@MissRiki1987 Why would you say that? You do realize that good Muslims and Good Atheists and all good (and bad) non christians will get massacred and be sent to hell right?
And even terrible people that have accepted Christ will be "saved". How is that just?!?
@MJFAN666 I am so sorry you feel that way sweetie. I'll send you a message sense I don't have enough room here k? By the way thank you very much for sharing about the other women warriors! ^^
If the tribes of Britain were unite as one back then they would kicked ass against the Romans. One tribe in Wales wiped out a full Roman legion in battle and they were outnumbered so the Romans weren't all that powerful.
Why do you use the HAMATA LEGIONS? They did not exist then! The existed only in the late times of the roman Republic! The legions then were called segmentata because of their armour! Ex. Legio XX Valeria Victrix, Legio V Macedonica and many others... Please comment
and the romans slaughtered millions of innocent people. there lived 3 million ppl in Gaul in the time of ceasar, and 1 million were killed by the romans through time... 1/3d of the population.
I mean yeah liberation all that shit, but at the end of the day, Boudicca slaughtered thousands of people because of her daughters' taken virginity? Fucking barbariabs. Good thing Romans taught them a lesson.
@Pseudologic ,, mate,, what were the romans doing there anyway?? if arabs or whoever, would take over the US,, you would fight them also right?? romans had nothing to do in britain.. Boudicca was a hero.
@ElReyRemy Many people have nothing to do anywhere, that's not the reason to slaughter women and children. And if you're too stupid to understand that, let's just say, if you like your own family, don't kill other people's family. Especially those who are way better than you at fighting.
@Pseudologic so your saying the romans didnt slaughter ppl? if some other country invaded my country, and then also rape my daughters, both without a reason. I would try to do the very same thing as boudicca did. like I said before, the romans shouldnt be in britain. (when I said tomans had nothing to do in britain I didnt mean they were bored, but they just shouldnt be there.)
@ElReyRemy I'm saying that I wouldn't promote to "HERO" anyone who slaughters innocent people. Romans slaughter people, but I'm not going around saying that they were heroes. So if someone killed your family, you'd go and kill some other person's family? You're not a Nazi, or a Islamist by chance? Those are the only two groups I can think of who'd do that.
@Pseudologic no mate I am neither.. and don't take it so personal, we are having a discussion..
what I am saying is that people want to be free. and bouddica tried to free her people from roman rule. the trigger was the rape of her doughters yes, but eventually the british celts would have revolted against the romans anyway.
@ElReyRemy Do you know what she did to the Roman women? She put about 10,000 of them on stakes then cut their breasts off. Why? Because her tribe wasn't strong enough not to be conquered in the first place? It's like saying that some Muslims are justified in blowing up civilians, because they can't face our armies and because they feel they're being conquered. There is no moral superiority in this argument. They may do that, but they're still bad people.
@Pseudologic Dont bring the Muslims into this you lowly scum. Islam is strictly against the killing of women and children. Those who do so are sinfull outlaws.
@Pseudologic You typical americant idiot. You and your people are pathetic. And you will pay for all the evils you have brought upon the people of the world.
@Kingofsomething87 Whoa, yes, America has done some HORRIBLE things such as Vietnam. But guess what, just like everything in this world, it has a good and a bad side. Just like there are normal, peace loving Muslims, perhaps like yourself, there are good Americans. Then there is the ugly American. And there is also the Muslim extremist. Watch who you insult, my friend. Just because there are some bad people in a certain group does not mean the whole group is like that.
@elysium76 Youre an idiot. Before you spout bullshit learn about our religion first. You will find out that our Prophet constantly forbade the killing of women and children.
@Kingofsomething87 first and formost I do know my religion, and studied Islam to conclude it is a cult the stold relgious elements from Gnostic Christainity, Pagan Arabisn, and Zorastrainism. Islam is expansivie religion. It plays nice when it is a minority, then but when the population swells the people starts demanding their religious concessions. And durinng YOUR prophet time, he murdered and allowed his men rape and kill a Jewish community inside what is now Suadi Arabia.
