BTW, it is nice to be able to find the historical documentaries the HISTORY Channel hardly plays anymore because they are too busy playing reality crap that has little to do with history.
Guys, Boudicca and her tribe mercilessly tortured and slaughtered innocent people too. Many of them old, sick and children left behind in the Roman cities because of inability to flee. She never really got the Roman generals and leaders who were really responsible for the crap done to her people.
Like mother like daughters! Warrior Queen Boudicca, you and your fighting women are the only reason I'm proud to be a Celtic Woman! My #1 fave hero when I was a teenager. XD BOUDICCA!
Caeser bragged about being personally responsible for the death of over a MILLION Gauls. The Romans murdered whole tribes as they extended their Empire - men, women and children. They destroyed Carthage and scattered salt so nothing would ever grow there again. Boudicca was an ally of Rome until she was whipped and her daughters raped. It was a classic case of those who lived by the sword dying by the sword. As Tacitus said: "The Romans create a desert and call it peace."
War determines who was right by who won, you don't go to war as good vs. evil. Humans have a very hard time with that truth. I side with Boudicca...Rome had its way long enough like an empirical mafia. Living in one I am anti-empire. There are perks but at the sacrifice of truly living
She sacked 2 cities...that were unguarded...And she lost to a roman army that was 3 times smaller than hers by ordering a blind charge. She was A HORRIBLE commander. Respectful because she stood up for her people but she had NO idea what she was doing.
@rosepetal282 She didnt try to save england ...She tried to save britain, england didnt exist then , and england was made from the germanic tribe from jutland Angles...Britain was something else.England has nothing to do with the britons.
@rosepetal282 2 problems with that reasoning of yours. #1 England didn't exist yet. The Saxons and Angles did not yet make landfall on the British Isles and establish their own kingdoms. #2 If Boudicca was alive during a Anglo-Saxon invasion, i'm sure she would ahve fought against them too.
Ironically, the very nation you claim Boudicca defended would be one i'm positive she would oppose.
@VictumRoManius That's because Attila threatened civilization itself. He not only conquered, but wantonly destroyed. And Attila was the invader, the transgressor. Boudicca, on the other hand, was a British chieftain, a genuine warrior queen of a recently conquered , restive people. Boudicca fought not to conquer but to defend. She fought for freedom & damn near drove the Romans out. Indeed her rebellion may have influenced Hadrian, who eventually built a defensive wall to keep the Scots at bay.
@mightymissk Yeah you have a point there. But you should know that Atilla is overrated when it comes to cruelty.
He was cruel, but nearly not as cruel as the romans want us to believe. Persian sources do not describe him like that and neither does some other people who lived there.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL You're right about Boudicca. Picky, but right. Boudicca would have thought of herself as Queen of the Iceni, one of the Celtic tribes of the island of Albion. It was indeed the Romans who called her island Britannia. But you're wrong about Attila. His conquests may have rivaled Alexander's but all he did is destroy. He left nothing. But Alexander seeded half the world with Greek culture & Greek ideas. From the Ptolemies, to Indian Art we can still see Alexander's influence.
I will almost agree, but alexander does not come close, to Attila. The reason is Attila the great OWNED the Romans & carved one of the largest empires ever.
Alexander is greatly exaggerated. He was defeated in 8 years conquering tribes, then later defeated by Afghans & Indians. True his winover the Persians was good.
But you can not compare Attila with alexander. Attila was KARMA against Roman barbarism.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Attila was part of a human tidal wave of peoples, originating in Asia, who swept across the steppes, into Europe. He was only the last of Rome's conquerors. The Goths, Ostrogoths & Visigoths came first. Attitla was a highly skilled military leader--but nothing more. He came, he saw, he conquered--and he left. Alexander, on the other hand, actively sought to know the peoples he encountered. I am not sure I believe in Karma, but I believe all conquest, all war, is barbarism.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I never claimed Alexander "seeded half the world" whatever that means. I claimed that Alexander's conquests & his explorations of India spread Greek culture across much of the ancient world. And I am right. Alexander was, in turn, influenced by the Asian civilizations he encountered. Claiming that "the PRIMITIVE GREEKS" were civilized by Asia" is just untrue. Classical Greek civilization grew & flourished long before Alexander was born. You seem to have your own agenda here.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Actually, yes I did. I did claim Alexander "seeded half the world" but what I was talking about--and what you have clearly taken out of context--is cultural influence. Of course, Asian cultures, particularly Indian culture was already thousands of years old before Alexander encountered it. No one is disputing that. But these cultures were impacted by Alexander. From Egypt, all the way to Afghanistan, the Greeks left their mark. And they, in turn, were influenced. Enough.
How can alexander seed half the world, when he never conquered anything but tribes??? The GREAT Persian empire was dissolved. These claims are baseless & lies.
AGAIN you are SPEWING LIES, how can the greeks alexander have influence when they were DEFEATED???
You have absolute ignorance. I enjoy crushing LIARS.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Check your history Alexander was never defeated and beat King Porus in India. And the Persians still had an empire which vastly outnumbered Alexanders.
If you are not honest I suggest you keep your fantasy to yourself!! ALEXANDER was deafted on many occasions, he was defeated by Afghan warriors, which he turned round, then later PASSIVE INDIANS defeated alexander, otherwise India would be under control!!
WESTERN HISTORIANS are not taken seriously due to BLACK LIES!! Alexnader is nothing compared ro REAL CONQUOERES such as TIMUR(tamerlane), who conqured INDIA hence the Great Mughul Empire, Atilla etc etc
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL It is just like eastern historians to make lies up with their defeats. Explain why India gave chariots to Alexander. Explain the coins with Alexander in India. And if the Indians were passive why did they have 1000s of war elephants.
If you admire so be it, BUT be honest in his achivements, he is greatly exaggerated!! Compare to TIMURIDE, ATTILA, or even Hannibal. CHINGHIS KHAN has created the largest empire ever known, dwarfing the brits!!
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL They were also great conquerors but according to wikipedia the Brits had the largest empire (non-contiguous). h t t p : / / en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#Largest_empires_by_land_area_and_population
WIKIPEDIA come on, that is not a good source at all. The Britts is 4nations, MONGOL 1 NATION. The Brits used to DECLARE which is not conquring, the MONGOLS simply CONQURED, they are the only ones ever to conqure all of Russia & ASIA including half of Europe, all the way pass Poland & some parts of Africa too. The greatest what IF too.
"half naked Indians" India is thee most ancient civilization perhaps race on the planet!!! Euro langguages are traced back to INDIA the VEDA civilization!! Even older SANSKRIT & TAMIL!!
Europe & African history is what 7000yrs old including the MATRIARCHS!!
ASIAN or in this case INDIAN is at least 20 000yrs old+. MATHS, COSMOLOGY, PYRAMNID buildings, ALMOST ALL RELIGIONS, philospohy, astrology, CULTURE etc etc is all traced back to MAHA BHRAT or INDIA!!!
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I agree with all you have said about Culture maths Religion ,philospohy, astrology, maths, but India's Armies did not even contend to Alexanders Companions,Hypaspists,Phalangite. Fever killed Alexander not half naked rabble.
"This is why the world does not take western historians seriously & LAUGHED AT!!"
No only Asian Nationalists take western accounts of history as lies, mainly Indian nationalist who have an irrational fear of being militarily weak and Japanese about WW2
PRIMITVE INFERIOR GREEKS was defeated by the most ancient race MAHA BHARAT or INDIANS!!!
iT NEVER ceases to amaze me your KIND of inferiority, creating lies!!
