A place to share history memes!
Rules:
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
No fascism, atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
Boudicca had everything to defeat the Romans and keep pressure on them. The problem was her main method of attack was comparable to WW1 generals, just rush them. Give the same forces to the leader of a later Celtic revolt and they would've pushed Rome from Britain.
What later Celtic revolts? Literally, Boudica was the last and largest major indigenous revolt in Britain. The Romans were very good at assimilating the provincials into thinking of themselves as part of Rome.
She didn't have a whole lot of choice, given the forces at her command. She didn't have a professional army. She didn't even have a traditional tribal levy. She had an angry mob consisting of dozens of different tribes with minimal military training or experience. You don't have a lot of options for command and control in such a situation.
Doubtful. A mob of even 100,000 isn't a match for 10,000 trained professionals. There's a reason the Romans chose to make a stand even with so few troops, and it's not because they craved dying.
Pretty sure there were several revolts in modern Northern England, they weren't major by any means but they were a pain in the ass.
Boudicca couldve at better separated out her men by experience, something like inexperienced work as skirmishers and then the most experienced and best equipped put pressure on any noticed weak points. This is quite literally a type of mob tactics, the mob does it's thing and causes chaos while vaguely competent people go and cause directed damage.
She couldve committed to starvation tactics, attack Roman supplies and small individual elements. If it takes an extended period of time, well in her case the empire may just decide to give up and pull out of Britain, they were practically looking for an excuse to abandon the province by that point. Otherwise it'd allow reorganizing of forces and hope the Romans don't bring in another legion or two.
Pretty sure there were several revolts in modern Northern England, they weren't major by any means but they were a pain in the ass.
"Not major" is a bit of a major problem. You're talking much more localized revolts which would have found considerable opposition as they went further south, even from the civilian population. The idea of a Briton 'nation' is not well-formed in this period; they would be even more alien than the Romans.
Boudicca couldve at better separated out her men by experience, something like inexperienced work as skirmishers and then the most experienced and best equipped put pressure on any noticed weak points. This is quite literally a type of mob tactics, the mob does it's thing and causes chaos while vaguely competent people go and cause directed damage.
Do you know how much time and effort that would take to separate out 100,000 people, speaking several different languages? Do you know how difficult it is to coordinate 100,000 people, even loosely? Do you know what trouble that would be when they're all of different tribes, with different motivations for being part of the rebellion, and intensely suspicious of one another? Do you know how difficult it is to coordinate even a small group during active combat? Especially one without prior training in formation movement? In a battle consisting of over 100,000 human beings?
She couldve committed to starvation tactics, attack Roman supplies and small individual elements. If it takes an extended period of time, well in her case the empire may just decide to give up and pull out of Britain, they were practically looking for an excuse to abandon the province by that point. Otherwise it'd allow reorganizing of forces and hope the Romans don't bring in another legion or two.
That would've been a Roman dream come true, considering that would allow the Romans to commit to defeating Boudicca's forces in-detail, something which smaller Roman forces repeatedly did to 'barbarian' forces which could not sustain their full force in the field for an extended period for lack of organized military supply lines.
And if the question is "who starves first?", it's going to be Boudicca's force.
Fair enough, though I will hold that she could've split off some of the more experienced tribes and had them doing specific things outside of the general run amok thing.
Also my point about the later revolts was about commander quality not if they could've succeeded. That they could've handled Boudiccas coalition better than Boudicca herself. Basically just a hypothetical.
Also the Romans were considering just abandoning Britain before the revolt, it's entirely possible that if Boudicca focused on being scary and sowing terror she may have won. She basically had a minor chance at best to win in any situation where she got into open combat.
Fair enough, though I will hold that she could've split off some of the more experienced tribes and had them doing specific things outside of the general run amok thing.
It had been almost twenty years since the Roman conquest. Endemic warfare had declined sharply - there weren't many experienced warriors left - especially as Rome would've recruited many of them and sent them elsewhere in the Empire.
Also the Romans were considering just abandoning Britain before the revolt,
Where did you get that idea?
it's entirely possible that if Boudicca focused on being scary and sowing terror she may have won.
Was butchering Roman towns and torturing their inhabitants to death not scary enough?
Boudicca hit most of the biggest coloniae in Britain at the time. There weren't many more targets to 'sow terror' in.