@Kingofsomething87 He also had woman killed because she criicized him and called him out on his supposed prophethood. In conclusion, you are a blind idiot, you don't realize that your supposed religion is farce.
@elysium76 You idiot that incident you related has been agrred upon by Muslim scholars to be untrue. And the prophet never ordered the rape of women. The jewish men who were killed were traitors who helped the pagans besiege Madina. Every single country in the world executes traitors you idiot
what a fool she was, she should have just encircled the 10,000 strong Romans. I bet in less than a week the Romans would be dead tired of hunger. then again, she is just a woman.
WTF? is this Sicilia guy on about does he think the Roman legion was all wops lol sad news for you buddy the legion was made up of Gauls,Greeks,Spaniards and every thing else from across the empire it was only officered by native "Roman" italians, Superior tacticts an equipment won it for Rome, tacticts they had been perfecting for a long time before the Celtic tribes....Rome won by a cunt hair.......Learn your history wop
wigger? thats some stupid fucking american term how the fuck can a guy from belfast whos into rock music be a wigger I think you just make coments to make yourself sound cool...your oviously a fucking idiot, some brain dead cocksucker! I noticed one of your favorite movies is Black Hawk Down I served in somalia shit heal....your just some punk kid
@sicilia313 Before Marius, recruitment was limited to citizens enrolled in the top 5 Roman classes. By the end of the Social War (87 B.C.) most of the free men in Italy were entitled to enlist and by the reign of Caracalla or Marcus Aurelius, it was extended to the entire Roman world.
@Siciia313 Just checked out your site and I was right you are a sad person. and, quite frankly -i think you need a little bit of help! Seriously! We`re a bit homophobic aren`t we?
Oh, and three ot one odds is 10.000 to 30,000 not 200,000 counting is so important do try harder
@sicilia313 If it wasnt for Nero, the Roman Emperor, I dont really think there would be this war at all, but then again. If it wasnt for Nero. Rome would never have become the epic city it was after him.
@sicilia313 Yes but the 200000-250000 were comprised of women and children aswell as men, and 1000's of them were peasents with no experience apart from the last 3 raids, which isn't really fighting, more hunting. Also they had no armour, just trousers of non-metal. The romans had decades of experience and years of them fighting Brits learning their barbarian tactics, the romans had strong armour all over their body and weapons of stronger material while some Brits even had to use their fists.
@ichigo875 thanks for the agreement but there was over 200000 in all of britain, that is where your wrong, however you are right about thinking about it because
England still had less than 1 million people, and many were dying of the dread diseases and bad medical rituals of those days, meanwhile when you say Britain its only England and Wales fighting the Romans, The Scots (Picts) were also fighting the British meaning England-Wales had 3 wars going on, the other was Ireland....
@TheDancingNoob ....This means England-Wales was in a heck of a state they were attacked from all corners (the saxons and scandanavians also wanted British land so I guess there was 5 wars) meaning England-Wales did pretty awesomely well to show the romans whos boss and fight them in the end even though they lost they died bravely. Even though they had there asses kicked, they were pretty kickass.
I'm glad you thought about numbers and tactics aswell as resources and not just power, well done
This is a pretty good video, but they make some mistakes. The first mistake is that the British, or for that matter the Celts, did not fight naked or half-naked, they actually wore plad clothing and they probably did not paint themselves with woad either. Also the Celts or the British Celts were not bloodthirsty, they actually had laws protecting the mentally handicapped and elderly, they may have been warlike, but to say bloodthirsty is a bit too strong of a word in my opinion.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention to what he said about how they didn't wear clothing in battle, etc. He said that was a much earlier period, then quotes a historian from that time.
