and long-term vision
She crucified people? Come on: that was Roman culture, not Ancient Brits nor any Celts! History is written by the conquerors and propaganda is ancient. She was cruel to those who got in the way, yes but mostly against Rome's supporters. She fought back against the sadistic, greedy, brutal and extremely prejudiced Romans: thank you for your service. Boudiccea.
Made the noise of frosty woodlands, when they shiver in January, Roar'd as when the rolling breakers boom and blanch on the precipices, Yell'd as when the winds of winter tear an oak on a promontory. So the silent colony hearing her tumultuous adversaries Clash the darts and on the buckler beat with rapid unanimous hand, Thought on all her evil tyrannies, all her pitiless avarice, Till she felt the heart within her fall and flutter tremulously, Then her pulses at the clamoring of her enemy fainted away. Out of evil evil flourishes, out of tyranny tyranny buds. Ran the land with Roman slaughter, multitudinous agonies. Perish'd many a maid and matron, many a valorous legionary. Fell the colony, city, and citadel, London, Verulam, Camulodune.
The pilum was not used to kill and there were not two sizes of them, they were designed to make shields useless, a kill is good but not the primary purpose. A pilum is a barbed metal rod on the end of a wooden shaft, the rod penetrates the shield, the barb makes it too difficult to remove during combat, and the wooden shaft hangs down to the ground. Moving forward with a pilum in your shield is asking to drive it into you and therefor you have to drop your shield, and all enemies of Rome used shields including the Brits. Without every soldier using a shield you cannot form a proper defensive line making your formations highly vulnerable giving a huge advantage to the Romans. The host clearly doesn't know that and misrepresented them as some sort of javelin while romanticizing the Roman legions.
When throwing pilum they were aiming at people primarily. The added bonus and genius was designing them to stick in shields if they missed the enemy. You do not aim at shields with a penetrating weapon if the opportunity to hit a person directly is available.....it is not at all logical, militarily, to suggest otherwise. But like all these things, it's great to debate and have different opinions.
@@daemonharper3928you're both just speaking out your ass, especially the second guy. We know literally nothing about how exactly Romans fought. They didn't record it because they didn't see the need as it was considered common shared knowledge. We know they had certain formations, and multiple lines of troops, but the details? We have zero idea. What makes it more interesting is that they beat the other powers of the world, who had discovered spears as the superior weapon of warfare, and they did it with shortswords. Most likely we assume that the pilum was used to disable shields and break solid defensive lines. No one in ancient warfare was charging full spirit at your enemy, you advanced behind your shield. You did not, and could not, aim at the person behind it. Beyond this, we consider most formations to actually be static formations, this is why the plum was thrown from only 20-30 feet. We know that most of these formations were static as the accounts from the battles of Alexander we still held in revenue at these times where he won entire battles just by making his soldiers most three steps left the three steps right in formation. A feat that could not be rivalled by levy armies, and showed the incredible coordination and training of his soldiers. Most probably is that the Romans used the pilum to throw at static defensive formation until the line broke enough to advance.
@@daemonharper3928 I never said anything about aiming. If you want to go that route then they aimed at the enemy. If their shield was up then that's the target, shields are down then the soldier was the target. Either way the target is the same, the enemy target inside the reach of a thrown pilum. Understanding historical melee combat for the time period has both sides with shields at the ready. They did formations with the shields presented as a shield wall because of arrows, spears, and javelins.. all of which are stone age weapons while the Romans were at the end of the iron age when they started using pilum's.
@@cop5144 If you observe the design of a pilum it says what it was made for. The Greek javelin or earlier stone age javelin and throwing spear was clearly meant for penetrating flesh when thrown, the Greek versions of them during the bronze age were far superior for that task than a pilum. The Romans would choose a clunky javelin/throwing spear design that has far less range than a stone age man would? No they wouldn't. A pilum is a wood shaft with squared cut ends, one end has a metal rod inserted into it. The metal rod has a barb hook or ends in a pyramid shape. Metal rod and pointy end are plenty long enough to fatally penetrate a human through a shield if the wood shaft contacts the ground and shield while said human is moving forward. A pilum is a shit version of a javelin. Not a good throwing spear, not even a good melee spear... metal rod length says penetrate human through shield distance perfection. Wood shaft shape says not meant for distance but perfection for gravity bringing the end of the shaft to the ground. Combined they say perfect for penetrating shields and taking them out of the equation as well as getting a few enemy kills in. Tactics on use? Nothing I covered in my original post is about tactics. I am not a 2k year old Roman soldier so I have no idea on their tactics. I can look at one of their weapons and see it's use though. Use and tactics... not the same. But you are the expert on tactics, so you are over 2k years old. I have one question, how the F do you have a birthday cake capable of having 2k+ candles? Blowing them out you must have bigger lungs than Superman.
She tortured thousands of innocent civilians, some of which included her own people, charged in without any actual plan and when she finally encountered an actual army, 10 times smaller than hers, she lost humiliatingly and because of her stupid decisions, her routing "army" was completely trapped and destroyed. Most overrated historical figure ever, i guess because that was the only time in history the british had a rebellion instead of being on the receiving end of one. So sad she took the easy way out before Paulinus could parade her in chains on a triumph like she deserved.
Massively overrated, achieved very little, killing unarmed innocent civilians then burning 2 more towns both "empty" then killed by seutonius and his men the first people who the Iceni faced that wernt unarmed. Whole thing over in a few weeks, towns rebuilt and all forgotten , except by a few historians who completely exaggerate the whole thing and ignore the facts. They were originally allies of Rome, a woman had a tantrum and killed unarmed innocent Celtic people.
I heard it was different. Boud and her tribe fought a guerilla style of warfare from the forests onto thin lines of Romans This did not allow the Romans to set up their style of fighting. Boudi was not a general so did not know why they were winning. So at the final battle they met the Romans head on and that is where the Romans won. This guerilla style was repeated by the Germans many years later in Germania. Slaughtered many Romans because they were out of formation One did not know of the other.
It is surprising that the Britons had not learned to adapt their tactics from Caesar's campaigns in Gaul and Britain and Claudius' campaign a generation earlier.
to much civil disputes amongst the tribes of Britons and Rome was very good at manipulating tribes to fight the other tribes for them....... far more organised.
She ate fox gloves after her army was butchered by a tactical,disciplined,military machine of the Roman army. Her tribesmen(some naked with blue woad)were slaughtered.
Not unlike 1066 when Harold II could have held back and waited out the forces of William I to run out of food and water, instead of trying to immediately confront them. Sooner or later the Romans stuck in that field, would have run out of provisions. But keeping everyone patient and not assuming you are more powerful doesn't seem to be how these groups think.
Starving out the attacking army was not possible, because armies of the time were used to "living off the land" - in other words, pillaging and sometimes razing villages of the defender, taking everything they could. That's why the defender often had to meet the attacker in battle, because if they let all they villages and fields be razed, they would starve during the winter anyway - not to mention their own people would keep asking why their ruler does nothing to protect them. The only nation who was able to effectively starve invaders was Russia - and they had to torch their own capital to do so.
Full Respect to Warrior Queen Boudica🙏🙏🚩, She stood up against the Colonial Power of that time, Roman Empire, Just like Warrior Queen of Jhansi(Rani Manikarnika)🙏🙏🚩 and Queen Chenamma🙏🙏🚩 who fought against Colonial Power of their time, British Empire.
They mysteriously disappeared from all historical record. They where the most celebrated Legion in the Empire but they came to Britannia and suddenly where never mentioned ever again in all Roman history. It’s a mystery
This story is important for our time, I wish there was a definitive movie about it that captures the struggle between Rome and the tribal people of Britain. With important parallels to the present-day continuation of imperialism; where both invaders and resistors cross lines that should never be crossed.
And the moral of this story? Don't piss off the Iceni! The battle of Watling Street was won due to Suetonius's superior use of the surrounding geography. Boudica lost because her need for vengeance overcame her tactical good sense.
The Welsh Silures war leader Caradoc deserves far more respect than Boudicca, who basically threw a huge strop for a few weeks before leading her army to total defeat and then killed herself. She just damaged towns and burned old residents to death. Caradoc, after defeat in the south east, went to Wales where he knew the Silures had a fearsome reputation and they welcomed him with open arms. He led them in battle after battle for nine years before being captured when the Brigantes in the Midlands dobbed him in. He was extraordinarily freed by the Roman senate after a powerful speech and his family were housed at a site called the Palladium Britannicum , the British Palace, off the Via Urbana, not far from the Coliseum. I have visited this site which now houses the Filipino Church in Rome. His daughter was renamed Claudia under the wing of a senator and married Rufus Pudens and the House of Pudens became the earliest site of Christianity in Rome. Indeed, Caradoc’s relative, Linus, became the first Bishop of Rome and St Paul is believed to have visited the home. The Catholics much later decided to name Peter as the first pope because he had been a disciple of Jesus, but many historians doubt he ever visited Rome before being taken there for execution. The Pudens family were also martyred. Despite the loss of their leader, the Silures continued their battles against Rome and there is clear evidence that they defeated a legion, either the Second Augustan, based at nearby Caerleon, or the Twentieth, possibly from Chester. Tacitus tells us the Silures “usurped the Empire”, which was Roman code for a legionary defeat. He also says that the Silures could not be won over either by sternness or clemency. The Silures fought on for another twenty years after Caradoc’s capture. There is doubt that they were ever fully defeated. Many think the two sides tired of the constant decades long battles and came to terms, possibly at Cardiff, Caerdydd, the City of the Treaty in old Welsh. The Romans certainly built them the wonderful town of Caerwent to run as a civitas. The town is well worth visiting as the remains are remarkable, the town walls themselves being very high still in places. Today it is believed by many that evidence of the Silures can be seen in the wooded slopes above Garndiffaith and Pontypool in Gwent, where ancient defensive walls are several feet wide and in places as high as two metres. There are also many grave mound shapes (Garndiffaith means the multitude of graves or the desolate graves). And the old name on maps for the Lasgarn Wood near Pontypool was the British Carn Wood (the British grave mound wood).