From the FLAT EARTH to fake aryan invasion, then KULUMBUS discovering NEW world when natives were there, not to mention fake racists names JESUS, PAUL, PETER, whom are all ASIAN heritage, these r examples of lies created, NOW your kind thinks INFERIOR GREEKS was not defeated LOL.
Western historians are not taken seriously, creating bigOted CONSIRACY THEORIES!!! mATRIARCH CIVILIZATION is a lot older then INFERIOR SAVGE ROME or GREECE!! They have been following ASIAN religions for 3000years!!! Even though they take away ASIANS names.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL since Atilla the Hun died when he was 47 and Alexander died when he was 32 i would say Atilla had 15 more years to invade Rome, which Alexander had been planning.
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I am disappointed. I thought this was the beginning of an interesting historical discussion. But you seem to have the need to be insulting. You also seem to be hostile to Western civilization, whether you're talking about the Greeks, under Alexander, or the Romans being defeated by Attila. You appear to divide the world into the bad, "primitive" Westerners and the good Asians. That is an emotional response. And it is bigoted. Have a nice life.
@mightymissk Don't bother replying to TheBENGALHANNIBAL, he is a ranting conspiracy theorist with an inferiority complex, it's like trying to talk to a Japanese or German nationalist about WW2, they will just deny it ever happened.
@MrGilles1990 I had forgotten all about it. I agree with your assessment. Engaging this man is like shouting down a rain barrel. He can't hear me and he's not going to hear me because I'm just an evil Westerner. But thanks for the good advice anyway.
@VictumRoManius The reason is (which i don't agree with) is that the romans CONQUERED britania, and the brit's tried to reclaim it. atilla was a conquerer. if you are the rebellion, you are given a higher moral ground then the conquerer in general, meaning you can do worse stuff and still be seen as a hero.
@VictumRoManius I'm a history major and I've never heard of anyone representing Attila as this giant a-hole who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Romans. He's more celebrated as a barbarian tribal leader who managed to out smart the Romans and bring together tribes that had once been separated due to various disputes. Something that no one had done before him.
@VictumRoManius The Britons under her command were either fierce tribal house guards or conscripts, and both hated the Romans with a passion. The conscripts, peasants levied by the lords and nobility, had lost their freedom and way of life The house guards and nobility, on the other hand, hated the Romans even more, with their glory and riches being taken with one fell swoop by the Romans. I say this because there is no morality at all in this battle, only society against society.
@VictumRoManius The difference in attitudes towards the two probably lies with the fact that Attila was an invader and a conqueror threatening to destroy Roman civilization, whereas Boudicca was a defender of her country and her people against an invasion that threatened to destroy the Celtic cultures of Britain...
Damn those were cutting edge graphics at the time? They look like they were pulled from Runescape. The sad part is this was likely made within the last decade =/
@pzdump86 it isnt the graphics that is cutting edge. its the sheer number of units in each battle. i mean it can hold more than 10000 units at a time, and all the while maintaining the amazing fire arrow and fire projectile effects. therefore, if you wish to enjoy the game to the max, you need to have a pretty fast computer even now
she was an awsome politician she joined the british under one flag buth she wasn't a good general she should gave the command of the soldiers to another commander
WE fight without shields, so we can wield better our weapons. Romans are too cowardly to fight like us. We don't retreat. We fight to the death, as did Boudicca.
@celticbattleaxe If there is one thing about war is there is no such thing as a cowardly way of fighting. As long as you defeat the enemy then that is great. Cowardly way of fighting is a term used only because those tactics used against them work. Like the Indians against the British, or the US and the and the insurgents.
@CrimsonGuard1992 Actually they don't. Acts of heroism keep the troops going, not a cowardly leader who is unwilling to face the enemy. There are no rules of war. Are guerilla tactics cowardly? No, not if you attack your opponent with the utmost audacity, as did William Wallace, Owain Gyndwr, Robert the Bruce, and of course, Montrose.
Rule 3 in Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' - DRIVE A STAKE THROUGH THE ENEMY'S HEART.
Read the book sometime - it really is a great composition.
@celticbattleaxe I did read the book. Romans being too cowardly? They did not conquer a thousand year empire by groveling in the dirt when barbarians came at them. The Roman commander leading from the rear is not cowardly if that is what you are trying to say. What good is a commander if he is dead? Although leading from the front is heroic but at times it is foolish.
@CrimsonGuard1992 Yes, but as a commander, you have to take a risk at some point. Look at Henry V of England. At Agincourt (1415), he stood and fought with his men while beating the odds against him 5 to 1 (his army was 1/5 the size of the French's), and he even personally saved the life of the Duke of Gloucester.
Again, at Bannockburn (1314), Robert the Bruce stood with his schiltrons and charged a much larger English army head on. A good commander needs to take risks knowing his weaknesses.
@celticbattleaxe Yes at some point a commader must lead from the front. But like in the last Battle of the War of 1812 at Fort Bowyer, the British lost their entire command staff. The 1st, 2nd, & 3rd in commands where all killed. In the War for Independence the US all targeted the officers, with one British Regiment losing 10 of its 11 officers in a single engagement. They did not adapt to the fact that the US was targeting officers on purpose and considered it not the actions of a gentlemen
@CrimsonGuard1992 EXACTLY :) commanders must know when to accompany their troops in battle and when to "pull out" (not retreating). What you are saying is understandable. In the Battle of Hastings of 1066, Harold II of the Saxons positioned himself with his personal guard, the huscarls (picture a ten-foot tall ax-wielding Saxon, and you've got the image :) ), on Senlac Hill. The Normans could NOT break their shield wall formation after charging on and on all day. However, Harold's luck ran...
@CrimsonGuard1992 ...out when an arrow pierced his eye from the Norman archers. When he fell, his whole army disintegrated into fleeing Saxons and made easy prey for the Norman cavalry. Before this the cavalry performed a feigned retreat twice, with the second time working. About half of the Saxons charged down the hill (mostly the fyrd) and were slaughtered when the cavalry turned around and charged from their "retreat". Harold saw this and attempted to reorganize the rest of his men, ...
@celticbattleaxe I'm also sure that the US considers the taliban's guerrilla tactics cowardly. I heard in an interview with some US soldiers that they consider the use if IED's to be cowardly. Ironic as the US uses a lot of UAV's
@CrimsonGuard1992 OK - I'll buy that, except that we fight in accord with the GC (Geneva Convention). Believe me, I despise it. It restricts the US military's necessary actions, and same with border patrol. It is cowardly because we (US) have become less and less involved with geurilla tactics like we used to during the Revolution, War of 1812, even the Civil War. Now, if the interviewed personnel were Special Forces (any branch of the military, especially USMC), they would not view it as...
@celticbattleaxe - Believe it or not the one being interviewed was a member of Delta Force. He said the tactics the Taliban are using is cowardly. And the GC? Seriously you hate it? So you want the killing of innocent civilians and other war crimes, not that the US have committed various war crimes already like in Vietnam and Korea. Yes US could have won in Vietnam but i think even if they switched to guerrilla tactics it would still be hard as the Viet Cong do it much better then US troops...
@CrimsonGuard1992 Yes, I despise it. Because of it, if a soldier sees a terrorist, he/she cannot fire their weapon until the terrorist fires - same with border patrol. It is the bindings which disables Uncle Sam, if you ask me. What I want it the end of terrorism, not killing of civilians. I think you were misinformed about that. Terrorists love to kill innocents, and then say that the US did it. We are stupid enough to believe it. When we rarely kill civilians, our hearts are broken.