CClennon be quiet even if boudicca had tried to keep her men from attacking would they have stopped? no, they are a warlike people and now they're very very angry. just enjoy the program
Maybe the Brits were blood thirsty, but they didnt attempt to invade and pervert native lands with their doctrines of faith and corrupt immoral foundations upon which our failing economy happens to be structured. You sound very weak cclennon and I bet you'd be an absolute push over in an argument wouldnt you. I'm not ammoral and I'm certainly not a simpleton. I find it interesting that you cant make consise fact based arguments and instead you stoop to moral arrogance and petty insults. Weak.
er... If I was her and the romans raped and tortured me and my daughters I would slaughter them without question. Those civilians you refer too were put in place by Rome in an attempt to breed out and replace the true native blood. I would massacre them too. How adre they invade. You are being pretty naive I'm afraid cclennon
History is written by the victorius, I wonder whether boudiccas army really did torture and murder innocent people? I can imagine that the spin in the media at the time would have wanted to have made her something un-natural and scary...If she had one It would, no doubt, be a differant story. Rome were vicious murderous, torturous, dominating and unwelcome so what did they expect? ps read the boudica series by Manda Scott, its absolutely awesome.
Of course, you´re right, like the romans who wrote the history of the Celts, they were described as sauvage people who ate human flesh! If Romans wanted to have good fame, they surely wrote that their conquered people where saved by them because they were wild and barbarians.
If they make a sequel to Rome total war, They should have the Boudiccan uprising as a scenario event, Didn't Boudicca massacre the tribes loyal to Rome?
20% is a number WAY to large; 20% of 100,000 is 20,000.
The pilas perhaps 5% at the MOST.
The Romans had a superior army, and a superior commander. That is why they won; no trickery or treachery, just plain tactics, superior trained men, and superior equipment.
I think this is wrong. I heard that Polintus did evacuate London and only left behind the old and handicapped because he couldn't transport them.
bdjoh011 1 month ago
Comment removed
bdjoh011 1 month ago
Who says women have no place in battle? These women sure proved we do! BOUDICCA!
MissRiki1987 2 months ago
@MissRiki1987 And Amazonian charioteers.
MJFAN666 1 week ago
@MJFAN666 May I please ask who the Amazonian charioteers are? ;-}
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
@MissRiki1987 Another set of great female warriors.
MJFAN666 1 week ago
Comment removed
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
@MissRiki1987 Why would you say that? You do realize that good Muslims and Good Atheists and all good (and bad) non christians will get massacred and be sent to hell right?
And even terrible people that have accepted Christ will be "saved". How is that just?!?
MJFAN666 1 week ago
Comment removed
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
Comment removed
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
@MJFAN666 I am so sorry you feel that way sweetie. I'll send you a message sense I don't have enough room here k? By the way thank you very much for sharing about the other women warriors! ^^
MissRiki1987 1 week ago
why would you massacre your own people?
SilviaEffe007 2 months ago
Youtube mix for 3... WTF?
hooversom 3 months ago in playlist YouTube Mix for 3
quarter million massacred by 10000? holy shit son
imfromtambunan 4 months ago
It would have been better if Boudicca had slaughtered every Roman on the face of the earth.
Davidthehappyfellow 6 months ago
If the tribes of Britain were unite as one back then they would kicked ass against the Romans. One tribe in Wales wiped out a full Roman legion in battle and they were outnumbered so the Romans weren't all that powerful.
1980cossie 6 months ago
Spartacus or Boudicca, which was more of a threat to Rome?
lukegreen37 7 months ago
Why do you use the HAMATA LEGIONS? They did not exist then! The existed only in the late times of the roman Republic! The legions then were called segmentata because of their armour! Ex. Legio XX Valeria Victrix, Legio V Macedonica and many others... Please comment
TheYu87 8 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 8 months ago
poor family. they saw their husbands hacked down by the Romans. :(
hankock1015 10 months ago
Decisive battle? I think no.
VictumRoManius 1 year ago
@VictumRoManius nobody in britain rebelled after this.
TheSpurs825 1 year ago
hahah, barbarians what else ca i say....
TheN0rdic 1 year ago
and the romans slaughtered millions of innocent people. there lived 3 million ppl in Gaul in the time of ceasar, and 1 million were killed by the romans through time... 1/3d of the population.
