hellfire! Just once I would like to see someone do a study on ancient Europe without taking the roman PROPAGANDA as fact. If a Roman or a Greek wrote it, they call it history. If anyone else wrote it, they call it "mythology".
Boudicca was not "Anglian", Mons Graupius was, at best, a little skirmish over a granary, and the island of Britain was a province of Rome in name alone. As soon as they started treating the British Celts like roman slaves, they got booted out by an alliance of many.
@12hiddendragons Genuinely curious, not looking to start a petty YouTube row... how do you explain the razing of Colchester, St. Albans and London, for which there is archaeological evidence still in the basements of houses and pubs in these cities?
@HanoverianHorse well, those were all three roman cities, full of romans and their collaborators. They were probably razed by the native inhabitants as they booted the romans out. It could just as easily have been the work of Saxons, or Boudicca if you believe some sources. The whole idea that the romans abandoned Britain because it was more trouble than it was worth or something like that is groundless, and is the work of romaphiles who don't like how the roman story ends.
@reksub10 Usually 40,000 total. Not warriors. In ancient days writers usually were not all that accurate. When they wrote of armies numbering in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands they usually meant 10 to 20 thousand.
@LaserBeam002 yeah cos the battle of stirling bridge was only meant to have been between about 2000 men if that .over a stone slab that could only fit 1 horse and cart at a time across a 5 foot burn ...i guess the winner does write history then .....propaganda is not a new sport lol ,,i can just imagine that the scribes would say the king had a million men to crush the barbarian hordes ...and that greek carry on were 300 stopped a couple of million hahahah yeah 300 backed by 10,000
min 8:17 Calgacus speaks for all of us who are against tyranny and oppression, who hold the common law, rule of law and the American Bill of Rights as supreme arbiters of men's freedoms.
An Anglian tribe called the Iceni? Please, British history can be confusing at the best of times. To anyone wishing to learn British history, may I point out that the Iceni were not English as stated here. The Angles were not even in Britian at this time. I dont know what the bbc agenda is but it sure does try to mislead.
@LambChowder1 N,E,S,W, it matters not. He calls the Iceni an Anglian tribe when they were not. If he had of described it as you have there would be no room for misinterpretation, but he chose a different selection of words. When informing people of history its important to be as accurate as possible. A less educated person on this subject may have been mislead into believing the Iceni were an English tribe, I cleared that up for them. That was the point of my comment. Cheers.
min 8:17 Calgacus speaks for all of us who are against tyranny and oppression, who hold the common law, rule of law and the US Constitution as supreme arbiters of men's freedoms.
@RideMyBMW Oh no now I have healthcare, im being oppressed....uughh the tyranny someone please help me...all this tyranny. Damn the FICA tax, its such tyrannyy
why would tasidus write a speech that made the enemy seem so justified in there feelings???somebody help please
diagreen 1 day ago
and Why does the BBC continue to spew crap like this? Because they would rather distort history than admit their true origins.
12hiddendragons 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
12hiddendragons 2 weeks ago
hellfire! Just once I would like to see someone do a study on ancient Europe without taking the roman PROPAGANDA as fact. If a Roman or a Greek wrote it, they call it history. If anyone else wrote it, they call it "mythology".
Boudicca was not "Anglian", Mons Graupius was, at best, a little skirmish over a granary, and the island of Britain was a province of Rome in name alone. As soon as they started treating the British Celts like roman slaves, they got booted out by an alliance of many.
12hiddendragons 2 weeks ago
@12hiddendragons Genuinely curious, not looking to start a petty YouTube row... how do you explain the razing of Colchester, St. Albans and London, for which there is archaeological evidence still in the basements of houses and pubs in these cities?
HanoverianHorse 5 days ago
@HanoverianHorse well, those were all three roman cities, full of romans and their collaborators. They were probably razed by the native inhabitants as they booted the romans out. It could just as easily have been the work of Saxons, or Boudicca if you believe some sources. The whole idea that the romans abandoned Britain because it was more trouble than it was worth or something like that is groundless, and is the work of romaphiles who don't like how the roman story ends.
12hiddendragons 4 days ago
I guess the Romans confused the British with a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys.
XCritonX 3 weeks ago
when historians say an army of 40,000 was sent ,do they mean 40,000 warriors or 40,000 in the whole train/convoy?
reksub10 7 months ago
@reksub10 Usually 40,000 total. Not warriors. In ancient days writers usually were not all that accurate. When they wrote of armies numbering in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands they usually meant 10 to 20 thousand.
LaserBeam002 4 months ago
@LaserBeam002 yeah cos the battle of stirling bridge was only meant to have been between about 2000 men if that .over a stone slab that could only fit 1 horse and cart at a time across a 5 foot burn ...i guess the winner does write history then .....propaganda is not a new sport lol ,,i can just imagine that the scribes would say the king had a million men to crush the barbarian hordes ...and that greek carry on were 300 stopped a couple of million hahahah yeah 300 backed by 10,000
reksub10 4 months ago
paz toy en tu profile d youtube muajaja adivina quien soy!!
pazitazg 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
min 8:17 Calgacus speaks for all of us who are against tyranny and oppression, who hold the common law, rule of law and the American Bill of Rights as supreme arbiters of men's freedoms.
RideMyBMW 1 year ago
Comment removed
Skyswinger 1 year ago
An Anglian tribe called the Iceni? Please, British history can be confusing at the best of times. To anyone wishing to learn British history, may I point out that the Iceni were not English as stated here. The Angles were not even in Britian at this time. I dont know what the bbc agenda is but it sure does try to mislead.
Skyswinger 1 year ago
@Skyswinger He said east anglian. As in the tribe residing in modern day east anglia. Yeesh, and youre throwing around accusations of agendas
LambChowder1 1 year ago
@LambChowder1 N,E,S,W, it matters not. He calls the Iceni an Anglian tribe when they were not. If he had of described it as you have there would be no room for misinterpretation, but he chose a different selection of words. When informing people of history its important to be as accurate as possible. A less educated person on this subject may have been mislead into believing the Iceni were an English tribe, I cleared that up for them. That was the point of my comment. Cheers.
Skyswinger 1 year ago 2
The oldest written manuscript on history of Englans are Anglo-Saxon Chronics dated of 11-12th century. NO written history before it!!!
What a novels he as bragging here?!
lmhitar 1 year ago
min 8:17 Calgacus speaks for all of us who are against tyranny and oppression, who hold the common law, rule of law and the US Constitution as supreme arbiters of men's freedoms.
RideMyBMW 1 year ago
@RideMyBMW Oh no now I have healthcare, im being oppressed....uughh the tyranny someone please help me...all this tyranny. Damn the FICA tax, its such tyrannyy
LambChowder1 1 year ago
William the Conqueror probably studied how Claudius went about taking over England.
RideMyBMW 1 year ago