Very interesting what happened to Caratacus/ Caradoc after his speech in Rome, I knew he was allowed to live and given a decent place , but I always thought he was kinda under house arrest and wasn't allowed to leave Rome, but who knows. London should have a statue of him Not boudicca, I mean she burned the place down , Boudicca/ iceni were originally allies of Rome , by their own choice. Caratacus fought and carried on fighting, until the slag queen cartimandau drugged his wine and handed him over to the Romans. Boudicca was nothing, destroyed a couple of towns that were soon rebuilt . The whole thing was over within a couple of months, But like you said Caratacus/ Caradoc and his Welshmen caused havoc to the Romans for 10 years. Yet hardly anyone has ever heard of him. .. :/ I live in StAlbans, ( originally the catuvellauni capital city verulamio , the Romans called it verulamium) where he was born. We have some of his ( Caratacus/ Caradoc ) silver coins in the local museum. And also a video about him his story, refusing to surrender he left verulamium took his gold and silver and most importantly his best most loyal warriors and headed for Wales..
@@kevwhufc8640 thanks for the extra details Kev. Very interesting. I totally agree there should be statues of Caradoc in the south east and in south Wales. By the way, after his betrayal to the Romans by the Brigantes, the Silures carried on the fight without him for another twenty years. Tacitus says it was as if they were even more angered by the fate of their erstwhile great leader. St Albans should be rightly proud of their heroic son. The Welsh certainly are. In Trevethin, near Pontypool, not far from some of those ancient defensive walls, there is a Caradoc Road to this day.
@@petrovonoccymro9063 some info I thought might interest you. I remember our local museum hoped to buy the only known Caratacus gold coin when it was for sale at auction in 2020 , experts said it could fetch as much as £30 grand, it ended up selling for £88.000 !! Thdy are only small things, about the size of our 1p . It was originally found by a metal detecorist in a field near Newbury, which isn't too far from Wales , One side it shows Caratacus on a horse holding a javelin and shield & the reverse side has an image of barley with C NO ( his father Cunobelin. I do a bit of metal detecting now and then , if I found one I'd sell it but have a replica made. For some reason Celtic kings/ coins, never have their whole name, just part of it , the silver Caratacus only have CARA , the gold one has CARAT , I guess its less hassle for the bloke who has to carve the name and design into a hard bronze die, and such a small space too. Molten gold would be poured into moulds and the blank discs taken out & placed between the bronze dies that have the images of the front of back , then a guy would hit it really hard and the design would be forced into the gold discs, (same with silver & copper coins. Known as "Hammered coins ". All coins were made that way until the late 16th century. ...Sod that for a job ,
@@teiloturner2760 You are right, there were Celts living there after a massive migration. But the name of the region is Greek. In fact in the New Testament the letter to Galatians, refers exactly to these Celts. The Greeks called them Galates cause their skin was white as milk ''Gala'' (aka Gala-xy)
She was an allow of Rome The Iceni didn't fight the Romans with other tribes like they should've when they invaded in 42 . They stayed home , & only kicked off 18 years later.
Inhabitants of England at that time were Celts. I wonder why you call them British? After the disengagement of the Romans, waves of Saxons, Angles and Jutes took over. Later a layer of Danes were added to the pot. I know romans changed the name of the island from Albion to Britannia, but calling those people British is historically incorrect because nobody called them that at the time.
The defeat of Boudicca, her suicide, and the continuation of Roman rule in Britannia for nearly 400 years is a happy ending to this story. If you're Italian.
Before Roman rule Celtic tribes constantly fought killed other tribes , took heads as trophies. After Roman rule , saxons brits angles then Danes constantly fought each other killing robbing raping . Norman's fought each other , Stephen matilda using Brit soldiers, they went on crusades killing raping robbing, English knights went to France fighting robbing killing destroying. After France they came back and fought each other ( York v Lancaster) fighting etc etc. Tudors, stewarts, Cromwell,jacobites all the same things , The Roman empire was 400 years in Britain 99% calm peaceful The longest spell this island has ever had without fighting killing. The most productive , inventive , spell in our history .
Cassius dio makes Boudicca sound like Glenda Jackson - a formidable woman. It's unlikely Boudicca had 80,000 soldiers, 10,000 to 30,000 max. The population was not that large and the norfolk population was a small fraction of the overall British population.
Certainly not unheard of for historians to exaggerate. Fortunately modern historians use mathematical models that predict how many troops can be supplied in a given setting, always resulting in a much smaller number. Remember the British also had many non-combatants with them. Still, I wouldn't doubt that Romans were vastly outnumbered.
The ‘anglos’ only arrived AFTER the Roman legions left Britain in c 400 AD. Check your history. The folks living in Britain at the time of ‘Boadicea’ were the ancestors of modern-day Welsh. In Welsh, ‘Boadicea’ is BUDDIG, which was ‘latinized’ by the Romans to Boadicea. Just as the Welsh for ‘Britain - Prydain 32:41 - was latinized to Britannia, and the Welsh for ‘Anglesey’ - Mon - was latinized to Mona.
@@carolinesharp Yes, Britannia is where the Britons live and it was 410AD when the Romans left. Even in England about 70% of their DNA is from the people of the Iron age; A/S DNA amounts to about only 20% the further east you go. The author is calling the Britons, A/S, which they are not.
Why was her response to the rape of her children so violent?!? Gee…I have no idea…
Mothers have that protectiveness about them. Rome flucked with the wrong lady.
Yer, she got whacked in the end. Hard core legions beat icenis outnumbered in the midlands
You gotta be kidding right?!!
That's why she had to torture and murder thousand of roman colonists?
Then she… just kind went full Nazi 😊
Moral of this story is Don’t let the Romans choose the battle ground.
Especially when they're playing away from home?
@@butzee
Yep, even then
To be fair that is true to be said of any invading force.
That's a lesson for pretty much any general. Wellington choose Waterloo as the place to face Napoleon. The master of the defensive v the master of the offensive.
She was neither.
Enya's song, Boudica, brought me here to learn more about who Boudica was. a movie should be made about this interesting figure who challenged Rome.
just found out there is a 2023 movie called Boudica, queen warrior.
There is such a movie on YT . Just watch the other versions of the same story
@desiguy55 Yes it's awful though. I don't recommend anyone watch it. A proper epic needs to be made by a decent director
I love that song. It calls to me.
So basically Boudica and her rebels were the Hamas of their time and the Romans were Israel. Now i understand why Anglo Saxons think the way they do, The blood of the Romans run through their veins.
Thanks!
Absolutely brilliant historical perspective filling a-lot of gaps compared to others Ive seen and read on our Warrior Queen, the Iceni and Celtic Britain.
I still have a ton of gaps , unanswered questions.
These things about boudicca are pretty much the same.
They say things like tribes joined her but don't say who
They say she had 100k or more rebels but don't say who or where they came from
They say she killed 70k
But don't explain who or where they all came from .
They ignore obvious questions / answers to things like that.
The whole population of eastern Britain was much less than that.
The places they attacked only had 2/3000 people and thst includes farmers , farmers workers who all knew the rebels were coming and left the cities empty..
@@kevcaratacus9428 They were not technically rebels. They were on home turf fighting invaders who had a reputation of rape, extorsion, murder and inciting revolt of kin against kin.
@@MikeGreenwood51
The iceni were NOT on home turf.
They crossed into lands formally ruled by the trinovantes , they massacred mutilated everyone they could and destroyed their homes ( unarmed innocent Celtic people)
Archaeology shows they destroyed the whole settlement , it wasn't just an attack on a temple / new Roman city.
It was an outrage, disgusting.
Then they went on to do the same to people property on route to and including London and did the same along the way and finally to Verulamium, which was the last known place to suffer before Seutonius stopped them.
..All thst happened 20 years after the Claudian invasion, which they did nothing to try stopping the Romans.
The Iceni had meetings with the Romans before the invasion when they made a deal to accept Roman rule promising they would remain on their own land and not join any tribes who united to fight the Romans.
Whatever the real reason for the uprising it had NOTHING to do with defending their land from invaders.
They were 20 years to late for that.
Whatever you think about the Romans imo
the Iceni did far worse , killing ordinary unarmed Celts and destroying , stealing their property.
Which is why is think of them as a lowly band of murdering theiving cowardly rebels .
If they were truly anti Roman if they realised they had made a mistake in trusting/ dealing with the Romans 20 years earlier.
Why did they go south when the legions their camps were further north ?
If the historians are right about the Iceni killing 70.000 people, they were 99.9% unarmed Celts.
They did nothing to harm the Romans.
They didn't come close to overthrowing Roman rule
Whatever their reasons for the uprising they were selfish reasons, they probably expected more , or ...?
We will never know what they were promised.
But the facts are they didn't fight the Romans when they should have , they obviously didn't hate , wernt against the Romans otherwise they wouldn't have made any deals at all.
@@MikeGreenwood51 the Iceni chose to be allies of Rome., they rebelled against their Roman allies.
The Romans invaded 20 years earlier, the people of Colchester and Verulamium fought against the invading Romans.
Ok they lost, but they tried.
And just because the Iceni felt let down by their Roman allies
20 years later they decide to attack and kill the celts who refused to be roman allies who did fight / die defending their island.
Why did she kill those celts of Colchester London and Verulamium?
They did nothing to deserve it.
@@kevcaratacus9428 Romans raped both her and her daughters and were in process of conficating the tribal lands supossedly due to a clause in the agreement with her father.
The resistance of Cataractus (Caradoc) lasted for 9 years, longer than Boudica, Spartacus, Arminius and even Vercingetorix yet he is completely ignored by historians despite leading the longest resistance to Roman rule.