ElReyRemy 1 year ago
I mean yeah liberation all that shit, but at the end of the day, Boudicca slaughtered thousands of people because of her daughters' taken virginity? Fucking barbariabs. Good thing Romans taught them a lesson.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic ,, mate,, what were the romans doing there anyway?? if arabs or whoever, would take over the US,, you would fight them also right?? romans had nothing to do in britain.. Boudicca was a hero.
ElReyRemy 1 year ago
@ElReyRemy Many people have nothing to do anywhere, that's not the reason to slaughter women and children. And if you're too stupid to understand that, let's just say, if you like your own family, don't kill other people's family. Especially those who are way better than you at fighting.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic so your saying the romans didnt slaughter ppl? if some other country invaded my country, and then also rape my daughters, both without a reason. I would try to do the very same thing as boudicca did. like I said before, the romans shouldnt be in britain. (when I said tomans had nothing to do in britain I didnt mean they were bored, but they just shouldnt be there.)
ElReyRemy 1 year ago
@ElReyRemy I'm saying that I wouldn't promote to "HERO" anyone who slaughters innocent people. Romans slaughter people, but I'm not going around saying that they were heroes. So if someone killed your family, you'd go and kill some other person's family? You're not a Nazi, or a Islamist by chance? Those are the only two groups I can think of who'd do that.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic no mate I am neither.. and don't take it so personal, we are having a discussion..
what I am saying is that people want to be free. and bouddica tried to free her people from roman rule. the trigger was the rape of her doughters yes, but eventually the british celts would have revolted against the romans anyway.
ElReyRemy 1 year ago
@ElReyRemy Do you know what she did to the Roman women? She put about 10,000 of them on stakes then cut their breasts off. Why? Because her tribe wasn't strong enough not to be conquered in the first place? It's like saying that some Muslims are justified in blowing up civilians, because they can't face our armies and because they feel they're being conquered. There is no moral superiority in this argument. They may do that, but they're still bad people.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
@Pseudologic Dont bring the Muslims into this you lowly scum. Islam is strictly against the killing of women and children. Those who do so are sinfull outlaws.
Kingofsomething87 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 LOL, calm down you deranged fanatical piece of religious shit.
Pseudologic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pseudologic You typical americant idiot. You and your people are pathetic. And you will pay for all the evils you have brought upon the people of the world.
Go to Hell
Kingofsomething87 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 Whoa, yes, America has done some HORRIBLE things such as Vietnam. But guess what, just like everything in this world, it has a good and a bad side. Just like there are normal, peace loving Muslims, perhaps like yourself, there are good Americans. Then there is the ugly American. And there is also the Muslim extremist. Watch who you insult, my friend. Just because there are some bad people in a certain group does not mean the whole group is like that.
PhalangitePower 1 month ago
@Kingofsomething87 Actually, America acts like a world police force sometimes.
PhalangitePower 1 month ago
@Kingofsomething87 and keep telling yourself that it is true...
elysium76 1 year ago
@elysium76 Youre an idiot. Before you spout bullshit learn about our religion first. You will find out that our Prophet constantly forbade the killing of women and children.
Kingofsomething87 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 first and formost I do know my religion, and studied Islam to conclude it is a cult the stold relgious elements from Gnostic Christainity, Pagan Arabisn, and Zorastrainism. Islam is expansivie religion. It plays nice when it is a minority, then but when the population swells the people starts demanding their religious concessions. And durinng YOUR prophet time, he murdered and allowed his men rape and kill a Jewish community inside what is now Suadi Arabia.
elysium76 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 He also had woman killed because she criicized him and called him out on his supposed prophethood. In conclusion, you are a blind idiot, you don't realize that your supposed religion is farce.
elysium76 1 year ago 4
@elysium76 You idiot that incident you related has been agrred upon by Muslim scholars to be untrue. And the prophet never ordered the rape of women. The jewish men who were killed were traitors who helped the pagans besiege Madina. Every single country in the world executes traitors you idiot
Kingofsomething87 1 year ago
@Kingofsomething87 You must be really good at name calling, no point in arguing with a delsusional fanatic.
elysium76 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elysium76 I was thinking the same about you american idiot
Kingofsomething87 1 year ago
@Pseudologic I'm not saying all they did is good. But you know how the romans conquered britain right?
but anyway, if the romans werent there in the first place this wouldnt have happened.. tough I get your point.