@CrimsonGuard1992 No kidding there. The reason why there is so much Post-Traumatic-Stress-Syndrome patients in the military is mainly because they've seen too much, like little boys/girls dying in an explosion. It is pure psychological warfare at its height, and we are not at fault there.
Viet Nam - the only disadvantage we would have had if we used guerrilla tactics more effectively was fighting on their turf. That is why we tried to recruit South Vietnamese to help us.
@celticbattleaxe - ....In which case God help you :) Just remember to keep your head down, your weapon cleaned, and work together with your squad and you will come out of your tour of duty in one piece :) Which begs the question what weapon are you hoping to qualify for in the Army or USMC? If me i would like the M249.
My brother, a corporal in the USMC, is going to give a little taste of what it "feels" like in boot, especially in the crucible. What type of weapon...hmmm. M249 SAW is a nice one, but I like something that will take out a terrorist one-shot, one-kill :). Give me the old M14s, or better yet (you'll love this:) ), a .50 caliber Beowulf. That will put a nice whole in them!
@celticbattleaxe - .50 cals and M14? So you want to be a designated marksman? But in the urbanized setting in in close-quarters you won't be as effective with that weapon when taliban are spraying 7.62 mm at you.
@CrimsonGuard1992 :) That's why you use he highest calibre out there :). M16 sucks, same with the M4, because the M16 was built for jungle-warfare, and the M4 was a modification of it. It takes 3 shots from 5.56 ammo to kill a terrorist. Well-aimed, maybe 1. With an M14 (7.62), it's one shot, one kill. .50 calibre, well, then it's OVERKILL:)
@CrimsonGuard1992 Really? Never heard about them - I'll check it out! Thanks!!
I just fired an M1911 Colt 45 at shooting range. I still prefer it over wimpy (well, not WIMPY, but not as potent) 9mm pistols. That baby had kick to it!!!
@celticbattleaxe - Colt .45 is good but now they have the .44 which has better stopping power then the 9mm but also allows more bullets in a mag then a Colt.
@celticbattleaxe - Also I want to warn you about joining the army and this is SERIOUS. You don't only run the risk of losing a limb or your life, but you also risk losing yourself. The worst comes out off people in war, you won't always end up doing the right thing. You may end up going against your consciounce and what makes you human. I'm not sure if you have heard but bec. of the hit and run tactics US troops are ordered to drive through anything on the road thinking it is a taliban...
@celticbattleaxe ...trick to get them to stop and they end up getting shot and stuck in an ambush. And when I mean they are ordered to run over anything on the road in certain combat zones, I mean even women and children. So don't just think about losing your life when joining the army, think about what you will lose on the inside. (I know this is really deep stuff but this is true, they don't call it Posttraumatic stress disorder for nothing) and about the guilt of what they did.
@CrimsonGuard1992 - Not sure if its true but that is what I heard. But like on the Bridge of No Gun Ri US troops gun down civilians. So you are willing to to give your life for your country which I think is very brave and admirable but is it worth you soul? (Wow that was deep)
@celticbattleaxe - ... not to mention the Viet Cong now the terrain better, they got lots of booby traps, tunnel networks etc. So chances are the Viet Cong would ambush the US troop's ambush. The biggest reason US lost was bec. of the American people, who I think are hypocrites (No offense) They supported the war but when the bodies start coming all of a sudden they want to "PULL OUT" of course people are going to die!!! Its a war, so i don't understant why they support a war...
@CrimsonGuard1992 I do not at all blame you about the hippies and war-protesters. As an independent (politically), it seems so stupid to protest the war, mainly against the troops. What crap. Go to my high school, and you'll see it everywhere. Good thing I graduate this year!!
Call them what you want - if this was the "olden days", they would be imprisoned for not even defending their country. I support you there 100%. I hate it when liberals just go around saying that war is killing our bills..
@celticbattleaxe '....they shut down the case and discharge the agents who uncovered it. WTH? What do you py those guys for if you don't even listen to them??? Oh you are going to enlist???? Well good luck with that. If I was you I would go with the USMC, good old "Devil Dogs" Oorah!!! Hope you don't get yourself killed, and I hope to still see you on Youtube although I don't think their are any more wars left to fight since US is already pulling out of Iraq. Unless its going to be with China..
@CrimsonGuard1992 ..it's all Bush's fault, etc. Bush kept our ass safe for 8 years for 1. Two, unemployment was WAY lower when he was president. When Obama got elected, it shot up, as did the debt. Of course there needs to be payments to the military - do you want our military to run on nothing? Our defense is necessary - I wish people would understand that. Heck, Obama spent more money since he got elected than Bush did in the war. Dude, I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT YOU
@celticbattleaxe - The biggest example of what the US's idea of 'Allies' was during the Soviet Afgan war. They are saying "Oh you are on the side of the good and God is on the side of the good and bla...bla...bla..." But once the Soviets withdrew US ended up not giving a shit about the afgans after words who also ended up becoming their enemies in the future. You also don't listen to your own intelligence agencies. When CIA agents uncover news the brass does not want to hear....
@CrimsonGuard1992 ...cowardly. Why? They use the same tactics. Our problem right now in the world is that we are too inflexible as a defense/invading force. Had we used more geurilla tactics in Viet Nam, for example, we would have driven out communism. We were doing well in the beginning, around 1957 (when we first went over there), but yes, we were gradually overwhelmed. Had we continued the effort, we probably would not have lost 60,000 lives.
@celticbattleaxe ...then ask to pull out all of a sudden. What happened to the phrase "Home of the Brave" I respect US troops, but its the US public back home who I don't like.One day they support the war but then the next they ask for the troops to pull out bec they are getting killed, which is ironic bec they supported the war so technically they are the ones sending them to their deaths. Make up your minds people!!!
@CrimsonGuard1992 "home of the brave"???? More like - "home of the cowards"!! I too, respect US troops, and I'm enlisting this year into the Army or USMC. The public everywhere has believed the trash put out by the media, for instance, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. The only unbiased news nowadays is FOX. Heck, the media has put such blame on Bush and Palin (they crucified her for NO REASON) and praise Obama for getting us ever more in debt. I'm with you!! :):):):):):):)
@celticbattleaxe - I so agree with you there. The taliban intentionally target civilians while US troops only by accident. They don't call it collateral damage for nothing. And yet they still get angry at the US? WTF! They are getting angry at the wrong people. I also strongly agree with you with on the thing about the "don't fire unless fired upon BS" in the GC. Just bec. a taliban is unarmed he could still have like a radio or something and contact his buddies on our troops movements...
@CrimsonGuard1992 Agreed. :). I hate how most of the media believes that BS. We don't know the truth unless we interview our own troops, and the civilians themselves (with a translator, of course). Heck, from what I know, they LOVED us ever since we kicked out Saddam. It's the terrorists who hate us, but some have civilian connections unfortunately.
@celticbattleaxe - ....then they his buddies set up an ambush right along your line of advance and 'boom'. So I agree there that part of the GC is BS. Unfortunately there are scenarios in which US did purposely kill civilians in cold blood. Best example I can give is The Bridge at No Gun Ri in which US troops fired on civilians and trapped them under a bridge. A father had to kill his new born baby bec. he was crying and could alert the US that people are still alive and would start shooting.
@celticbattleaxe - Thats another thing that a lot of people hate about US. You don't preach what you teach. "Land of the Free" and "All Men are created Equal Under God" and all that. And for US it seems the term for 'Allies' means for them "People who do the fighting for us so we don't have to". I mean like you send paid militia to do the work that your own Special Forces should do. Like in one of the several attempts to kill Osama.
@CrimsonGuard1992 Yep!! :) The politics in this country suck, and it makes me wonder why my ancestors ever left the British Isles. This is not what they asked for.