Yeah Caratacus is underrated, there's also another legend from Portugal called Viriathus.
Caratacus would've continued if he hadn't been betrayed by queen cartimandaue she drugged his wine while he was resting & she had him tied & handed him to the Romans .
He's a local hero, I live in stalbans a city built opposite the old ruins of Verulamium.
"When you have all this ... why do you begrudge us our poor hovels?" --Caratacus
Caratacus was a true hero of the time a true warrior against the Roman regime .
Boudicca wasn't fit to lick his toe nails.
There should be a bronze statue of Caratacus outside parliament and not boudicca.
He doesn't get any of the credit he deserves..
@@kevcaratacus9428 Yeah Boudica is overrated, Hereward The Wake is another good one.
Thanks Tristan and team, this is great! The parallels alluded to at the end there might make a good film also?
Happy New Year to all at History Hit, and to all viewers and supporters of this excellent channel. ⭐👍
This was a great documentary thank you
Just like to say, big shout out, to the roman scribe Tacitus, without whom non of this early history would be known 😉 ,
As an American I have the utmost respect for the Warrior Queen Boudica and those who joined her cause.
Respect!? Why ?
Prasutagus and boudicca chose to be allies of Rome
They refused to join the other tribes who united to fight against the invading Romans.
The only reason she rebelled was because they didn't get everything the Romans promised them.
If they had got everything the Romans promised they would never have rebelled,
The people the iceni attacked & killed,
From colchester, London and verulamium had joined together b4 the invasion and fought against the Romans
Ok they lost but at least they tried.
Wheras the Iceni refused to join the tribal alliance and fight against the Roman's they chose to be allies of Rome.
She was a traitor the Iceni were traitors, they made a deal with the devil and it backfired.
Its called karma.
I don't know why these people make videos like this, making her out to be something she wasn't.
The real hero was called Caratacus, he never surrendered
He would've rather died than choose to be a Roman ally.
Why is you being American relevant?
American? What’s that got to do with this?
@@kevwhufc8640 Caratacus ending up living in Rome, so you may want to rethink that.
@@glen9593 wasn't exactly his choice, he was captured taken to Rome and due to be executed.
Big difference to boudicca or the Iceni, they chose to be allies, they chose not to fight the invading Romans.
Caratacus fought during the invasion and and carried on for almost 10 years after .
If the Iceni had been given everything the Romans promised, they never would have rebelled.
As a resident of Colchester, I have a few issues. Firstly the destruction of the city was huge, levelled and burnt, pillaged and destroyed. Any survivors hid in the temple where that too was eventually torched. Civilians and soldiers included. The soldiers didn’t desert the city at all. The fighting went on for a week. They were just retirees and veterans recouping. They held out for as long as they could. Colchester is also on the highest ground for miles, giving a great view of anyone coming to help
The person tjey should have spoken to is Philip crummy the district archaeologist of Colchester, he knows everything there is to know especially about Roman Colchester.
He discovered the site where chariot racing happened.
He knows the population of Colchester during the uprising
He dismisses the tales about the trinovantes joining the Iceni, Colchester was their capital long before the Romans invaded.
They wouldn't attack and kill their own people..
As you rightly say it wasn't just the temple or new Roman city that was destroyed ideas the whole settlement which was much larger than the new city , the people were unarmed
and apart from a few retired soldiers the majority of the people were regular trinovantes/Celts .
This video is full of misinformation
Thanks enjoyed this. I remember about 40 years ago reading Pauline Gedge's The Eagle and the Raven. It really got me interested in Roman Britain and Boudicca. After i finished the book I went to Colchester Museum and from there London and St Albans looking for traces of the revolt. Been interested in her ever since.
I love that book. I've never met or heard of anyone else who has read it.
there is a pub at the north end of colchester high street where there is a window in the basement/cellor..
and it faces into the earth.. no light... in that earth, you can see the destruction layer from Boudica's sacking of the town
also.. under colchester castle, the cellors of the roman temple is still accessable
i saw it as a school kid on a history trip
I agree Add Cartimandua to the plot and you would have feisty actresses queuing up! And chaps like me queuing up to watch!!
Now you need to go to Rome!
I love that book!
"I am descended from mighty men! But I am not fighting for my kingdom and wealth now. I am fighting as an ordinary person for my lost freedom, my bruised body, and my outraged daughters.... Consider how many of you are fighting, and why!"- Queen Boudica
Hell hath no fury
There is no evidence that she said any of that. In fact there is little we know of her and what we do comes from Roman historian Tacitus who was living at that time. Dio came a 100 years later so would not know anything except what he had gleaned from Tacitus
"Despise the savage uproar, the yells and shouts of undisciplined Barbarians. In that mixed multitude, the women out-number the men. Void of spirit, unprovided with arms, they are not soldiers who come to offer battle; they are bastards, runaways, the refuse of your swords, who have often fled before you, and will again betake themselves to flight when they see the conqueror flaming in the ranks of war. In all engagements it is the valour of a few that turns the fortune of the day. It will be your immortal glory, that with a scanty number you can equal the exploits of a great and powerful army. Keep your ranks; discharge your javelins; rush forward to a close attack; bear down all with your bucklers, and hew a passage with your swords. Pursue the vanquished, and never think of spoil and plunder. Conquer, and victory gives you everything."
And took a huge L.
Hell hath no furry like a woman scorned... Until she meets a man who says today is the day.
8:27 This is what happens when you have foreigners teach you about your history. Multiple times in this piece, we hear references to British or Britain (Not even the Roman terms Britannia or Brittani or Briton). Boudica was a Celt, she knew no such concept of British. They called their island Albion & they identified themselves by their tribe & furthermore as Celts This lady thinks Boudica is her ancestor. In 100 years our children will read that Boudica was the quintessential strong Black woman. And furthermore again, YT will delete this comment & threaten to delete my account for hateful speech for speaking this plain truth
I'm surprised Hollywood hasn't made a film with a black boudicca yet.
But I agree thdy probably will one day.
Nobody called themselves 'Celt' in 1st century Britannia
@@japhfo Well then maybe I’m wrong. In his *_Gallic Wars_* memoirs Julius Caesar wrote that the Romans called them Gauls but that they themselves identified as Celts or Celtae, plural. But it’s possible you know something Julius Caesar doesn’t & so I will defer to your knowledge
@@blackriders3509 I know that the Gauls weren't inhabitants of Britannia.
@@japhfo I literally knew that was where you were going to go with this because you had no other avenue to flee. Of course their were Gauls in Britannia, that is where they fled to after war with Caesar & that is the reason Caesar invaded Britannia in 55 BC. The Britons & Gauls had been intertwined for hundreds of years, passing back & forth, intermarrying, fighting together etc. They shared the same social, cultural, & political circles because they were the same tribe or same confederation. As I already pointed out. But let’s not even go there because that is not what you meant. You thought I was prescribing our modern interpretation of Celts to the ancient world. My guess is that you want to believe “Celtic” is a modern invention & that Celt is a fabricated identity. Am I right? After all, you didn’t say “Actually, Britons were separate & distinct from other Celtic tribes & didn’t identify as Celts” Instead you got snarky & tried to put me in my place . You could have simply disagreed & told me that you didn’t think ancient Celts identified as such, that it was a modern invention., etc. I would understood that. But you are a know it all who can’t acknowledge when he is wrong
She fought as a novice in battle tactics against a foe who had honed their tactics through years of warfare. It was inevitable that she would lose the fight.
Overconfident thru numbers !
Your so right. It shows what happens when an overly emotional untrained amateur goes up against a highly trained battle hardened professional.
Sadly
Quite, ‘she was clever for a woman’ says it all. Still admirable, but… she wasn’t and Armenius, sadly.
A woman, an emotional thinker, her tribe’s downfall.
Boudica was adopted by the suffragettes as one of the symbols of the campaign for women's suffrage. In 1908, a "Boadicea Banner" was carried in several National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies marches. She appears in A Pageant of Great Women written by Cicely Hamilton, which opened at the Scala Theatre, London, in November 1909 before a national tour, and she was described in a 1909 pamphlet as "the eternal feminine... the guardian of the hearth, the avenger of its wrongs upon the defacer and the despoiler".
Thank you very interesting, I’m not surprised but good to know. She was one hell of a real woman who stood up not for women specifically but for her countrymen which obviously included women and girls and the lands of which they lived and ruled and the right to obtain control back, maintain their culture and way of life and I’m sure avenge her daughters and her husband. She’s a fascinating person
Didn't she lose in remarkable fashion against an enemy she outnumber 10 to1? That's your hero?
@@PentaRaus judging by how modern women "perform" in sports, STEM, high pressure / risk jobs and whenever military conscription comes up...she probably is the best "hero" for them.
@@PentaRaus Yes she did. Killed mostly helpless villagers before that.
L'chaim
I remember learning all about this from Dan's series, Battlefield Britain but I can't find it anywhere anymore 😢
She'll always be Boadicea for me
Just what I was thinking, and scrolling to see if others said thought so too.
Oh, me too, my teacher at Juniors said it was Boadicea but then my own children said their teachers said it was Boudicca!
In my my school it was Buddug
@@teiloturner2760 I never heard that one before,mind you,I'm not Welsh.I also have problems with Mumbai and a lot of other cities around the world,problems remembering not with the changes.
@@suffern63 yeah you guessed it I'm Welsh. It was the name of a school house. You can call Mumbai Bombay
A truly wonderful historical documentary, like all your wonderful documentaries. I truly thank you for what you present from history in an inspiring and beautiful way. We continue to support you for what you present. Greetings to you from the land of the Kurds ..❤🎉🌹🌹
Tbis is not true its all BS
Broken promises, backstabbings and betrayals often lead to revolts and the downfall of empires
In my opinion, the Romans made their bed
An empire that lasted almost 2000 years is pretty good all things considered then
@@v0rtexbeater The Roman civilization lasted about 1,000 years, from 753 BCE to 476 CE,
@kegastamm8273 the eastern roman empire fell 1000 years later on 1453
Seneca calling back his loan (all at once) makes me wonder how the Stoic justified his actions after news of the pillage and Boadice's bloody response got back to Rome.
