Irrational Boudicca

[AthenaK]

Having read about Boudicca's defeat at the hands of Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, I must say that Boudicca is not worth all the hype she recieves. I am sure that the casualty statistics of her defeat are exaggerated, but even so.... :?

Yes, I can understand why she would be so confident, but why so wasteful? Is there any good reason why she behaved as such, or was she just indifferent to the idea that perhaps there was an easier path to victory?

(Thanks Sulla, I was going to just write this topic off, but you convinced me to revive it with your response wink: )

Athena

[sulla felix]

Do not forget that Mrs. Boudicca had pretty much destroyed Verulamium and Londinium before encountering Paulinus (if memory serves). Were it not for the indsicipline of her army things may have turned out very differently. What we see in the final battle is a clinical Roman army in action against a disorganised and over confident mass of part time warriors.

Try not to be too hard on her!

[AthenaK]

Yeah, I suppose I should ease up a little.
But she should have known better. I guess hindsight vision is 20 20, but even I know better than to send rabble head on at a Roman Legion like that! She should have had some degree of appraisal for her own troops and the troops of her enemy.
If one looks at the example of T.E. Lawrence one could see that perhaps she could have been more effective. Lawrence realized that with the makeup and psychology of his troops he could not afford to fight pitched battles against the Turks. He wrote in Seven Pillars;

" In Turkey things were scarce and precious, men less esteemed than equipment. Our cue was to destroy, not the Turks army, but his minerals. The death of a Turkish bridge or rail, machine or gun or charge of high explosive, was more profitable to us than the death of a Turk. In the Arab Army at the moment we were chary both of materials and of men. Governments saw men only in mass; but our men, being irregulars, were not formations, but individuals. An individual death, like a pebble dropped in water, might make but a brief hole; yet rings of sorrow widened out therefrom. We could not afford casualties"

IMHO Lawrence is one of the best leaders ever, managing to lead such a bedraggled group to victory. But yeah, the above passage is a good example of how an appraisal of the combatants can prevent crushing defeats such as Boudicca's.

Athena

[sulla felix]

Athena,

I think the "rabble" had gained huge confidence from sacking Verulamium and Londinium, and pretty much any Roman establishment in between. Paulinus was on the brink of losing the province, mainly due to the strange reluctance of Leg 2 Augusta (I think - apologies if this is wrong!) to engage with the enemy. His forced march from Anglessey (where he was "attending" to the Druids I believe) pretty much saved the day.

I cocnur regarding your thoughs on Lawrence - if only he had been successful (and listened to) in his vision for the Middle East. I think we may have been living in a very different world today.

[AthenaK]

Ahhh, so maybe the army charged without the urging of Boudicca? That could make sense. Boudicca's keyed up army might have just seen the inferior numbers of Paulinus and charged out of false confidence. Is maybe what happened?

Athena

[Praefectusclassis]

And to throw a spanner in the works: you should always be careful with trusting Tacitus' battle descriptions. He's not known for giving the most clinical versions, but may well be - I am not saying he does here - painting a picture of 'barbarian behaviour'.

[Conal]

How can you call the Celts barbarians... indeed... One must not assume the Farmer during the week, Warrior at the weekend position as there would be an elite who's main function was fighting ( & drinking & boasting & chariot riding & drinking & boasting etc etc).

The model is a "heroic" one not a military one and as such the differences put the advantage with the Romans. The Celt was a war band memeber and no doubt belong to warrior societies who valued abstract notions of honour based on family& tribal ties. Closest I can think of is the Sioux at teh time of the Little Big Horn or the Battle of the Greasy Grass as they knew it.

Whilst there would be an element of add-ons to this elite, which may have caused problems with command & control the main body of warriors would have dicipline but edged with the free nature of a Celtic warrior.( For an example of battle dicipline see battle of Telamon, where the host would have mainly been elite warriors without the farmer compliment )

If you look at the developement of Celtic war gear you will see the improvement of the shield to meet the chalenge of a phalanx, a sword suspension system which allowed running at full charge without uncontrolable bounce, mail ( possibly ?) and of course helmets the Romans liked so much the bought the company. They were a sophisicated and innovative bunch.

I simply dont accept that Boudica thew a rabble at the romans ... the Romans were just better

[sulla felix]

Conal,

First off I would question the usefulness of the term "Celt" when applying it to Boudicca, and for that matter any Late Pre-Roman Iron Age inhabitants of southern UK. (see Professor John Collis's recent work on this topic).

By using the term "rabble" I was trying to convey that this was not an organised army, and I think your own reply illustrates this point. I was certainly not implying that they were in any way unsophisticated. It really is questionable IMHO that Boudicca had control over what was likely to have been a very diverse group of people by the time that they encoutered Paulinus.

[AthenaK]

I simply dont accept that Boudica thew a rabble at the romans ... the Romans were just better

Yes, I fully realize that the Romans were better, but I just find it hard to imagine that Boudicca didn't take that into account and do something other than what she did.

Athena

[Peroni]

Do not forget that Mrs. Boudicca had pretty much destroyed Verulamium and Londinium before encountering Paulinus (if memory serves).

And Colchester (Camulodunum) as well! You can still see the burn layer a metre or two down in the soil! The Britons surrounded the survivors inside the temple of Claudius and burned them alive inside! (Nice!)

Try not to be too hard on her

Wouldn't you be hard on a 'witch' that was hell-bent on ethnic cleansing!?
:wink:

[sulla felix]

Peroni,

I think you have taken my "try not to be too hard on her" quote a little out of context. Athena K was questioning why Boudicca had got such good hype as a leader/commander when her army gave such a pitiful (if the sources are to be believed) final display against Paulinus.

Speaking as a "Roman", she obviously deserved everything she got :twisted:

[Peroni]

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

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

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

That's just damned careless planning! :wink:

[Conal]

Conal,

First off I would question the usefulness of the term "Celt" when applying it to Boudicca, and for that matter any Late Pre-Roman Iron Age inhabitants of southern UK. (see Professor John Collis's recent work on this topic).

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

I will certainly see the professors book, due by 21st so Amazon promise.

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

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

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

Possibly propoganda to show how wild the rest of the Pratani were or perhaps showing that he was conquering more than one people ? he certainly differentiated the Belgic peoples from the Gauls of Southern ( France ) Europe. There is thought that these were more German than Gaulish and such peoples may have had conections with what is now Yorkshie(the Parisii).

I presume that Prof Collis deals with this in his book but culturally they are not that far part and are bound to be a mixture original and newcomers. The name Trinovates, which the wicked queen led with the Icini, may mean newcomers so might be part of a Belgic influx.

I may call them Celtish-Pretani for the moment, shortened to Celt 8)

[sulla felix]

Peroni,

How could I have forgotten Camulodunum :oops:

Was it Leg 2 Augusta that failed to leave their fortress (Isca - Exeter?) and deal with the situation earlier? I cannot remember and do not have the sources to hand. I seem to remember that it is portrayed this way in the Simon Scarrow novels, and a certain Emperor to be (Vespasian) was a little embaressed by the whole scenario?

[Conal]

I simply dont accept that Boudica thew a rabble at the romans ... the Romans were just better

Yes, I fully realize that the Romans were better, but I just find it hard to imagine that Boudicca didn't take that into account and do something other than what she did.

Athena

Assuming she had a choice. She may have known help was on the way and had to act faster than she wanted to ... unfortunaely she did not write the history so we will never know the motivation but in my view no matter what she did at that time in the game she would have to face a legion in the field and even with a numerical advantage they were going to lose.