@goodfty What the f*** do you need a shield for? Too frightened to face your opponent? If you told that to Boudicca, she would cut out your heart faster than you could draw your sword, and she would make you eat it.
@goodfty What the f*** do you need a shield for? Too frightened to face your opponent? If you told that to Boudicca, she would cut out your heart faster than you could draw your sword, and she would make you eat it.
Not really decisive. The battle of Mutah or Yarmouk are far more important... But of course are they foguth in the wrong continent so they are not important eh??
why cant women fight just like men i have seen men flee in the mist of a battlefield and women take up arms many times throu real history and more modren fight like the iraq war where a woman medic used her body as a shield from many ak 47 fire to save a mans life this is a true story she axually got the medal of honor for it. womens can do many great things even better then men and yes i am a man. rights for all man, woman and animal will come to full. long live Brittania!.
why cant women fight just like men i have seen men flee in the mist of a battlefield and women take up arms many times throu real history and more modren fight like the iraq war where a woman medic used her body as a shield from many ak 47 fire to save a mans life this is a true story she axually got the medal of honor for it. womens can do many great things even better then men and yes i am a man. rights for all man woman and animal will come to full. long live Brittania!.
Yes, they had the nerve to send a woman to fight the Roman's. So the celtics were so pathetic they had to send their housewives into battle. How sad....
@Youseekerofcum Lol am I suppose to be hurt by your comment? You do realize it was just a joke right? Oh no wait you wouldn't know when someone was joking because you're just some 14 year old dimwitted asshole who's still in Middle School insulting someone twice your age on the internet while thinking you're so bad ass by calling someone a "little faggot" even though you're just some young bastard who's still living in his mommy and daddy basement.
I really want to know how they managed to get that many soldiers per unit
spacemarin37 15 hours ago
a history program made entirely with a computer game, even the background music! MEGALOL
ExtremeDeathman 4 days ago
Boudicca was awesome.
TazzyProductions 5 days ago
rome total war!!
damnseriouselephant 1 week ago
haha 0:40 Rome total war is this modern technology xD
OwerDoseThe1 1 week ago
"the latest computer technology"
lol
iamsarahreid 1 week ago
BTW, it is nice to be able to find the historical documentaries the HISTORY Channel hardly plays anymore because they are too busy playing reality crap that has little to do with history.
bdjoh011 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Guys, Boudicca and her tribe mercilessly tortured and slaughtered innocent people too. Many of them old, sick and children left behind in the Roman cities because of inability to flee. She never really got the Roman generals and leaders who were really responsible for the crap done to her people.
bdjoh011 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
bdjoh011 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
bdjoh011 4 weeks ago
Like mother like daughters! Warrior Queen Boudicca, you and your fighting women are the only reason I'm proud to be a Celtic Woman! My #1 fave hero when I was a teenager. XD BOUDICCA!
MissRiki1987 1 month ago
@MissRiki1987 the true power of are people lay in the femenine just ask me maim
kingpharaohtsar 2 weeks ago
@kingpharaohtsar Pardon me Sir I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't understand your comment to me. May you please explain it to me? Thanks. ^^
MissRiki1987 2 weeks ago
@MissRiki1987 gaelic culture is very femenine
kingpharaohtsar 1 week ago
@kingpharaohtsar ;-} Thank you Sir! ^^
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
@MissRiki1987 well iv never met a stronger force then my mother or her mother
kingpharaohtsar 1 week ago
@kingpharaohtsar XD Same here for the most part Sir! I really like and respect ya man.
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
@MissRiki1987 i dont mean to sound all new age but the power of goddis is unstopable there in nerly every culture from eriu 2 mary the feminine rules
kingpharaohtsar 1 week ago
@kingpharaohtsar Are you talking about Mary the mother of JESUS? ;-]
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
@MissRiki1987 1 an the same aye the life giver of the god of love in celtic treminology
kingpharaohtsar 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but she killed her own people..?
SilviaEffe007 1 month ago
Boudicca would kick Cleopatra's ass any day
Jeromepsy001 1 month ago
Caeser bragged about being personally responsible for the death of over a MILLION Gauls. The Romans murdered whole tribes as they extended their Empire - men, women and children. They destroyed Carthage and scattered salt so nothing would ever grow there again. Boudicca was an ally of Rome until she was whipped and her daughters raped. It was a classic case of those who lived by the sword dying by the sword. As Tacitus said: "The Romans create a desert and call it peace."
johntarttelin 2 months ago 11
1:27 Crappy AI.
chepe371 2 months ago
Icaynai what a proununciation
rosiethebear300 3 months ago
yes, if only.....
rosepetal282 3 months ago
Started laughing when I seen Rome Total War
razzadude 4 months ago
LOL, what game is this that they are using, it looks so familiar XD
SauraElanthier 4 months ago
@SauraElanthier Rome Total War
TheChipArbiter 4 months ago
"The latest computer technology"??? You mean with the help of Rome Total War idiots
TigreBengala16 5 months ago
@TigreBengala16 in 2004 until 2008 it was modern technology
aearagorn 5 months ago
War determines who was right by who won, you don't go to war as good vs. evil. Humans have a very hard time with that truth. I side with Boudicca...Rome had its way long enough like an empirical mafia. Living in one I am anti-empire. There are perks but at the sacrifice of truly living
Missus2112 5 months ago
Celtic pride.
gamblemadman 6 months ago 2
She sacked 2 cities...that were unguarded...And she lost to a roman army that was 3 times smaller than hers by ordering a blind charge. She was A HORRIBLE commander. Respectful because she stood up for her people but she had NO idea what she was doing.
TideFalconFan 6 months ago
Thats Rome total war HAHA!
KejserMS 6 months ago in playlist Ancient Empire/Battles
LATEST COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY HAHAHAHA ITS FUKIN ROME TOTAL WAR
FINALLY ITS GETS SOME RECOGNITION
crisco362 6 months ago
@crisco362 Learn how to spell "fucking". And how to use proper grammar. And to not use caps lock. Fucking dumbass
InsertDelicious 6 months ago
And who will save Britain from the invading Muslims? Boudicca, we need you once more.
TsugaC 7 months ago
@TsugaC invading muslims? Are u fucking serious
SlyDessertFox 5 months ago
''Battle of Watling Street''
Just like the Brits to call a massive bloody war something akin to a drunken street fight.
Primordialfan1 7 months ago
Historically accurate! Well done
TheYu87 7 months ago
Please tell me no one missed that this battle is done in Rome: total war (Its a game and I know its from this by the models.)
britishglorytomarrow 7 months ago
Queen Bodica, was a beautiful warrior PAGAN queen, and she fought to save England from the Romans..so we should not forget her!!!
rosepetal282 8 months ago 18
@rosepetal282 She didnt try to save england ...She tried to save britain, england didnt exist then , and england was made from the germanic tribe from jutland Angles...Britain was something else.England has nothing to do with the britons.
Tiger1AuasfE 5 months ago
@rosepetal282 She took the cowards way out.
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
@rosepetal282 If only she won, maybe we would not have been plagued with Christianity.
marcelthemaoist 3 months ago
@marcelthemaoist If only Tsar Nicholas had won. Maybe we would not have been plagued with communism.
bdjoh011 4 weeks ago
@rosepetal282 2 problems with that reasoning of yours. #1 England didn't exist yet. The Saxons and Angles did not yet make landfall on the British Isles and establish their own kingdoms. #2 If Boudicca was alive during a Anglo-Saxon invasion, i'm sure she would ahve fought against them too.