Excellent Episode 👍😁
Any News on the actual Location of the Battle Site?
That was a really well-researched, produced and presented exposition of a fascinating element of Romano-British history. I thank you for it amongst so much I’ll-conceived dross which inhabits TH-cam.
I get the impression that Dio preferred the more ‘scalable’ aspects whereas Tacitus was constrained by knowing some of those who took part. (He was Agricola’s son-in-law.)
One point: I was led to understand that Postumus was Camp Prefect and therefore only acting commander of Legio 2 Augusta at Isca during the legate’s temporary absence. He may have felt that marching through the enemy territory of the Durotriges and Dobunii was too much of a potential risk, or possibly felt he was beyond his competence horizon. Whatever, he failed whilst Cerrialis’ decision to secure what was left of his legion is more understandable. Didn’t he later become Governor?
Again, thanks for a refreshing video.
Yes he did Leading the invasion north to take over Cartimanduas realm of the Brigantes after she was ousted Interesting lady herself and has I think an undeserved bad press! Read my novel!! Chris Corbett
The Ad's are getting out of control, and why are they so loud?
I blame the Romans.
Yeah, what did they ever do for us?@@Clearlight201
Jew tube!
@@Clearlight201shall we start a rebellion?
@@lordbertos8124 worth a try 🙂
She was brave and smart enough to unite the tribes, she however lacked the military expertise to fight the finest army of that hisoric period, her warriors were individually better than the average roman soldiers, she had superior numbers, good equipment and better acces to supplies, the Romans however had way better tactics and discipline
Unite what tribes???
Havnt you noticed the historians never mention who the mysterious tribes were !!
It's because there wernt any.
The tribes bordering the Iceni were trinovantes and catuvelauni both attacked by Iceni... .
The *BBC* documentary series, _In Search of the Dark Ages,_ hosted by Michael Wood, has an episode on Boudica.
Still worth watching, more than 40-plus years later.
Wood did similar documentaries on the Anglo Saxons, Shakespeare and a history of a Leicestershire village through the ages!
@@butzee,
Correct. Plus, scores of other excellent documentaries Michael Wood has hosted (see, _In Search of Beowulf,_ etc).
I've been a fan of his since my teens, and I'm nearly fifty myself.
@@butzeehis series on the trojan war is a masterpiece.
Easily my favourite historian
Prof Michael Wood
A better question: Why was she and her people so easily obliterated by the Romans?
The same way that we are about to be obliterated now, by being too laid back and stupid. We need a modern day Boudicca as we don’t seem to have a strong enough man.
"A modern day Boudica?" -- HAHAHA....You mean a modern day guarantee of complete failure? HAHAHAHA....ANY man in charge there would have done better since you can't do worse than total annihilation. @@matildamartin2811
They were Celts ?
Had they been Anglo Saxons the Italian tourists would've been sent packing
I was also puzzled ..
Thoughts :
a) Romans wrote the history so it js probably skew!
b) Romans had extensive artilllery, . . constantly raining the enemy with projectiles..
Actually, the Roman historians were surprisingly objective for the time, as forensic analysis and independent sources have generally collaborated the accounts. The fact is this Boudica was a dreadful failure. She had to have been aware of Roman capabilities yet directed her people into a veritable buzz saw, exhibiting no strategic ability by creating a barrier of wagons, children and women behind her attackers so an escape was close to impossible. Suitonius was relieved of his command by Nero. If he were given free reign with adequate resources he would have likely destroyed the entire region. A bunch of baloney is made of her because of her gender. @@pchurchill
Somewhere there is a tv movie about Boudicca starring Alex Kingston. I saw it ages ago.
I think it's available on dvd
The term is wreaked havoc and things were in Boudicca's husband's name because the Romans didn't recognize women being in control.
The Iceni culture was matriarchal. The women of high station had Shield-Bearers".
They had contests were men fought for the right of courtship of women.
Boudicca didn't magically get men to follow her.
She held authority already.
Can you tell me where you got the information for her group being matriarchal?
From seperate sources it seems that the Celtic culture was about equality
One problem with this comment. It started off with 'the king' dying and he made a will naming his daughters and the emperor as beneficeries. If it was matriarchal then the succession etc would not come from the king and not have been an issue and allow the romans to act in the way that they did.
Women were equal in Celtic society and there are many commentaries of the existance and ferociety of the female warriors.....read Julius Caesar's records of the Gaelic campaign.
There are various references to female leaders of warrior bands, so someone of her reputation as a warrior and leader etc would have no problem following a woman.
Also remember that the loans to be paid back were from all those that accepted them.....therefore rebellion was a better option than poverty.....therefore joining the Iceni was a good choice if they won
@@rkc906Very much like Norse long after them then.
@@iainrendle7989that’s not true about woman being equal in the Celtic society. While they had more freedom to do other things depending on the region and culture all Celts were not the same. Celt’s were any where from Anatolia to Ireland which is a huge area. So to generalize is a mistake.
your videos are the perfect blend of education and entertainment!
Have the producers at History Hit every considered doing an interview with the author, Manda Scott? She wrote an excellent series on Boudicca. It is fiction, obs, but really well researched. She offers a more female-centric context that challenges many of the ideas of the traditional Boudicca narrative, given that all of our written sources are secondary and written from the Roman (and very male patriarchal) point of view. She gives a great explanation at the end of the final book in the series as to why she made these choices and why she believes them to be pretty plausible.
On a separate note, someone needs to make a good epic film about this story. I know it's been attempted, but we can do better.
Does she give any explanation why the Iceni chose to go south after destroying the temple?
The complete opposite direction of any Roman soldiers.
Just ordinary innocent Celtic people , living farming working
Who had nothing to do with what happened to the Iceni.
But she destroyed their city's and killed Celtic people .
Instead of going North after the temple towards the Romans and their camps .
North
Towards the people she was angry with .. ..
As you said its fiction
But does it say why the Iceni made a deal with Rome before they invaded Britain
Promising they would stay on their land and not join the others fighting the invading Romans..
I look at the Iceni as cowards
For not joining the other Celts
Who fought against the invading Romans.
She supposed to hate the Romans but made deals with them.
I think it serves them right it all went wrong in the end
They trusted & made deals with the enemy
Instead of fighting tjem .
It serves tjem right shit happened 18 years later.
... maybe if they fought with the other Celts earlier on the Romans would have been beaten & not have invaded at all ..
Who knows ..
@@kevcaratacus9428 yeah that’s a pretty fucking far cry. Unfortunately the truth is pretty simple, & typically the simplest explanation is almost always the actual one. The Celts just could not beat the Roman Empire, & to even think that if theoretically the Iceni had actually fought alongside the other Celt Armies against Rome vs making deals with them “The Enemy” (To Which I’ll Agree 100% With You About Them Being Cowards For Such An Absolutely Unfathomably Retarded Decision They Made Which Only Postponed Their Eventual & Indefinitely Inevitable Eradication For Another 18 Years Which I Guess Could Be Seen By Some As The Only Positive Thing They Got Out Of Such A Dumbass Decision To Which I’d Say To Anyone Believing It To Be A Positive Thing That They Are An Imbecile, & To Get An Extra 18 Years Before Your Execution Is Finally Carried Out Inevitably While Also Being Looked Upon By Some For Eternity As The Ultimate Cowards Of Their Own Kind Is Way Worse Than If They’d Have Just Manned The Fuck Up Like The Rest & Fight & Die For Your People With Dignity). Anyway my main point is that I think it’s also pretty fucking retarded to sit there & even imagine such a fanciful & absurdly ridiculous possibility that The Celts “JUST MAYBE POSSIBLY COULD HAVE PERHAPS STOPPED THE ROMAN EMPIRE HAD THE COWARDLY ICENI HAVE FOUGHT THE ROMANS INITIALLY INSTEAD OF MAKING DEALS WITH THEM TO BUY ANOTHER 18 YEARS UNTIL YOU REACH YOUR EXECUTION DATE, I MEAN IT IS A POSSIBILITY RIGHT? I MEAN BECAUSE WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WOULD’VE HAPPENED WHICH MEANS THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY COULD’VE POSSIBLY STOPPED THE ROMAN EMPIRE….RIGHT????”.
WRONG
ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY FUCKING RETARDEDLY WRRRROOOONNNNG
The Celts just simply weren’t ever capable enough at that time to achieve such a thing. They had some decent military leaders who made good challenges for Rome at times but ultimately NO. The Roman Army & it’s literally countless numbers of tactically genius generals, armor/& weapon technologies seriously seeming AT THAT TIME TO BE WHAT SEEMED LIGHT YEARS INTO THE FUTURE from what The Celts had & the very few military leaders & tacticians who could hardly ever even be considered to be at a level relatively even somewhat close to Rome’s Generals & Tacticians.
Well done; detailed without being tedious
Great documentary! Dr Malik was super informative too!
I’d be interested to hear about the Vietnamese sisters.
That story is Epic! The Trung sisters were absolute champions and deserve more recognition.
Dan Snow is a thumpingly good chap.
Pretty sure Duncan Mackay would give you a helluva explanation. Next time there's another video, get him on. Or at least check out his book/audiobook. Echolands: A Journey in Search of Boudica.
This will be my next listen/read, thank you.
Im not sure his theory makes sense, however, its a great book
"Mighty Army of Boudicca"?
They were an armed rabble, undisciplined, mostly semi trained, and with a reliance on weight of numbers and needing a distinct absence of military opposition to succeed.
Their conduct at "Watling Street"showed clearly their lack of not only training but situational awareness.