ElReyRemy 1 year ago
There were mainly men in the ARMY but in the total amount which is much higher then 250000 there were a lot of women and children.
sicilia313 1 year ago
Wait... sooo why couldn't the barbarians go into the woods? It's been done before (Teutobourg forest for one)
skittlesareyum48 1 year ago
Rome Soldier : We are out numbered 3 to 1 !!
Rome General : Then this is an even fight !!
xmaple1x 1 year ago 11
Sun Tzu took a small army of 30,000 against enemy army of 300,000 and won with tricky and brains.
Its possible for a small army can defeat a superior numberical force.
Roman army of 10,000 against 300,000 Brits. Its like 30 brits vs. 1 Legionary. But the Roman general pick a ground that favor the Roman army to win.
LegoRepublicese 1 year ago
what a fool she was, she should have just encircled the 10,000 strong Romans. I bet in less than a week the Romans would be dead tired of hunger. then again, she is just a woman.
nodinitiative 1 year ago
Wrong Nero was a pig much like the leaders of the west are now
sicilia313 2 years ago
80000 romans and roman friends slaughtered. Really bad news indeed. Nice english understatement at 1:02
lucius1976 2 years ago
WTF? is this Sicilia guy on about does he think the Roman legion was all wops lol sad news for you buddy the legion was made up of Gauls,Greeks,Spaniards and every thing else from across the empire it was only officered by native "Roman" italians, Superior tacticts an equipment won it for Rome, tacticts they had been perfecting for a long time before the Celtic tribes....Rome won by a cunt hair.......Learn your history wop
Highlandgent 2 years ago
shut that fucking gob filthy annoying jock
democrat4lyf 2 years ago
Eat Shite Cunt
Highlandgent 2 years ago
your a fucking wigger so shut up
sicilia313 2 years ago
Comment removed
Highlandgent 2 years ago
wigger? thats some stupid fucking american term how the fuck can a guy from belfast whos into rock music be a wigger I think you just make coments to make yourself sound cool...your oviously a fucking idiot, some brain dead cocksucker! I noticed one of your favorite movies is Black Hawk Down I served in somalia shit heal....your just some punk kid
Highlandgent 2 years ago
fucking nigger shut up your probably some pussy who ran away from combat.
sicilia313 1 year ago
actually the Legionaries were ITALIAN so go screw yourself.
sicilia313 1 year ago
@sicilia313 actualy by this time they could have come from anywhere
MutantHippie 1 year ago
@MutantHippie
actually the legionaries only could come from certain places like mainland Italy.
sicilia313 1 year ago
@sicilia313 Before Marius, recruitment was limited to citizens enrolled in the top 5 Roman classes. By the end of the Social War (87 B.C.) most of the free men in Italy were entitled to enlist and by the reign of Caracalla or Marcus Aurelius, it was extended to the entire Roman world.
MutantHippie 1 year ago
@MutantHippie
The auxiliary yes but the legionaries no
sicilia313 1 year ago
@sicilia313 well then :) I stand corrected
MutantHippie 1 year ago
@sicilia313 You stupid cunt, citizens were allowed, not just romans.
Pawnbroker00 1 year ago
@Pawnbroker00
Learn your history then talk you idiot.
sicilia313 1 year ago
@sicilia313 all you can do is argue, you just need a good cup of shut the fuck up
Pawnbroker00 1 year ago
@Pawnbroker00
Stop sucking dick and admit your wrong idiot.
sicilia313 1 year ago
@Siciia313 Just checked out your site and I was right you are a sad person. and, quite frankly -i think you need a little bit of help! Seriously! We`re a bit homophobic aren`t we?
Oh, and three ot one odds is 10.000 to 30,000 not 200,000 counting is so important do try harder
swollower 2 years ago
Rome kicked their ass in the end
10000 vs 200000-250000 soldiers
and rome still won
sicilia313 2 years ago 19
@sicilia313 If it wasnt for Nero, the Roman Emperor, I dont really think there would be this war at all, but then again. If it wasnt for Nero. Rome would never have become the epic city it was after him.