Ironically, the very nation you claim Boudicca defended would be one i'm positive she would oppose.
tyrannasaurasalan 3 months ago
You know what i think is funny? Atilla is getting tons of shit for powning the romans and slaughtering them.
Boudicca in the other hand is called "Hero" for killing innocent civilians and defeating 5000-10000 romans with her horde of 100 000.
VictumRoManius 8 months ago 13
@VictumRoManius That's because Attila threatened civilization itself. He not only conquered, but wantonly destroyed. And Attila was the invader, the transgressor. Boudicca, on the other hand, was a British chieftain, a genuine warrior queen of a recently conquered , restive people. Boudicca fought not to conquer but to defend. She fought for freedom & damn near drove the Romans out. Indeed her rebellion may have influenced Hadrian, who eventually built a defensive wall to keep the Scots at bay.
mightymissk 8 months ago
@mightymissk Yeah you have a point there. But you should know that Atilla is overrated when it comes to cruelty.
He was cruel, but nearly not as cruel as the romans want us to believe. Persian sources do not describe him like that and neither does some other people who lived there.
VictumRoManius 8 months ago
@mightymissk
Boudicca was not BRITISH, she fought the EVIL romans not to be called Britain, as it's a ROMAN word. IRONY hey.
You have to admire Atilla the GREAT, he makes alexander look insignificant. Atilla owned the Roman Empire.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL You're right about Boudicca. Picky, but right. Boudicca would have thought of herself as Queen of the Iceni, one of the Celtic tribes of the island of Albion. It was indeed the Romans who called her island Britannia. But you're wrong about Attila. His conquests may have rivaled Alexander's but all he did is destroy. He left nothing. But Alexander seeded half the world with Greek culture & Greek ideas. From the Ptolemies, to Indian Art we can still see Alexander's influence.
mightymissk 8 months ago
@mightymissk
I will almost agree, but alexander does not come close, to Attila. The reason is Attila the great OWNED the Romans & carved one of the largest empires ever.
Alexander is greatly exaggerated. He was defeated in 8 years conquering tribes, then later defeated by Afghans & Indians. True his winover the Persians was good.
But you can not compare Attila with alexander. Attila was KARMA against Roman barbarism.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL
Lets not forget alexander was a SAVAGE thats how the world sees him!!! Your comments have made me laugh & will make others laugh too.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Attila was part of a human tidal wave of peoples, originating in Asia, who swept across the steppes, into Europe. He was only the last of Rome's conquerors. The Goths, Ostrogoths & Visigoths came first. Attitla was a highly skilled military leader--but nothing more. He came, he saw, he conquered--and he left. Alexander, on the other hand, actively sought to know the peoples he encountered. I am not sure I believe in Karma, but I believe all conquest, all war, is barbarism.
mightymissk 8 months ago
@mightymissk
You have so much to learn & you have made yourself foolish!!!
To think alexander seeded half of the world is primitive & basless!!! ASIAN CULTURE is the father & mother of civilization & perhaps humanity!!!!
India culture goes back 10 000s of years there was no Europe!!! THE PRIMITIVE GREEKS was CIVILIZED by ASIA!!!
INDIANS defeated the abject alexander!! So your words are truly abject!!!
You have a lot to learn!!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I never claimed Alexander "seeded half the world" whatever that means. I claimed that Alexander's conquests & his explorations of India spread Greek culture across much of the ancient world. And I am right. Alexander was, in turn, influenced by the Asian civilizations he encountered. Claiming that "the PRIMITIVE GREEKS" were civilized by Asia" is just untrue. Classical Greek civilization grew & flourished long before Alexander was born. You seem to have your own agenda here.
mightymissk 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Actually, yes I did. I did claim Alexander "seeded half the world" but what I was talking about--and what you have clearly taken out of context--is cultural influence. Of course, Asian cultures, particularly Indian culture was already thousands of years old before Alexander encountered it. No one is disputing that. But these cultures were impacted by Alexander. From Egypt, all the way to Afghanistan, the Greeks left their mark. And they, in turn, were influenced. Enough.
mightymissk 8 months ago
@mightymissk
How can alexander seed half the world, when he never conquered anything but tribes??? The GREAT Persian empire was dissolved. These claims are baseless & lies.
AGAIN you are SPEWING LIES, how can the greeks alexander have influence when they were DEFEATED???
You have absolute ignorance. I enjoy crushing LIARS.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL Check your history Alexander was never defeated and beat King Porus in India. And the Persians still had an empire which vastly outnumbered Alexanders.
Hitman49 5 months ago
@Hitman49
If you are not honest I suggest you keep your fantasy to yourself!! ALEXANDER was deafted on many occasions, he was defeated by Afghan warriors, which he turned round, then later PASSIVE INDIANS defeated alexander, otherwise India would be under control!!
WESTERN HISTORIANS are not taken seriously due to BLACK LIES!! Alexnader is nothing compared ro REAL CONQUOERES such as TIMUR(tamerlane), who conqured INDIA hence the Great Mughul Empire, Atilla etc etc
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL It is just like eastern historians to make lies up with their defeats. Explain why India gave chariots to Alexander. Explain the coins with Alexander in India. And if the Indians were passive why did they have 1000s of war elephants.
Hitman49 5 months ago
@Hitman49
"eastern historian lies" Please show evidence!!
You need to read & understand what people have written!!!
1,PASSIVE INDIANS DEFEATED ALEXANDER also the Afghan warriors!
2, Of course coins & other elements will be found as thats what happen when u defeat the opponent as alexnader.
3, as4 the charriots, alexnader will seem as a very inferior savage, so the Indians are civilized enough to show what civilization is.
KOLUMBUS never discoverd new worlds just as alexander was not great
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@Hitman49
If you admire so be it, BUT be honest in his achivements, he is greatly exaggerated!! Compare to TIMURIDE, ATTILA, or even Hannibal. CHINGHIS KHAN has created the largest empire ever known, dwarfing the brits!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL They were also great conquerors but according to wikipedia the Brits had the largest empire (non-contiguous). h t t p : / / en.wikipedia. org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#Largest_empires_by_land_area_and_population
Hitman49 5 months ago
@Hitman49
WIKIPEDIA come on, that is not a good source at all. The Britts is 4nations, MONGOL 1 NATION. The Brits used to DECLARE which is not conquring, the MONGOLS simply CONQURED, they are the only ones ever to conqure all of Russia & ASIA including half of Europe, all the way pass Poland & some parts of Africa too. The greatest what IF too.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL " PASSIVE INDIANS defeated alexander, otherwise India would be under control!!"
Learn history, Alexander turned back because his army refused to march any further east.
The worlds first professional being defeated by half naked rabble Indians? i don't think so.
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990
PASSIVE INDIANS ALMOST killed alexander!!
"the worlds first professional" IN WHAT??? EXGARATION??
YOU LEARN REAL HISTORTY!! NOT KOLUMBUS FALT EARTH JESUS VOMIT!!! This is why the world does not take western historians seriously & LAUGHED AT!!
If you respond I suggest you bring honesty!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990
"half naked Indians" India is thee most ancient civilization perhaps race on the planet!!! Euro langguages are traced back to INDIA the VEDA civilization!! Even older SANSKRIT & TAMIL!!
Europe & African history is what 7000yrs old including the MATRIARCHS!!
ASIAN or in this case INDIAN is at least 20 000yrs old+. MATHS, COSMOLOGY, PYRAMNID buildings, ALMOST ALL RELIGIONS, philospohy, astrology, CULTURE etc etc is all traced back to MAHA BHRAT or INDIA!!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I agree with all you have said about Culture maths Religion ,philospohy, astrology, maths, but India's Armies did not even contend to Alexanders Companions,Hypaspists,Phalangite. Fever killed Alexander not half naked rabble.