Even a badly led rabble of 100k should've easily destroyed a small disciplined army .
In the 9th c it only took a 1000 Vikings to conquer most of Britain .
And they had to fight other armies.
So 100 or 150.000 shouldve been unstoppable.
That's why I don't believe the historians.
There was nowhere near 100k Iceni, not even 50k
I'd be surprised if they had more than 5000 actual warriors .
Same nonsense spoken about Mons Grampus in Aberdeenshire , not even a relic never mind a battle field has been found .
@@pauls3204 I'll have to lookup that one , the name is familiar,
@@pauls3204 I've only had a quick read , the basics the numbers involved.
And although I don't much at all about Scottish history especially Scottish/ Roman history, but the date later 1st century and numbers seem way over the top.
History 'facts' that come from Roman historians and put together usually by Victorians
A time people could afford books had an interest in history.
They cut corners , trim, fill gaps, metaphorically speaking.
And later historians copy and copy until everyone knows the same version and beleives it
They dont question things .
Things that archaeologists question , have studied if not regional but generally.
Or places focused on by excavation and studying finds
Not the obvious not the glamour the gold or silver brooches but the everyday
Domestic items, pottery
Kitchen wares , broken, each type collected weighed. Sized
Indicates amount , used, soil analysis, studied shows what was grown the amount of land farmed , etc etc all together builds a picture of population size , animals enclosures etc
A village , land , food, amount ,enough for 100 people ( an example)
It's easy to work out the same with other villages , settlements, .
When Roman historians talk about 30.000 & the evidence suggests sustenance enough within a 100 miles square for 2300 , you run out of villages and have to question to doubt history books .
I don't mean to ramble just give a basic view of how why we know historians are wrong
As I mentioned re the Iceni
A tribe all the above , & more studied results in a population under 1200 people .
Where did the other 125.00 historians claim joined her come from.
're mons ' the stottish federation as they call it of 30k ( some claim more others less)
Is more likely to be 1000 v 2000.
But as I said I can only do by what I've learned from battles uprisings further south.
Roman historians, even Victorian
Don't seem to stop and consider realistic numbers, population.
They prefer the exaggerate version.
As opposed to the realistic most likely facts .
Roman historians especially seem to be clueless when it comes to the population of each settlement, they imagine Rome so many people in such a small city and assumes its the same everywhere.
...
Basically I agree with you.
@@kevcaratacus9428 I think you misunderstood what conquering was. Your idea of piratical raiding of coastal villages, raping looting and pillaging non combatants is not really conquering Britian. But how about Stanford Bridge when your theiving murderers arrived with 400 ships but left with just a few which were allowed to leave to take the message back to your King. If being slaughted is what you imagine is conquering then you know why your side lost. Even The Duke of Normandy wanted nothing more to do with your marauding theiving robbers and he then denounced his former status as a Viking.
Now where would all those tens of thousands have been today if they had had policies of cooperation and and respecting each other? Maybe like lots of MAFIA. They would not have been dead and world wide infamousely notorios. There could have been a Nation of hundreds of millions. Instead of an infamouse little people of a by gone era illegalised by the Heads of their own former Country.
It is shameful that on Westminster bridge her beautiful statue with the inscription of her fighting for britons is obscured by cockneys sell crappy souvenirs and this is across from the houses of parliament .
Surely the MPs have noticed this desecration
really a shame I didn’t know about this
Shouldn't be a bronze statue
It should be turned into scrap.
The Iceni destroyed London and the innocent Celtic people living there.
They had nothing to do with what happens.
Neither did the Celts of Verulamium.
She made deals with the Romans before they invaded Britain
She took 30 pieces of silver
To stay away from the fighting
While the real Celts fought against the invading Romans.
The Iceni did nothing they stayed at home by they're fires instead of fighting alongside the other Celts..
@@marcobelli6856 he lies
The police don't allow anyone near parliament
In case of terrorist attacks.
He doesn't anything about cockneys either.
They come from east London
Not Westminster
They work hard and people don't mess around with them
..
@@kevcaratacus9428 thank you
in ancient times, only the Illyrian tribes had Queens like Teuta and Boudica, both together as sisters had a Roman enemy.
38:12 That rebellion sounds fascinating. I’d love to hear more about it. I hadn’t heard of that one but it sounds like an equally interesting aspect of history
Our educations system is a disgrace. I was never taught it in school in the 70's/80's but learned everything about the Russian bloody revolution. You need to also look up the 1381 peasants rebellion if you haven't heard of that either. Also the aftermath of and rebellions that occurred after the Norman invasion. That was brutal. Both have been effectively ignored by history.
Where is that replica Iron Age/Celtic village he is walking around in? Did he mention it at all in the video and I just missed it? Thanks!
It looks like Butser Ancient Farm near Waterlooville, Hampshire
There was an Iceni Village near Swaffham in Norfolk but it closed in 2014 if memory serves
If your near Coventry there is a partially restored Roman Fort near the airport called The Lunt Roman Fort. It is thought to have played a part in the Roman part of this Iceni rebellion.
@@8teillumin Thank you for all the information! The farm in Hampshire looks so interesting!
The last informative book I read about these times pointed out no one knew where the final battle took plabce between the tribes and Romans, who fought who and what happened to Boudica. In fact apart from a couple of lines by a couple of Roman writers years after it was supposed to have occurred, no one truly knows whether she existed at all! There was no one from the tribal side who wrote stuff down. But its exciting and we love a good yarn!
I lived in St. Albans 1971-72. there were mixed emotions about Boudica...Somehow history remains in the blood like a memory of your own life...or at least grudges do?!
@patrickgoldsmith. Those not supportive of Boudicca must be of Roman descent then. She was no doubt a great British heroine and what we need more of today in order to preserve British culture.
What? Mixed emotions ? About a woman that lived thousands of years ago ?
I still love in stalbans and worked for the museim archaeology dept.
Most people don't care about boudicca, she did very little damage and killed nobody
The city was empty .
The people who ate interested in history talk more about Caesar destroying our local tribe ( which didn't happen)
They chased him out of Britain
@@Silvanafromchester what exactly is 'British culture'?
@@nanashi7779in this context it would be the Brythonic culture that existed in Britain
Excellent video. Few remarks: according to roman law, women could not inherit properties, let's alone kingdoms. So, the confiscation by the State of Boudicca's share was legal. The beating of the Queen could also be considered "legal" since she opposed to the confiscation and she was not a roman citizen. That means that she could be arrested and punished on the spot by the public authority. The rape of her daughters was on the contrary blatantly illegal, since the Iceni were allied of the Roman State and were theoretically protected by law from abuses of roman authorithies as "peregrini" or " socii".
Romans were very good at dominating large areas with few troops using good diplomacy, except that disgraced idiot who is basically responsible for the whole revolt. Lack of a good diplomatic corps is a good indicator of collapse for any state.
What about the Brigantian
Queen , Cartimandaue she continued to owned her land.
Before an after the Roman invasion.
@@kevcaratacus9428 You are totally right. But Braveheart style revolt against the strongest(?) empire is a more selling story than "Romans and Britons got along just fine", which WAS the case on many occasions. By the way thank you for mentioning this, I didn't know of Cartimandaue.
@@kevcaratacus9428 the thing is that Prasutagus wrote a will, according to which his reign should be divided among the Roman State , his wife and his daughters. Since women could not inherit according roman law, the dispositions concerning Boudicca and her daughters were considered null and void . The will was nevertheless still valid , but the only legitimate heir, according romam law, was the Roman State. Cartimandua ' s husband never wrote a similar will and she could stay in power since her position as Queen had been inherited without conflict with Roman Law.
@@antoniotorcoli5740 so because queen cartimandaue didn't sign anything the Romans let her keep her lands and throne.
Even though it goes against Roman law ( allowing women )
But because prasutagus made a will ( if he did) the Romans wouldn't recognise his queen as ruler and landowner.
Surely the Roman law allows women landowners or doesn't
It doesn't make sense to allow one bit not another due to a will.
In an era where people died from toothache ( infection)
Or infections from small cuts and other minor thinks
There must've been other queens whos husbands died .
Who weren't treated like 'Boudica ' it wasn't just her the Iceni were treated like scum before prasutagus died.
No other tribes were treated like that.
So there must be more to the story .
Because the woman landowner thing doesn't work
Not unless it's the same for them all .
But as we know cartimandaue remained queen .
That lady "expert" has no clue - leaving 50% to the Romans was not a voluntary move by a client king but understood to happen automatically at death of the initially by Rome subdued Client King. The Roman strategy was a "softer" assimilation, which in 2 to 3 generations dissolved client kingdoms but left the royal family enough land to remain wealthy and by romanisation stay part of the elite. As important, Cassius Dio is a much less reliable source as Tacitus because Dio was a "creative historian". It should be obvious that the so called speech of Boudicca is pure fiction. No Roman was present at the time in Iceni land and It is certain that Boudicca had very little knowledge about Rome proper and almost none about Nero. Dio simply let her be a mouthpiece of his thoughts about Nero and Roman provincial governance.
But isn't that just what she's saying? That Dio wrote that nice rhetoric piece and "Puts it in her mouth"?
Maybe European history is new to her?
Then she should first study the subject of the Roman conquest and then make her video, no? That means reading 1 - 2 bòoks naturally.
@@privatesmith1560 well yes, but she got the gig because of tick boxing reasons not merit
@@garlicgorilla6540dat's wacist
Need more films made of her...
Funny, when he mentioned the parallel events I immediately thought of the Trung sisters, but was still surprised when it was them he went onto reference. They are pretty big in Vietnamese History, with a street named after them in every city I have visited '"Hai Bà Trưng", laterally the ""Two Ladies Trung"
really interesting, Boudicca always fascinates me
It was a second time I saw this wonderful historical coverage episode about a brilliant moment of British history. Episode about revolutionary female leaders of Britain 🇬🇧 rebellious against Roman empire existed in Britain sovereignty. That courageous rebellion leader was the queen (Boudica) ...it was a wonderful historical coverage and introduction
The fact that Boudica is directly responsible for the deaths of more British men women and children than Hitler does not bother you?