Fuck I can't remember where I got that the Romans were getting fed up with Britain. Pretty sure it was a book I read when I was like 17 that listed off a bunch of the shit that lead up to the great Celtic revolt. It was basically a bunch of letters where the governor and emperor were going over cost value shit, the conclusion was that is worth it but only barely.
Also fair enough about the towns, she probably destroyed every non Celtic settlement by the end.
Also forgot that the warriors would've been old at best, but depending on traditions it's possible some warriors would've existed. They simply wouldn't be experienced so still not great.
Fuck I can't remember where I got that the Romans were getting fed up with Britain. Pretty sure it was a book I read when I was like 17 that listed off a bunch of the shit that lead up to the great Celtic revolt. It was basically a bunch of letters where the governor and emperor were going over cost value shit, the conclusion was that is worth it but only barely.
I'm not familiar with that exact exchange, but it was definitely openly discussed, both before and after the conquest, that Britain was not a good financial investment for the Empire. Funny enough, a pre-conquest Roman writer suggests that Britain was worth more unconquered, since they could tax imports and exports at tariff rates instead of internal portoria rates.
The thing is, the main imperial concern in the conquest of Britain was not so much financial as security. And private Roman interests very quickly took root and established very profitable connections in Britain - private interests which would not have been silent about a proposed pull-out.
I think Suetonius(?) suggests that Nero considered pulling out because of the rebellion, before the news reached Rome that it was put down. After it was put down, such notions were dropped.
The boys/girls time travel meme is unnecessarily gendered.
Everybody wants to do cool shit with a time machine.
Plus, my grandma was awesome!
I just want my cat
I would count "snatching your cat from the clutches of a terrible fate" as cool shit.
:(
Does instantly donating it to science count as "cool shit"?
Only if you land it with a kick flip.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0993710/
Plug for Lucy Lawless docuseries called Warrior Women. It's a good show. The have an idea that if Boudica was able to push back the Romans, then Britain wouldn't have been ready to conquer the world after them.
The whole colonial expansion would have been different. Probably still bad, but Boudica and her followers had more women's rights than Britain. Maybe a more Iceni looking united states.
Imagine the ammo you'll have to drag with you? You'll need massive amounts for a heavy machine gun.
Small arms fire would be better. But be careful. Reverse engineering with a found casing would happen. Changing the world forever.
Nobody:
The Romans after some reverse engineering:
Yep, this inevitably leads to Space Romans.
Imagine if some of the high ups in Rome heard that Boudicca had a mysterious craft that can shoot small darts at impossible speed. If anyone had such weapon, they will conquer the world.
Space romans:
On the other hand, they might dismiss it as a waste of ammunition. AFAIK There are Roman sources which complain about the polybolos being one.
You sure? As far as I know, there aren't any Roman sources about use of the polybolos.
Unfortunately I don't remember exactly where I read this, but I think it might have been on an explanatory sign next to a reconstructed polybolos in a museum a long time ago.
Obviously this is just a fun hypothetical but I doubt the Romans could learn anything valuable even from an entire captured weapon system because they simply could not create the base materials to duplicate it. Modern steel is far beyond their reach, it would seem like alien technology.
On the other hand, the Romans were really, really good at adapting technologies and equipment from not only conquered peoples, but also their enemies. Remember when they simply copied Carthage's ships and replaced Carthage as the dominant naval power in the Mediterranean?
The comparison does not hold up though. They were great at adapting same-era technology, but they would literally have to invent industrialisation and modern steel industry for them to be able to replicate a modern day machinegun. That is not something they would be able to do just by examining the object.
Yeah that's a fair take. No way they get anywhere close to making a modern gun.
I bet they'd make a cannon instead.
Steel is probably the matter of least concern, here. You can make a gun out of theoretically near-anything, so long as its service life is not a concern. Happening upon the formula for gunpowder and mercury fulminate by mere observation, though, would be like winning the lottery after being given a free ticket as a promo for being the millionth person to walk through the convenience store doors.
I mean, I'm pretty sure after getting the front lines raked just a few times, the resolve of the Romans would be pretty battered.
Counterpoint: Second Punic War. Can't be worse than the shit Hannibal was up to.
I mean, Hannibal routed the Romans in the battles. He just couldn't stop the stupid bastards from coming back for more after a month or two.
In 9 CE, the Germans under Arminius' command obliterated the 3 Roman Legions of Varus and thus, put an end on the Roman plan of conquering Germania magna.
I blame autocracy
I still want a long form biopic/ docudrama treatment on this topic. 3 seasons minimum.
Rome Sweet Rome