"This is why the world does not take western historians seriously & LAUGHED AT!!"
No only Asian Nationalists take western accounts of history as lies, mainly Indian nationalist who have an irrational fear of being militarily weak and Japanese about WW2
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990
PRIMITVE INFERIOR GREEKS was defeated by the most ancient race MAHA BHARAT or INDIANS!!!
iT NEVER ceases to amaze me your KIND of inferiority, creating lies!!
From the FLAT EARTH to fake aryan invasion, then KULUMBUS discovering NEW world when natives were there, not to mention fake racists names JESUS, PAUL, PETER, whom are all ASIAN heritage, these r examples of lies created, NOW your kind thinks INFERIOR GREEKS was not defeated LOL.
FEVER of course another WESTERN EXCUSE!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL what do you have against the west
aearagorn 5 months ago
@aearagorn
"west" define west???? If you mean Europe, nothing at all, only 1492colonizers, liars that promote fantasy & ROME!!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990
Western historians are not taken seriously, creating bigOted CONSIRACY THEORIES!!! mATRIARCH CIVILIZATION is a lot older then INFERIOR SAVGE ROME or GREECE!! They have been following ASIAN religions for 3000years!!! Even though they take away ASIANS names.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 5 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL since Atilla the Hun died when he was 47 and Alexander died when he was 32 i would say Atilla had 15 more years to invade Rome, which Alexander had been planning.
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
@mightymissk
Primitive mindset thinking lolololoo.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@TheBENGALHANNIBAL I am disappointed. I thought this was the beginning of an interesting historical discussion. But you seem to have the need to be insulting. You also seem to be hostile to Western civilization, whether you're talking about the Greeks, under Alexander, or the Romans being defeated by Attila. You appear to divide the world into the bad, "primitive" Westerners and the good Asians. That is an emotional response. And it is bigoted. Have a nice life.
mightymissk 8 months ago
@mightymissk
U are a LIAR!! Another WESTERN BIGOT!!
1, u claim alexander seeded India with Greek culture when he was defeated by INDIANS!!
2, U claim greek civilization influenced ASIA, when greek civilization is only 3000yrs old & CHINA is 10 000yrs old alone!!! INDIA is even older!!
3, The oldest literature can be found in VEDA, Sanskrit or TAMIL!!!
I know its the inter net, TRY TO BE HONEST!!
The truth clearly hurts that ASIA has civilized GREEKS & ROMANS!!! I go by evidence!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@mightymissk
WESTERN SEXIST can not even tolerate the MATRIARCH is older then primitive GREEKS!!! I do have respect for western heritage pre WITCH HUNT!!!
I go by FACT & EVIDENCE, COWARDS tend to run!!!
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@mightymissk Don't bother replying to TheBENGALHANNIBAL, he is a ranting conspiracy theorist with an inferiority complex, it's like trying to talk to a Japanese or German nationalist about WW2, they will just deny it ever happened.
MrGilles1990 5 months ago
@MrGilles1990 I had forgotten all about it. I agree with your assessment. Engaging this man is like shouting down a rain barrel. He can't hear me and he's not going to hear me because I'm just an evil Westerner. But thanks for the good advice anyway.
mightymissk 5 months ago
@VictumRoManius
True, the establishment are deeply biased & prejudiced. Attila the GREAT.
TheBENGALHANNIBAL 8 months ago
@VictumRoManius Innocent civillians??
They were Romans occupying British tribal lands. They massacred native Britons, flogged Boudica and raped her daughters.
She was a celtic warrior queen who led an uprising against the brutal invaders of her land. Thats a hero in my opinion.
gamblemadman 6 months ago
@gamblemadman she did massacre native briton people as well
SlyDessertFox 5 months ago
@VictumRoManius The reason is (which i don't agree with) is that the romans CONQUERED britania, and the brit's tried to reclaim it. atilla was a conquerer. if you are the rebellion, you are given a higher moral ground then the conquerer in general, meaning you can do worse stuff and still be seen as a hero.
maledwarfwarrior 5 months ago
@VictumRoManius I'm a history major and I've never heard of anyone representing Attila as this giant a-hole who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Romans. He's more celebrated as a barbarian tribal leader who managed to out smart the Romans and bring together tribes that had once been separated due to various disputes. Something that no one had done before him.
GummiBands 5 months ago
@VictumRoManius She was basically the Geronimo of her day, who likewise fought against a brutal & more powerful foe.
cleanhomer 4 months ago
@VictumRoManius They fought for different reasons.
marcelthemaoist 3 months ago
@VictumRoManius The Britons under her command were either fierce tribal house guards or conscripts, and both hated the Romans with a passion. The conscripts, peasants levied by the lords and nobility, had lost their freedom and way of life The house guards and nobility, on the other hand, hated the Romans even more, with their glory and riches being taken with one fell swoop by the Romans. I say this because there is no morality at all in this battle, only society against society.
DestroyerOfSense000 3 months ago
@VictumRoManius The difference in attitudes towards the two probably lies with the fact that Attila was an invader and a conqueror threatening to destroy Roman civilization, whereas Boudicca was a defender of her country and her people against an invasion that threatened to destroy the Celtic cultures of Britain...
LadyoftheLabyrinth 2 months ago 2
@LadyoftheLabyrinth Good point.
VictumRoManius 2 months ago
@VictumRoManius
amen brother
aronthehun 2 months ago
@VictumRoManius You got a point, I guess boudicca gets it easy cause she is female.
masterninjaman1 2 months ago
@VictumRoManius Atilla killed for plunder.Boudicca and her army killed for revenge and way of life.That is why she's the hero and he's a madman.
noblepuker 2 months ago 3
@VictumRoManius I think Atilla served the romans exactly what they had coming to them they deserved every bit of what Atilla gave them
Mechdestoryer 1 month ago
have the game
MrSpectator100 9 months ago
is it me, or is Matthew Settle sound a little weird?
hankock1015 9 months ago
latin power baby, that's how you handle women
cuzcatlan36 9 months ago
Damn those were cutting edge graphics at the time? They look like they were pulled from Runescape. The sad part is this was likely made within the last decade =/
pzdump86 10 months ago
@pzdump86 It was 2004.
InsertDelicious 10 months ago
@pzdump86 Its from rome total war, even the music is from there. but seriously its a great game.
BizWiz2000 9 months ago
@pzdump86 it isnt the graphics that is cutting edge. its the sheer number of units in each battle. i mean it can hold more than 10000 units at a time, and all the while maintaining the amazing fire arrow and fire projectile effects. therefore, if you wish to enjoy the game to the max, you need to have a pretty fast computer even now
wengkeat5 9 months ago
@pzdump86 its actaly from a PC game called rome total war
FsimulatorX 9 months ago
@pzdump86 “The latest computer-technology”(!) 0:36
xXvolhvXx 9 months ago
i used to watched this show it was awsome
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 11 months ago
she was an awsome politician she joined the british under one flag buth she wasn't a good general she should gave the command of the soldiers to another commander
IWANAROCKYEEEAAAA 11 months ago
THERE USING ROME TOTAL WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
sol200997 1 year ago
WE fight without shields, so we can wield better our weapons. Romans are too cowardly to fight like us. We don't retreat. We fight to the death, as did Boudicca.
celticbattleaxe 1 year ago
@celticbattleaxe If there is one thing about war is there is no such thing as a cowardly way of fighting. As long as you defeat the enemy then that is great. Cowardly way of fighting is a term used only because those tactics used against them work. Like the Indians against the British, or the US and the and the insurgents.