Not only was the revolt doomed to ultimate failure, the Iceni did not have the support of all of " tribal" Britain.
Many of these tribes were not only prosperous, but had been " Romanized" to such a degree that their loyalty was not something they simply gave up for a " flash in the pan" like the Iceni Revolt.
You can see the lack of discipline and training from the results of " Watling Street"where an outnumbered Roman contingent, by staying together, out fought are far more numerous but infinitely less trained and disciplined opposition.
The Iceni had very little to offer such " Romanized" Brit tribes except a natural dominance that certainly would not have been popular with the already " Romanized" aristocracy. And yes, the Iceni and Boudicca herself were once part of this.
The Iceni had nothing to offer except their own dominance.
We want reparations from Italy
LOL !!!
As an Italian, I give you one penny reparation.
Romans should not be mistaken for Italians as far as I know. Romans were from Rome and formaly from Greece (Rommelus & Remus). The sacked, attacked, killed the locals around their village they called Rome and domiated others subjecting them to subserviance. Rome then expanded.
@@Oath_Keeper1979 That is likly all you can afford after the Northern Tribes sweept in to Rome and took some reparations with out asking. But my guess is you yourself are not a Julio-Claudian Roman so like with other Italians they were not responsible. But had you or other Italians had the same or similar asprirations to dominate, subjugate using murder as your means of persuasions as did The Fasist Musselini when he attacked Abysinnia with Julio-Clausian type ideas of a revival of the tyranny of Empire of the scale of the former Rome. Then Versuvius and all those Vocanoes may become a lesser fear of the tyrants and Italy could end up having more of a revival of 1939-1944 than they desired. Remember also. That it was Italians. Or other Romans (The Senate) who ordered Nero out to commit suicide or be exercuted. Same with Musselini. He was Hung by other Italians who did not share the same villianous desires. I hope you live a ling and good life. I have had good tiimes in Northern Piedmont Regioni in Itally. Found some good people there.
That’s what I’m talking about.
Thank you
Love people insulting her in the comments, like any of you could do 1/3 of what she did 🤡.
But she didn"t really do anything significant. In reality she's a massively overrated figure in history
@@Zvabh but she did....she is remembered...what she did is remembered....you on the other hand will always be a nonentity...just like me....
Yeah , we all aspire to have some terrible, living nightmare to befall our family so we can start a futile revolt against an empire.
Who needs a happy, living family when a random TH-camr knows your name?
@@raghavsingh5154 lol sigh....she fought back she rebelled...that's the important thing.. The romans treated her badly they treated her daughters badly she fought back...dont have to be a little puppy and let bastards get away with shit...and they wouldn't have treated you nicely there would be no fluffy puppies and nice warm holidays....
Many people said the same about John Lennon when he was in school.
Amazing story.
Rest in peace to all those ancient Britons who fought for freedom from rome. We have not forgotten.
England fell into the dark ages after the Romans left.
"Freedom" from Rome
Were they fighting to stay enslaved to rome? @@MW_Asura
Vans sir they also fought against the Saxons angles etc a lot has changed in 2000 years
And I am free to think and feel about historical events in any way I please. This documentary is not about the struggle against the saxons. Why does my opinion affect you so much? Do you want to know my feelings on all the worlds historical events? I've never felt so important
Very interesting the parallel with the Trưng Sisters rebellion in Vietnam at about the same period, against the Han dynasty, as you pointed out. Not just in timing, of course, but in historical significance and legacy.
She was a true heroine who stood up to the might of the Roman Empire. We must always follow her example against tyranny.
What makes you say she was a heroine who stood up to the Romans.
Surely standing up to an enemy means fighting against them when they're invading
Hoping to defeat & prevent a foreign regime from ruling.?
She, the Iceni only rebelled 18 years after the invasion.
Before the invasion they made a deal with the Romans agreeing to stay at home and not join the other Celts in fighting them.
The Romans didn't keep to the deal & abused her
That's called retaliation,
That's not defiance ..
Or heroic.
They were traitors to the other Celts to the people on the island.
@@kevcaratacus9428 The more I learn about her the more I dislike her.
@@88freeziepop I felt exactly the same, .
Historians make her into sonething that she wasn't.
@@kevcaratacus9428 Seems to be part of the feminist agenda to make heroes out of below average women. I could be wrong though.
No. She was a monster. Nothing better than Romans. Maybe worse.
I truly believe that if our female ancestors such as Boudica and Cleopatra had been victorious, our ancient and arguably modern history could have been dramatically different for women. Their victories were so close, and unfortunately, history is predominately written by the victors.
Doubt it. Raw power was still king. Britain and the countries in have had quite well respected women throughout history. Elizabeth 1st went down to face the Spanish armada in a dress and armour and gave the whole "I have the heart of a king and king of England too" speech but nothing really changed. Egypt was the same Cleopatra gets a lot of recognition but she wasn't even that liked. Egypt has had a lot more well respected and just better female leaders than her. It didn't change anything.
Boudica to Romans: "This is a local shop for local people. There's nothing for you here."
Did the Picts from Caledonia (Scotland) rescue Boudica from the Romans?
A Great and courageous Queen , sad end .
Fabulous documentary, very well made (just put the books down next time LOL).
It's a bad documentary.
Full of fiction and lies .
The whole thing happened within a 30 mile radius, land formerly ruled by the catuvelauni.
80% of Britain wouldn't have had any clue about it at the time.
Then exaggerated would have started to spread after it ended.
The area today Hertfordshire and Essex meant nothing to tribes south of the Thames or beyond the Midlands and the North.
Only Colchester suffered deaths bc they had no warning
But London ( in 61ad village & nothing like the image in the video) and Verulamium people warned to End evacuated
And rebuilt a few weeks later..
There wasn't enough people in the whole of middle Britain for an army of 80/100k & another 80k killed.
The whole thing ( rebels & people attacked) involved much less than 10k
Archaeological evidence.
Population of the Iceni was under 1500.
..Trinovantes ( Colchester)
Under 4k
London's & Verulamium under 5k..
Brilliant documentary but bugger me if there aren't a lot of ads
I suggest finding an adblocker app or subscribing to You-Tube. Either method gets rid of the annoyance. Nothing worse than being yanked out of your immersion by some crap ads.
I don’t understand why the britons didn’t just wait until the romans were forced to finally make the first move. They were basically trapped
You gotta remember a lot if British tribes wanted the Romans here .
Including the Iceni, they made a deal with Rome before the invasion promising to stay on their land snd not fight alongside the tribes that didn't want the Romans.
So the Iceni stayed at home
But 18 years after the invasion shit happened and they suddenly wanted to fight the Romans.
They should have joined the other tribes in 42 ad
But they didn't,
Serves them right for making deals when they should've been fighting together .
18 years later was too late the Romans won and mafe peace with the tribes who fought against them and life in the South was good .
But the Romans obviously respected the ones who fought against them
More than those like the Iceni
Who were treated like the cowsdlly scumbags thsy were
Serves them right for not gighting when they should have , in 42ad not 60 .
When it was too late
@@kevcaratacus9428 thanks. I clearly need to do some more reading.
Yeah exactly.. it was a siege !!
@@Heavilymoderated
I always beleived the story on history books , or documentaries presented by historians .
I never thought about questioning what i read.
But when I started reading about the facts ,provided by archaeologists , it made me think again, I wanted to know why the people who supposedly stood up to the opresseors, who wanted to rid Britain of the hated Romans ( As the stories tell us)
Why didn't they try stopping the Romans from invading
Why didn't they join the other tribes who put aside their differences to join and fight against the Romans.
Why did they speak to the Romans and make deals before the invasion
..it all contradicted the story of being anti Roman & wanting tjem out of Britain.
You don't make deals with a regime you hate
You don't stay at home away from the fighting making it easier for the Romans to defeat the other tribes..
Turning against the Romans 18 years after they invaded .
18 yrs After the other tribes have made peace.
.
I had other questions , if they suddenly hated Rome and wanted to kick then out of Britain
Why didn't they attack the Romans after destroying the temple , why did they go in the opposite direction south, knowing the Romans were up north , the camps the forts were all up north .
Not south,
Only Celtic people were south
Farmers , undefeated towns .
Why did they attack destroy and kill the undefended Celts.
They were the people who fought the Romans when they invaded , they tried stopping them.
So why did the Iceni choose to kill destroy the Celts who didn't stay at home ,
..
There are many questions that go against the usual story .
I also looked at the latest archaeology re population of Iceni, trinovantes and Verulamium.
I wanted to know where over 150.000 rebels came from who joined the Iceni.
..the population of the Iceni was under 15 hundred..
The population of the trinovantes was under 2300 hundred .
The population of the Catuvelauni ( London Verulamium) was no more than 3000 people.
They were the people the tribes in that whole region, that part of Britain.
There were no other tribes no other people , yet combined amount of rebels and those killed according to the history is nearly a quarter of a million people!!!
An impossible amount .
The people in the South had made peace & were doing well
They wernt unhappy there were no other tribes rebelling
That why the Romans had no soldiers or military bases in the South .
They had moved them all 500 miles away up north , where they were needed ,
But the people south who probably thought they would all be killed & have their lands stolen, be treated like slaves .
But a couple years after the invasion they realised none of that was going to happen, they kept their land & former kings were given positions of power , instead of being kings they became the equivalent of senators , prime ministers ,
Rome ruled but the Celtic people administerd the laws collected the taxes ( like they did before the Romans came, people paid taxes throughout history & we still do today .