Lobos222 2 years ago
@sicilia313 Yes but the 200000-250000 were comprised of women and children aswell as men, and 1000's of them were peasents with no experience apart from the last 3 raids, which isn't really fighting, more hunting. Also they had no armour, just trousers of non-metal. The romans had decades of experience and years of them fighting Brits learning their barbarian tactics, the romans had strong armour all over their body and weapons of stronger material while some Brits even had to use their fists.
TheDancingNoob 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDancingNoob Sorry but you are mistaken.
sicilia313 1 year ago
@TheDancingNoob agreed plus bthere probs wasnt 200,000 people in all of britain think about it its the first century ad
ichigo875 1 year ago
@ichigo875 thanks for the agreement but there was over 200000 in all of britain, that is where your wrong, however you are right about thinking about it because
England still had less than 1 million people, and many were dying of the dread diseases and bad medical rituals of those days, meanwhile when you say Britain its only England and Wales fighting the Romans, The Scots (Picts) were also fighting the British meaning England-Wales had 3 wars going on, the other was Ireland....
TheDancingNoob 1 year ago
@TheDancingNoob ....This means England-Wales was in a heck of a state they were attacked from all corners (the saxons and scandanavians also wanted British land so I guess there was 5 wars) meaning England-Wales did pretty awesomely well to show the romans whos boss and fight them in the end even though they lost they died bravely. Even though they had there asses kicked, they were pretty kickass.
I'm glad you thought about numbers and tactics aswell as resources and not just power, well done
TheDancingNoob 1 year ago
@ichigo875 there were more than 200,000 in britain mate. In Gaul for example there were more than 3,000,000 inhabitants at 50 B.C.
ElReyRemy 1 year ago
@sicilia313 those numbers given are great exaggerations so im guessing that the legion faced down about 30,000 the so called minimum estamation
ichigo875 1 year ago
@sicilia313 roman legioners against farmers, fishermen, traders and only few warriors.
TheIcelandicPatriot 1 year ago
@sicilia313
The fact the rebellion got as far as it did was pretty miraculous when you think about it.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@sicilia313 wasn't it about 100,000?
Steven259469 1 year ago
@sicilia313 actually Rome fell in the end.
Trucifer 7 months ago
This is a pretty good video, but they make some mistakes. The first mistake is that the British, or for that matter the Celts, did not fight naked or half-naked, they actually wore plad clothing and they probably did not paint themselves with woad either. Also the Celts or the British Celts were not bloodthirsty, they actually had laws protecting the mentally handicapped and elderly, they may have been warlike, but to say bloodthirsty is a bit too strong of a word in my opinion.
ThePersia123 2 years ago 3
Perhaps you weren't paying attention to what he said about how they didn't wear clothing in battle, etc. He said that was a much earlier period, then quotes a historian from that time.
DALLASot 2 years ago
CClennon be quiet even if boudicca had tried to keep her men from attacking would they have stopped? no, they are a warlike people and now they're very very angry. just enjoy the program
Foozlethegreat 2 years ago
who cares? enjoy the show
EmperorTiger 2 years ago 4
"hell hath no fury like a woman scorned..."
andthereis 2 years ago 33
Comment removed
sicilia313 2 years ago
@andthereis
Rome had its revenge in the end. Really Rome is where revenge and fury takes place. Assassination of Caesar, killing of Nero etc.
sicilia313 1 year ago
@andthereis lol that shakespeare or something?
arizonacardinals94 1 year ago
tut!!! like she would give a fuck you idiot
her daughters were raped and murdered right in front of her eyes by romans.!!!
DannyJamesRead 2 years ago
Maybe the Brits were blood thirsty, but they didnt attempt to invade and pervert native lands with their doctrines of faith and corrupt immoral foundations upon which our failing economy happens to be structured. You sound very weak cclennon and I bet you'd be an absolute push over in an argument wouldnt you. I'm not ammoral and I'm certainly not a simpleton. I find it interesting that you cant make consise fact based arguments and instead you stoop to moral arrogance and petty insults. Weak.