CrimsonGuard1992 1 year ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Actually they don't. Acts of heroism keep the troops going, not a cowardly leader who is unwilling to face the enemy. There are no rules of war. Are guerilla tactics cowardly? No, not if you attack your opponent with the utmost audacity, as did William Wallace, Owain Gyndwr, Robert the Bruce, and of course, Montrose.
Rule 3 in Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' - DRIVE A STAKE THROUGH THE ENEMY'S HEART.
Read the book sometime - it really is a great composition.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe I did read the book. Romans being too cowardly? They did not conquer a thousand year empire by groveling in the dirt when barbarians came at them. The Roman commander leading from the rear is not cowardly if that is what you are trying to say. What good is a commander if he is dead? Although leading from the front is heroic but at times it is foolish.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Yes, but as a commander, you have to take a risk at some point. Look at Henry V of England. At Agincourt (1415), he stood and fought with his men while beating the odds against him 5 to 1 (his army was 1/5 the size of the French's), and he even personally saved the life of the Duke of Gloucester.
Again, at Bannockburn (1314), Robert the Bruce stood with his schiltrons and charged a much larger English army head on. A good commander needs to take risks knowing his weaknesses.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe Yes at some point a commader must lead from the front. But like in the last Battle of the War of 1812 at Fort Bowyer, the British lost their entire command staff. The 1st, 2nd, & 3rd in commands where all killed. In the War for Independence the US all targeted the officers, with one British Regiment losing 10 of its 11 officers in a single engagement. They did not adapt to the fact that the US was targeting officers on purpose and considered it not the actions of a gentlemen
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 EXACTLY :) commanders must know when to accompany their troops in battle and when to "pull out" (not retreating). What you are saying is understandable. In the Battle of Hastings of 1066, Harold II of the Saxons positioned himself with his personal guard, the huscarls (picture a ten-foot tall ax-wielding Saxon, and you've got the image :) ), on Senlac Hill. The Normans could NOT break their shield wall formation after charging on and on all day. However, Harold's luck ran...
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 ...out when an arrow pierced his eye from the Norman archers. When he fell, his whole army disintegrated into fleeing Saxons and made easy prey for the Norman cavalry. Before this the cavalry performed a feigned retreat twice, with the second time working. About half of the Saxons charged down the hill (mostly the fyrd) and were slaughtered when the cavalry turned around and charged from their "retreat". Harold saw this and attempted to reorganize the rest of his men, ...
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 ... and was shot while trying. So yes, I agree with you there. :)
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe I'm also sure that the US considers the taliban's guerrilla tactics cowardly. I heard in an interview with some US soldiers that they consider the use if IED's to be cowardly. Ironic as the US uses a lot of UAV's
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 OK - I'll buy that, except that we fight in accord with the GC (Geneva Convention). Believe me, I despise it. It restricts the US military's necessary actions, and same with border patrol. It is cowardly because we (US) have become less and less involved with geurilla tactics like we used to during the Revolution, War of 1812, even the Civil War. Now, if the interviewed personnel were Special Forces (any branch of the military, especially USMC), they would not view it as...
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - Believe it or not the one being interviewed was a member of Delta Force. He said the tactics the Taliban are using is cowardly. And the GC? Seriously you hate it? So you want the killing of innocent civilians and other war crimes, not that the US have committed various war crimes already like in Vietnam and Korea. Yes US could have won in Vietnam but i think even if they switched to guerrilla tactics it would still be hard as the Viet Cong do it much better then US troops...
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Yes, I despise it. Because of it, if a soldier sees a terrorist, he/she cannot fire their weapon until the terrorist fires - same with border patrol. It is the bindings which disables Uncle Sam, if you ask me. What I want it the end of terrorism, not killing of civilians. I think you were misinformed about that. Terrorists love to kill innocents, and then say that the US did it. We are stupid enough to believe it. When we rarely kill civilians, our hearts are broken.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 No kidding there. The reason why there is so much Post-Traumatic-Stress-Syndrome patients in the military is mainly because they've seen too much, like little boys/girls dying in an explosion. It is pure psychological warfare at its height, and we are not at fault there.
Viet Nam - the only disadvantage we would have had if we used guerrilla tactics more effectively was fighting on their turf. That is why we tried to recruit South Vietnamese to help us.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - ....In which case God help you :) Just remember to keep your head down, your weapon cleaned, and work together with your squad and you will come out of your tour of duty in one piece :) Which begs the question what weapon are you hoping to qualify for in the Army or USMC? If me i would like the M249.
God Speed private. Semper Fi.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 :) Thanks :)
My brother, a corporal in the USMC, is going to give a little taste of what it "feels" like in boot, especially in the crucible. What type of weapon...hmmm. M249 SAW is a nice one, but I like something that will take out a terrorist one-shot, one-kill :). Give me the old M14s, or better yet (you'll love this:) ), a .50 caliber Beowulf. That will put a nice whole in them!
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - .50 cals and M14? So you want to be a designated marksman? But in the urbanized setting in in close-quarters you won't be as effective with that weapon when taliban are spraying 7.62 mm at you.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 :) That's why you use he highest calibre out there :). M16 sucks, same with the M4, because the M16 was built for jungle-warfare, and the M4 was a modification of it. It takes 3 shots from 5.56 ammo to kill a terrorist. Well-aimed, maybe 1. With an M14 (7.62), it's one shot, one kill. .50 calibre, well, then it's OVERKILL:)
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - How about the new 6.8 mm rounds for the new M468, those seem to pack more stopping power
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Really? Never heard about them - I'll check it out! Thanks!!
I just fired an M1911 Colt 45 at shooting range. I still prefer it over wimpy (well, not WIMPY, but not as potent) 9mm pistols. That baby had kick to it!!!
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - Colt .45 is good but now they have the .44 which has better stopping power then the 9mm but also allows more bullets in a mag then a Colt.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 COOL!!
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - Also I want to warn you about joining the army and this is SERIOUS. You don't only run the risk of losing a limb or your life, but you also risk losing yourself. The worst comes out off people in war, you won't always end up doing the right thing. You may end up going against your consciounce and what makes you human. I'm not sure if you have heard but bec. of the hit and run tactics US troops are ordered to drive through anything on the road thinking it is a taliban...
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe ...trick to get them to stop and they end up getting shot and stuck in an ambush. And when I mean they are ordered to run over anything on the road in certain combat zones, I mean even women and children. So don't just think about losing your life when joining the army, think about what you will lose on the inside. (I know this is really deep stuff but this is true, they don't call it Posttraumatic stress disorder for nothing) and about the guilt of what they did.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 - Not sure if its true but that is what I heard. But like on the Bridge of No Gun Ri US troops gun down civilians. So you are willing to to give your life for your country which I think is very brave and admirable but is it worth you soul? (Wow that was deep)
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - ... not to mention the Viet Cong now the terrain better, they got lots of booby traps, tunnel networks etc. So chances are the Viet Cong would ambush the US troop's ambush. The biggest reason US lost was bec. of the American people, who I think are hypocrites (No offense) They supported the war but when the bodies start coming all of a sudden they want to "PULL OUT" of course people are going to die!!! Its a war, so i don't understant why they support a war...
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 I do not at all blame you about the hippies and war-protesters. As an independent (politically), it seems so stupid to protest the war, mainly against the troops. What crap. Go to my high school, and you'll see it everywhere. Good thing I graduate this year!!
Call them what you want - if this was the "olden days", they would be imprisoned for not even defending their country. I support you there 100%. I hate it when liberals just go around saying that war is killing our bills..