So after 18 years life was better , they weren't constanfightung each other like they had before the Romans came,
Basically life was peaceful, they had no reason to rebel.
So they had no reason to join the Iceni.
I don't think the Iceni rebelled for reasons historians tell us .
I think there more to it , but I'm still reading researching and like a detective looking for clues , I have a couple of theories, but I'm still putting it all together .
It's sonething I've been working on for a few years
Started durin covid , staying indoors, bored so I started getting into the details of the Iceni uprising.
@@pchurchill what was a siege ??
Wonderful true story. I admire Boudica as well as the Roman general who defeated her.
Correct me if wrong, Iceni were among the tribes driven out of modern day Belgium by J. Caesar's campaigns to seek refuge and settle in Britain. They must have undoubtedly mixed up with the Celts there.
Olga Kurylenko will finally play Boudica in a full feature film, been waiting since Centurion by Neill Marshall.
The Iceni predate the Belgae.
@@hetrodoxlysonov-wh9oo Sure, and they were called the Nervii before that, I think.
@@Kaspar.C0LD Sadly, yes.
@@Kaspar.C0LDI mean it's a helluva lot more entertaining then napoleon that much is for sure
Tbh Boudica wasn't a very good fighter or general more so the Romans were pretty understaffed and spread too thin as Britain was the edge of their empire. Obviously in the main showdown a much smaller Roman force annihilated Boudica's army very quickly. Historically was Boudica a great orater and galvenizer? by most accounts yes. But was she ever realistically going to defeat the Romans or create serious damage? no. I would say Queen Zenobia and Cleopatra was similar to Boudica but a step above in terms of tact, charisma and long-term vision
Great video, too many ads but hey we've all got to make a living.
She crucified people? Come on: that was Roman culture, not Ancient Brits nor any Celts! History is written by the conquerors and propaganda is ancient. She was cruel to those who got in the way, yes but mostly against Rome's supporters. She fought back against the sadistic, greedy, brutal and extremely prejudiced Romans: thank you for your service. Boudiccea.
Crucifixion came from Persia. The Romans learned it from them and Boudicca learned it from the Romans. Simple.
You know the romans mostly copied existing traditions, right? Crucifixion is much older than rome
Made the noise of frosty woodlands, when they shiver in January,
Roar'd as when the rolling breakers boom and blanch on the precipices,
Yell'd as when the winds of winter tear an oak on a promontory.
So the silent colony hearing her tumultuous adversaries
Clash the darts and on the buckler beat with rapid unanimous hand,
Thought on all her evil tyrannies, all her pitiless avarice,
Till she felt the heart within her fall and flutter tremulously,
Then her pulses at the clamoring of her enemy fainted away.
Out of evil evil flourishes, out of tyranny tyranny buds.
Ran the land with Roman slaughter, multitudinous agonies.
Perish'd many a maid and matron, many a valorous legionary.
Fell the colony, city, and citadel, London, Verulam, Camulodune.
The pilum was not used to kill and there were not two sizes of them, they were designed to make shields useless, a kill is good but not the primary purpose. A pilum is a barbed metal rod on the end of a wooden shaft, the rod penetrates the shield, the barb makes it too difficult to remove during combat, and the wooden shaft hangs down to the ground. Moving forward with a pilum in your shield is asking to drive it into you and therefor you have to drop your shield, and all enemies of Rome used shields including the Brits. Without every soldier using a shield you cannot form a proper defensive line making your formations highly vulnerable giving a huge advantage to the Romans. The host clearly doesn't know that and misrepresented them as some sort of javelin while romanticizing the Roman legions.
When throwing pilum they were aiming at people primarily.
The added bonus and genius was designing them to stick in shields if they missed the enemy.
You do not aim at shields with a penetrating weapon if the opportunity to hit a person directly is available.....it is not at all logical, militarily, to suggest otherwise.
But like all these things, it's great to debate and have different opinions.
@@daemonharper3928you're both just speaking out your ass, especially the second guy.
We know literally nothing about how exactly Romans fought. They didn't record it because they didn't see the need as it was considered common shared knowledge. We know they had certain formations, and multiple lines of troops, but the details? We have zero idea.
What makes it more interesting is that they beat the other powers of the world, who had discovered spears as the superior weapon of warfare, and they did it with shortswords.
Most likely we assume that the pilum was used to disable shields and break solid defensive lines. No one in ancient warfare was charging full spirit at your enemy, you advanced behind your shield. You did not, and could not, aim at the person behind it.
Beyond this, we consider most formations to actually be static formations, this is why the plum was thrown from only 20-30 feet. We know that most of these formations were static as the accounts from the battles of Alexander we still held in revenue at these times where he won entire battles just by making his soldiers most three steps left the three steps right in formation.
A feat that could not be rivalled by levy armies, and showed the incredible coordination and training of his soldiers.
Most probably is that the Romans used the pilum to throw at static defensive formation until the line broke enough to advance.
@@daemonharper3928 I never said anything about aiming. If you want to go that route then they aimed at the enemy. If their shield was up then that's the target, shields are down then the soldier was the target. Either way the target is the same, the enemy target inside the reach of a thrown pilum.
Understanding historical melee combat for the time period has both sides with shields at the ready. They did formations with the shields presented as a shield wall because of arrows, spears, and javelins.. all of which are stone age weapons while the Romans were at the end of the iron age when they started using pilum's.
@@cop5144 If you observe the design of a pilum it says what it was made for. The Greek javelin or earlier stone age javelin and throwing spear was clearly meant for penetrating flesh when thrown, the Greek versions of them during the bronze age were far superior for that task than a pilum. The Romans would choose a clunky javelin/throwing spear design that has far less range than a stone age man would? No they wouldn't.
A pilum is a wood shaft with squared cut ends, one end has a metal rod inserted into it. The metal rod has a barb hook or ends in a pyramid shape. Metal rod and pointy end are plenty long enough to fatally penetrate a human through a shield if the wood shaft contacts the ground and shield while said human is moving forward.
A pilum is a shit version of a javelin. Not a good throwing spear, not even a good melee spear... metal rod length says penetrate human through shield distance perfection. Wood shaft shape says not meant for distance but perfection for gravity bringing the end of the shaft to the ground. Combined they say perfect for penetrating shields and taking them out of the equation as well as getting a few enemy kills in.
Tactics on use? Nothing I covered in my original post is about tactics. I am not a 2k year old Roman soldier so I have no idea on their tactics. I can look at one of their weapons and see it's use though. Use and tactics... not the same.
But you are the expert on tactics, so you are over 2k years old. I have one question, how the F do you have a birthday cake capable of having 2k+ candles? Blowing them out you must have bigger lungs than Superman.
@@JETWTF you truly have a peanut sized brain.
Because us iceni are tough as nails mate
You wish you were
She tortured thousands of innocent civilians, some of which included her own people, charged in without any actual plan and when she finally encountered an actual army, 10 times smaller than hers, she lost humiliatingly and because of her stupid decisions, her routing "army" was completely trapped and destroyed.
Most overrated historical figure ever, i guess because that was the only time in history the british had a rebellion instead of being on the receiving end of one. So sad she took the easy way out before Paulinus could parade her in chains on a triumph like she deserved.
Massively overrated, achieved very little, killing unarmed innocent civilians then burning 2 more towns both "empty" then killed by seutonius and his men the first people who the Iceni faced that wernt unarmed.
Whole thing over in a few weeks, towns rebuilt and all forgotten , except by a few historians who completely exaggerate the whole thing and ignore the facts.
They were originally allies of Rome, a woman had a tantrum and killed unarmed innocent Celtic people.
I heard it was different. Boud and her tribe fought a guerilla style of warfare from the forests onto thin lines of Romans This did not allow the Romans to set up their style of fighting. Boudi was not a general so did not know why they were winning. So at the final battle they met the Romans head on and that is where the Romans won.
This guerilla style was repeated by the Germans many years later in Germania. Slaughtered many Romans because they were out of formation One did not know of the other.
It is surprising that the Britons had not learned to adapt their tactics from Caesar's campaigns in Gaul and Britain and Claudius' campaign a generation earlier.
to much civil disputes amongst the tribes of Britons and Rome was very good at manipulating tribes to fight the other tribes for them....... far more organised.
Yes, though they were fairly effective against Caesar the first time.
They were illiterate and hated each other too much to learn from others.
Great video btw 👍🏽
Be interesting to see if they can find the site of the battle in my lifetime
i'll let you know soon
The land around Watling Street, where the battle may have taken place, is very acidic, so nothing would have survived.
The movie "Viking Queen" is about Boudica. "Resistance is NOT futile."
It is and it isn't.
Why?
Because hell hath no fury …
LIKE A NORFOLK GAL UPSET!
I bet the Romans committed those atrocities in London....
Excellent video.
She ate fox gloves after her army was butchered by a tactical,disciplined,military machine of the Roman army. Her tribesmen(some naked with blue woad)were slaughtered.
Not unlike 1066 when Harold II could have held back and waited out the forces of William I to run out of food and water, instead of trying to immediately confront them. Sooner or later the Romans stuck in that field, would have run out of provisions. But keeping everyone patient and not assuming you are more powerful doesn't seem to be how these groups think.
Starving out the attacking army was not possible, because armies of the time were used to "living off the land" - in other words, pillaging and sometimes razing villages of the defender, taking everything they could. That's why the defender often had to meet the attacker in battle, because if they let all they villages and fields be razed, they would starve during the winter anyway - not to mention their own people would keep asking why their ruler does nothing to protect them. The only nation who was able to effectively starve invaders was Russia - and they had to torch their own capital to do so.
"Crucifixion?.... Line on the left, one cross each".
Viciousness was par for the course. Should she have handed out asbos?
Full Respect to Warrior Queen Boudica🙏🙏🚩, She stood up against the Colonial Power of that time, Roman Empire, Just like Warrior Queen of Jhansi(Rani Manikarnika)🙏🙏🚩 and Queen Chenamma🙏🙏🚩 who fought against Colonial Power of their time, British Empire.