FoxFan100 2 years ago 2
They had it coming... see my previous statement...
FoxFan100 2 years ago 2
er... If I was her and the romans raped and tortured me and my daughters I would slaughter them without question. Those civilians you refer too were put in place by Rome in an attempt to breed out and replace the true native blood. I would massacre them too. How adre they invade. You are being pretty naive I'm afraid cclennon
FoxFan100 2 years ago
History is written by the victorius, I wonder whether boudiccas army really did torture and murder innocent people? I can imagine that the spin in the media at the time would have wanted to have made her something un-natural and scary...If she had one It would, no doubt, be a differant story. Rome were vicious murderous, torturous, dominating and unwelcome so what did they expect? ps read the boudica series by Manda Scott, its absolutely awesome.
FoxFan100 2 years ago
Of course, you´re right, like the romans who wrote the history of the Celts, they were described as sauvage people who ate human flesh! If Romans wanted to have good fame, they surely wrote that their conquered people where saved by them because they were wild and barbarians.
RedSidhe 2 years ago
the romans needed more physical armour as thye were less spiritual people
Olster81 2 years ago
Hail Queen Boudicca!
logan1776 3 years ago
hm lol
the romans had 10k men and the britons had more than 100/200k.... and they say the romans were outnumbered at least 3 to 1...
they should say "at least 10 to 1"
dpsantos1994 3 years ago
Bousicca= Awesome
katharinethequene 3 years ago
i love boudicca
TomMarshall92 3 years ago
were is the famous wedge formation deployed by the romans?
jeebs15 3 years ago
Rome can't do that
Deadman1709 2 years ago
I was actually rooting for the britons in these battles.
dragonddff 3 years ago
was this the very first battle of Britain to be won?
crawhip2 3 years ago
I am not sure.
dragonddff 3 years ago 2
i wouldnt call massacring a bunch of civi's winning a battle or 4000 under equiptmen outnumbered like 5 to 1
420alldayy 3 years ago
I wonder why I got a -1 for that...
I guess there is some roman philliac I offended
dragonddff 3 years ago
why sn't there high quality for any of these?
carthagertw 3 years ago
Add &fmt=18 to the end of each video url.
KingPiousTheThird 3 years ago
If they make a sequel to Rome total war, They should have the Boudiccan uprising as a scenario event, Didn't Boudicca massacre the tribes loyal to Rome?
Jizuschrist 3 years ago 3
They lacked discipline and coordination, The Romans had a an edge in many ways.
Numbers never ensure victory.
Jizuschrist 3 years ago 2
I mean you are also right as well; surely some info on enemy numbers from the Romans are wrong.
But for this circumstance the Britons certainly did have more numbers, if not at least just twice than the Romans had.
KingPiousTheThird 3 years ago
20% is a number WAY to large; 20% of 100,000 is 20,000.
The pilas perhaps 5% at the MOST.
The Romans had a superior army, and a superior commander. That is why they won; no trickery or treachery, just plain tactics, superior trained men, and superior equipment.
KingPiousTheThird 3 years ago
but the britons had 230,000 men in their army
carthagertw 3 years ago
You still haven't answered my question.
HOW did the Romans "trick" her army?
Dude that info you just posted was IN the video; that was totally unnecessary.
KingPiousTheThird 3 years ago
HOW did the Romans "trick" her army?
That's the most absurd thing I ever heard, you can't trick an army of 100,000 with 10,000.
KingPiousTheThird 3 years ago
Boudicca was an awful commander, she under estimated the Romans and that's why she lost.
chas1123 3 years ago
These numbers seem to boost over time
Britanglish13 3 years ago
Suetonius Paulinus - a wise man. Leave London to the ravaging hordes despite the please of its residents. I never thought much of London myself ;-)
aeonflux67 3 years ago
Didnt you, oh our arses are bleeding on that one.
TomBenwick 3 years ago 2
Are you a Greek plumber working in London then? That would probably explain your injury.
aeonflux67 3 years ago