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe '....they shut down the case and discharge the agents who uncovered it. WTH? What do you py those guys for if you don't even listen to them??? Oh you are going to enlist???? Well good luck with that. If I was you I would go with the USMC, good old "Devil Dogs" Oorah!!! Hope you don't get yourself killed, and I hope to still see you on Youtube although I don't think their are any more wars left to fight since US is already pulling out of Iraq. Unless its going to be with China..
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 It might be, if they invade Tiawan. They hate Tiawan.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 ..it's all Bush's fault, etc. Bush kept our ass safe for 8 years for 1. Two, unemployment was WAY lower when he was president. When Obama got elected, it shot up, as did the debt. Of course there needs to be payments to the military - do you want our military to run on nothing? Our defense is necessary - I wish people would understand that. Heck, Obama spent more money since he got elected than Bush did in the war. Dude, I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT YOU
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - The biggest example of what the US's idea of 'Allies' was during the Soviet Afgan war. They are saying "Oh you are on the side of the good and God is on the side of the good and bla...bla...bla..." But once the Soviets withdrew US ended up not giving a shit about the afgans after words who also ended up becoming their enemies in the future. You also don't listen to your own intelligence agencies. When CIA agents uncover news the brass does not want to hear....
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 ...cowardly. Why? They use the same tactics. Our problem right now in the world is that we are too inflexible as a defense/invading force. Had we used more geurilla tactics in Viet Nam, for example, we would have driven out communism. We were doing well in the beginning, around 1957 (when we first went over there), but yes, we were gradually overwhelmed. Had we continued the effort, we probably would not have lost 60,000 lives.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe ...then ask to pull out all of a sudden. What happened to the phrase "Home of the Brave" I respect US troops, but its the US public back home who I don't like.One day they support the war but then the next they ask for the troops to pull out bec they are getting killed, which is ironic bec they supported the war so technically they are the ones sending them to their deaths. Make up your minds people!!!
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 "home of the brave"???? More like - "home of the cowards"!! I too, respect US troops, and I'm enlisting this year into the Army or USMC. The public everywhere has believed the trash put out by the media, for instance, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. The only unbiased news nowadays is FOX. Heck, the media has put such blame on Bush and Palin (they crucified her for NO REASON) and praise Obama for getting us ever more in debt. I'm with you!! :):):):):):):)
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - I so agree with you there. The taliban intentionally target civilians while US troops only by accident. They don't call it collateral damage for nothing. And yet they still get angry at the US? WTF! They are getting angry at the wrong people. I also strongly agree with you with on the thing about the "don't fire unless fired upon BS" in the GC. Just bec. a taliban is unarmed he could still have like a radio or something and contact his buddies on our troops movements...
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Agreed. :). I hate how most of the media believes that BS. We don't know the truth unless we interview our own troops, and the civilians themselves (with a translator, of course). Heck, from what I know, they LOVED us ever since we kicked out Saddam. It's the terrorists who hate us, but some have civilian connections unfortunately.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - ....then they his buddies set up an ambush right along your line of advance and 'boom'. So I agree there that part of the GC is BS. Unfortunately there are scenarios in which US did purposely kill civilians in cold blood. Best example I can give is The Bridge at No Gun Ri in which US troops fired on civilians and trapped them under a bridge. A father had to kill his new born baby bec. he was crying and could alert the US that people are still alive and would start shooting.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 :(
;(
Never heard about that. Ouch. ;(
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe - Thats another thing that a lot of people hate about US. You don't preach what you teach. "Land of the Free" and "All Men are created Equal Under God" and all that. And for US it seems the term for 'Allies' means for them "People who do the fighting for us so we don't have to". I mean like you send paid militia to do the work that your own Special Forces should do. Like in one of the several attempts to kill Osama.
CrimsonGuard1992 11 months ago
@CrimsonGuard1992 Yep!! :) The politics in this country suck, and it makes me wonder why my ancestors ever left the British Isles. This is not what they asked for.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe you mean stupid lol very stupid i wouldnt want you leading me to battle lolz BITCH GIVE ME A SHIELD
goodfty 11 months ago
@goodfty What the f*** do you need a shield for? Too frightened to face your opponent? If you told that to Boudicca, she would cut out your heart faster than you could draw your sword, and she would make you eat it.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
@celticbattleaxe what i liek the msot is how she lost horribley what if they had a shield XD LOLOL
goodfty 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goodfty What the f*** do you need a shield for? Too frightened to face your opponent? If you told that to Boudicca, she would cut out your heart faster than you could draw your sword, and she would make you eat it.
celticbattleaxe 11 months ago
Not really decisive. The battle of Mutah or Yarmouk are far more important... But of course are they foguth in the wrong continent so they are not important eh??
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
Try the amazon patch, that's a very good game as well (playing as the spqr ) and even getting female gladiators!Awesome
Kasadoll 1 year ago
lol the latest computer technology...is a bit outdated
InvaderTak176 1 year ago
Caesar didnt really try to conquer Britain. He raided it twice mostly for political reasons.
Oldcartoons571 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
why cant women fight just like men i have seen men flee in the mist of a battlefield and women take up arms many times throu real history and more modren fight like the iraq war where a woman medic used her body as a shield from many ak 47 fire to save a mans life this is a true story she axually got the medal of honor for it. womens can do many great things even better then men and yes i am a man. rights for all man, woman and animal will come to full. long live Brittania!.
TheIcelandicPatriot 1 year ago
why cant women fight just like men i have seen men flee in the mist of a battlefield and women take up arms many times throu real history and more modren fight like the iraq war where a woman medic used her body as a shield from many ak 47 fire to save a mans life this is a true story she axually got the medal of honor for it. womens can do many great things even better then men and yes i am a man. rights for all man woman and animal will come to full. long live Brittania!.
TheIcelandicPatriot 1 year ago
Rome should've left britain alone.
HistoryLover1550 1 year ago
N0nC0mprende:
Yes, they had the nerve to send a woman to fight the Roman's. So the celtics were so pathetic they had to send their housewives into battle. How sad....
WolfytheWolf5667 1 year ago
Boudicca: Get off our Laaaandddd.....!!
Romans: Nah, go back to the kitchen.
RoyalDog214 1 year ago 32
@RoyalDog214
not before she would chop off your empty head with her sword you little faggot
Youseekerofcum 1 year ago
Comment removed
RoyalDog214 1 year ago
@Youseekerofcum Lol am I suppose to be hurt by your comment? You do realize it was just a joke right? Oh no wait you wouldn't know when someone was joking because you're just some 14 year old dimwitted asshole who's still in Middle School insulting someone twice your age on the internet while thinking you're so bad ass by calling someone a "little faggot" even though you're just some young bastard who's still living in his mommy and daddy basement.
So why don't you stfu and know your place.
RoyalDog214 1 year ago
A Female commander ?! Badass !!
xmaple1x 1 year ago
arizonacardinals:
Haha, women warriors, yeah.
I mean, the British Queen only conquered like 1/3 of the world, not much...
Video:
Is this the women that led 120,000 Gauls againt 4000 Romans and LOST?
WolfytheWolf5667 1 year ago
@WolfytheWolf5667 it was more like 10000 romans but your point is well taken lol.
ShawDAMAN 1 year ago
@WolfytheWolf5667 no gauls, theyre from where modern france is. boudicca is more celtic.
N0nC0mprende 1 year ago
i have not choice but to buy that game now! even though its an oldie
raaspider 1 year ago
latest video game technolgy? its 4.3.maby 5 years old
WTFJACOBMAN 1 year ago