0:21 is anyone else experiencing poor audio quality? Idk if it’s just me because HistoryHit usually has way better quality documentaries
That was awesome! Have you got another video on the Ninth Legion and why they were famous?
They mysteriously disappeared from all historical record. They where the most celebrated Legion in the Empire but they came to Britannia and suddenly where never mentioned ever again in all Roman history. It’s a mystery
This story is important for our time, I wish there was a definitive movie about it that captures the struggle between Rome and the tribal people of Britain.
With important parallels to the present-day continuation of imperialism; where both invaders and resistors cross lines that should never be crossed.
Nothing has changed
And the moral of this story? Don't piss off the Iceni! The battle of Watling Street was won due to Suetonius's superior use of the surrounding geography. Boudica lost because her need for vengeance overcame her tactical good sense.
Im sorry but under no circumstances can the roman general who ordered the rape of Boudica's daughters be called a protagonist.
The Procurator was not a general. He was the senior financial official in the province, acting on behalf of financial interests in Rome.
The Welsh Silures war leader Caradoc deserves far more respect than Boudicca, who basically threw a huge strop for a few weeks before leading her army to total defeat and then killed herself. She just damaged towns and burned old residents to death. Caradoc, after defeat in the south east, went to Wales where he knew the Silures had a fearsome reputation and they welcomed him with open arms. He led them in battle after battle for nine years before being captured when the Brigantes in the Midlands dobbed him in. He was extraordinarily freed by the Roman senate after a powerful speech and his family were housed at a site called the Palladium Britannicum , the British Palace, off the Via Urbana, not far from the Coliseum. I have visited this site which now houses the Filipino Church in Rome. His daughter was renamed Claudia under the wing of a senator and married Rufus Pudens and the House of Pudens became the earliest site of Christianity in Rome. Indeed, Caradoc’s relative, Linus, became the first Bishop of Rome and St Paul is believed to have visited the home. The Catholics much later decided to name Peter as the first pope because he had been a disciple of Jesus, but many historians doubt he ever visited Rome before being taken there for execution. The Pudens family were also martyred. Despite the loss of their leader, the Silures continued their battles against Rome and there is clear evidence that they defeated a legion, either the Second Augustan, based at nearby Caerleon, or the Twentieth, possibly from Chester. Tacitus tells us the Silures “usurped the Empire”, which was Roman code for a legionary defeat. He also says that the Silures could not be won over either by sternness or clemency. The Silures fought on for another twenty years after Caradoc’s capture. There is doubt that they were ever fully defeated. Many think the two sides tired of the constant decades long battles and came to terms, possibly at Cardiff, Caerdydd, the City of the Treaty in old Welsh. The Romans certainly built them the wonderful town of Caerwent to run as a civitas. The town is well worth visiting as the remains are remarkable, the town walls themselves being very high still in places. Today it is believed by many that evidence of the Silures can be seen in the wooded slopes above Garndiffaith and Pontypool in Gwent, where ancient defensive walls are several feet wide and in places as high as two metres. There are also many grave mound shapes (Garndiffaith means the multitude of graves or the desolate graves). And the old name on maps for the Lasgarn Wood near Pontypool was the British Carn Wood (the British grave mound wood).
Very interesting what happened to Caratacus/ Caradoc after his speech in Rome, I knew he was allowed to live and given a decent place , but I always thought he was kinda under house arrest and wasn't allowed to leave Rome, but who knows.
London should have a statue of him Not boudicca, I mean she burned the place down ,
Boudicca/ iceni were originally allies of Rome , by their own choice.
Caratacus fought and carried on fighting, until the slag queen cartimandau drugged his wine and handed him over to the Romans.
Boudicca was nothing, destroyed a couple of towns that were soon rebuilt . The whole thing was over within a couple of months,
But like you said Caratacus/ Caradoc and his Welshmen caused havoc to the Romans for 10 years.
Yet hardly anyone has ever heard of him. .. :/
I live in StAlbans, ( originally the catuvellauni capital city verulamio , the Romans called it verulamium) where he was born.
We have some of his ( Caratacus/ Caradoc ) silver coins in the local museum.
And also a video about him his story, refusing to surrender he left verulamium took his gold and silver and most importantly his best most loyal warriors and headed for Wales..
@@kevwhufc8640 thanks for the extra details Kev. Very interesting. I totally agree there should be statues of Caradoc in the south east and in south Wales. By the way, after his betrayal to the Romans by the Brigantes, the Silures carried on the fight without him for another twenty years. Tacitus says it was as if they were even more angered by the fate of their erstwhile great leader. St Albans should be rightly proud of their heroic son. The Welsh certainly are. In Trevethin, near Pontypool, not far from some of those ancient defensive walls, there is a Caradoc Road to this day.
@@petrovonoccymro9063 some info I thought might interest you.
I remember our local museum hoped to buy the only known Caratacus gold coin when it was for sale at auction in 2020 , experts said it could fetch as much as £30 grand, it ended up selling for £88.000 !!
Thdy are only small things, about the size of our 1p .
It was originally found by a metal detecorist in a field near Newbury, which isn't too far from Wales ,
One side it shows Caratacus on a horse holding a javelin and shield & the reverse side has an image of barley with C NO ( his father Cunobelin.
I do a bit of metal detecting now and then , if I found one I'd sell it but have a replica made.
For some reason Celtic kings/ coins, never have their whole name, just part of it , the silver Caratacus only have CARA , the gold one has CARAT , I guess its less hassle for the bloke who has to carve the name and design into a hard bronze die, and such a small space too.
Molten gold would be poured into moulds and the blank discs taken out & placed between the bronze dies that have the images of the front of back , then a guy would hit it really hard and the design would be forced into the gold discs, (same with silver & copper coins.
Known as "Hammered coins ".
All coins were made that way until the late 16th century.
...Sod that for a job ,
In our version of Turkic, bood means prosperous, victor, felicit, haunch... And KA is a name making suffix.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Isn't Ankara a celtic name?
@@teiloturner2760 No, its Greek and means Ankhor, the Turks did not built ONE city in Asia Minor
@@joek600 well I know that's around where they lived from several hundred BC as well as other places tyere i think
@@teiloturner2760 You are right, there were Celts living there after a massive migration. But the name of the region is Greek. In fact in the New Testament the letter to Galatians, refers exactly to these Celts. The Greeks called them Galates cause their skin was white as milk ''Gala'' (aka Gala-xy)
My favourite early Briton
She was an allow of Rome
The Iceni didn't fight the Romans with other tribes like they should've when they invaded in 42 .
They stayed home , & only kicked off 18 years later.
Inhabitants of England at that time were Celts. I wonder why you call them British? After the disengagement of the Romans, waves of Saxons, Angles and Jutes took over. Later a layer of Danes were added to the pot.
I know romans changed the name of the island from Albion to Britannia, but calling those people British is historically incorrect because nobody called them that at the time.
Nobody called them Celts
Why depict her wielding a sword?
She's highly unlikely to have engaged in actual combat herself.
2:36: Iceni - pronounced "i - KE - ni", not "eye - SEE - ni"
They're not pronouncing classical latin names correctly either, who cares.
The defeat of Boudicca, her suicide, and the continuation of Roman rule in Britannia for nearly 400 years is a happy ending to this story. If you're Italian.
Before Roman rule Celtic tribes constantly fought killed other tribes , took heads as trophies.
After Roman rule , saxons brits angles then Danes constantly fought each other killing robbing raping .
Norman's fought each other , Stephen matilda using Brit soldiers, they went on crusades killing raping robbing, English knights went to France fighting robbing killing destroying.
After France they came back and fought each other ( York v Lancaster) fighting etc etc.
Tudors, stewarts, Cromwell,jacobites all the same things ,
The Roman empire was 400 years in Britain
99% calm peaceful
The longest spell this island has ever had without fighting killing.
The most productive , inventive , spell in our history .
@@kevcaratacus9428 So in other words, British people don't like each other?
Does her struggle against the oppressors resonate today?
Certainly it is in line with the military reaction to mass rape perpetrated in the Negev on 7 October 2023.
Gonna need a video on the vietnamese history mentioned at the end now!
Cassius dio makes Boudicca sound like Glenda Jackson - a formidable woman. It's unlikely Boudicca had 80,000 soldiers, 10,000 to 30,000 max. The population was not that large and the norfolk population was a small fraction of the overall British population.
Certainly not unheard of for historians to exaggerate. Fortunately modern historians use mathematical models that predict how many troops can be supplied in a given setting, always resulting in a much smaller number. Remember the British also had many non-combatants with them. Still, I wouldn't doubt that Romans were vastly outnumbered.
He said the size was between 125,000 to 250,000.
@@lw3646 yeah? And many thousands of them were not combatants.
Stand far apart or you might hear one another.
She was a Celt …. Not an Anglo the brits should stop with appropriating Celtic history… and give our lands back
Do you know what a Briton is?
Celtic lands are on the continent. Invaders to the British Isles.
The ‘anglos’ only arrived AFTER the Roman legions left Britain in c 400 AD. Check your history. The folks living in Britain at the time of ‘Boadicea’ were the ancestors of modern-day Welsh. In Welsh, ‘Boadicea’ is BUDDIG, which was ‘latinized’ by the Romans to Boadicea. Just as the Welsh for ‘Britain - Prydain 32:41 - was latinized to Britannia, and the Welsh for ‘Anglesey’ - Mon - was latinized to Mona.
@@carolinesharp Yes, Britannia is where the Britons live and it was 410AD when the Romans left. Even in England about 70% of their DNA is from the people of the Iron age; A/S DNA amounts to about only 20% the further east you go. The author is calling the Britons, A/S, which they are not.
@@carolinesharp Welsh are celts
Is the music authentic Roman?