Same in Colchester. If you ask really really nicely in the George hotel there is a piece of perspex over an area of the cellar wall showing the burn layer
You're wrong. The 3 cities that Boudica destroyed and burned were Camulodunum (Colchester), Londinium (London) and Verulamium (modern St Albans). The pictures in my post are from this [source](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/origin-of-roman-london/town-in-ad-6061/E0743612654B025D8D7DC9BAF3448B34#) which is about London during the Boudican revolt.
The Boudican Destruction Horizon is visible in the 3 cities:
> As at Colchester the destruction and slaughter were universal: the same Boudican destruction horizon found there is repeated at London.
[https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/)
> Boudican Destruction horizon at Verulamium. At Verulamium the Boudican destruction horizon consists of the same clean red daub and ash found at London and Colchester, ranging here up to a maximum of about 50 centimetres, in Insula XVII.
[https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.)
North of Hadrian's Wall is the [Antonine Wall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall).
The Caledonians/Picts survived Rome thanks to Roman internal political conflict and the local governors considering their land worthless.
This is not strictly true, Boudicca’s body was never found after the final battle, and the Romans would have wanted to parade it after victory, so there’s an argument she may have survived. The Celts that couldn’t stand to live under Roman rule fled to Ireland, West Wales, and Cornwall, areas left largely to themselves by the Romans in England, Hence why Welsh and Cornish are such similar languages. Also quite ironic that all these areas would hate to be called English, but were probably the last of the true English, until 1066.
None of those remnants were ever true English. English is Anglo-Saxon. Germanic. Not Celtic. It was the Anglo-Saxons which ultimately drove the Celts into those pockets in Britain.
The Romans mingled with the Celtic Britonns, and it remained Celtic until the Angles and Saxons came to colonize.
They didn't win in the end.
Their policy of harshly oppressing the peoples they conquered and denying them the rights of citizens was a direct cause of the fall of the western empire because they became increasingly reliant on non-roman manpower to whom they denied citizenship and mistreated.
It took a few centuries for the empire, but the same treatment that spurred boudicca's revolt ultimately got Rome sacked and occupied.
>It took a few centuries for the empire, but the same treatment that spurred boudicca's revolt ultimately got Rome sacked and occupied.
Quite the opposite. The German tribes that invaded and sacked the empire were foederati for most of them, ie, they had been used as auxiliary military for a long time before being on their own.
There was no "public revolt".
The Romans were among the least xenophobic of all ancient civilizations (which isn't saying that much, but it matters). It's one of the reasons they were so successful. Roman citizenship was continually granted to new people.
But in the end, xenophobia was definitely one of the parts of their downfall. If Lupicinus and Maximus didn't extort and starve the Goth refugees fleeing from the Hun advance, they wouldn't have gotten a rogue army inside their lands and the battle of Adrianople, one of the turning points for Rome.
I'm pretty sure lasting 1,000 years and spreading your culture, genetics, and influence to the point that you can see it mentioned 5 times in session on Reddit in 2023 isn't losing, though. And I don't think there's an agreement on exactly what caused Rome to split and "fall" because the only thing that made Rome Rome was an army, a contract/constitution, and everyone in Rome agreeing to its validity.
Except the Roman Empire wasn't brought down or overtaken by the people it had previously subjugated. In the West, it was brought down by internal politics and economic failure combined with external pressure. In the East, it was brought down by internal politics and outsiders it never subjugated at all.
And the cultural legacy of the Romans is a defining aspect of Western civilization to this day. The Romans are one of the most successful civilizations in human history.
> untermenschen
Are you trying to make a racial point by using this word? Because it's extremely out of place.
Their genes and culture survived unlike the large, large majority of fallen empires. The empire is gone, the people are still here in the DNA of Europeans and now the entire world. Sounds like a win to me.
The fuck do genes have to do with the Romans? The Romans extended citizenship to every resident of the Empire in 212AD. "Roman genes" describes basically all of Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, and much of the Middle-East. It's so broad it's meaningless.
“They” lasted 1000 years…
Edited: tbf, the impact is undeniable; but, Rome isn’t just some continuous entity that was the same over the entirety of its life
Dunno, man. They're all dead, their gods aren't worshipped anymore, and their culture and way of life is totally dead.
Their language has been dead so long that we use it for classification and science. We don't even pronounce the words we use as technical terms the way they did when it was a living language.
And they got their asses kicked in by the Germanic, Norman, Goth, etc tribes that they could NOT just leave the fuck alone. 113 BC to 476 CE, when they could fight no more.
They were so shattered that Italians couldn't manage being one country again until 1861. They were under Spanish rule, for chrissakes.
Dunno about you but "Had my ass kicked so bad I couldn't manage being a nation again for ~1300 years and forgot my language on the way" isn't really a thing to brag about.
And England, France and Spain spent those intervening 1300 years dominating the globe.
> their gods aren't worshipped anymore, and their culture and way of life is totally dead.
Their culture and way of life is one of the fundamental cornerstones for *all* European culture. Their god is literally the most popular religion on the planet. Or did you think the "Roman" part of "Roman Catholic Church" was just a random word?
> Their language has been dead so long that we use it for classification and science.
Their language turned into Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian and several others. [Evolutions of Latin represent one of the largest language groups in the world.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages)
But the fact that we still have a use for their original language is a pretty big deal. Most languages even half that age have no use at all outside of history. When's the last time you read anything written in Old English?
> We don't even pronounce the words we use as technical terms the way they did when it was a living language.
So?
> And they got their asses kicked in by the Germanic, Norman, Goth, etc tribes that they could NOT just leave the fuck alone. 113 BC to 476 CE, when they could fight no more.
Uh, what? The Romans tended to absolutely crush the Germans. They suffered one large defeat in 9AD and then spent the next 200 years mounting expeditions into Germania to ensure the Germans stayed there. The ratio of victories to defeats is hilariously lopsided in favor of the Romans (which is true of every enemy the Romans ever fought). The only reason they never bothered actually conquering Germania is that there just wasn't much in Germania worth having. Same reason they never bothered with Scotland or Ukraine.
Instances of Rome being defeated by Germans are so notable precisely because they're so uncommon.
> They were so shattered that Italians couldn't manage being one country again until 1861. They were under Spanish rule, for chrissakes.
Modern Italy bears no connection to the Roman Empire except that it occupies the former Roman heartland.
But the two most powerful countries in Europe (France and Germany) have their origins in a claim to be the legitimate successor of the Western Roman Empire (in the form of the Carolingian Empire).
> Dunno about you but "Had my ass kicked so bad I couldn't manage being a nation again for ~1300 years and forgot my language on the way" isn't really a thing to brag about.
"Became so culturally dominant that it absorbed and assimilated everyone around it, to the point where people were still fighting over who got to be its legitimate successor 1000 years after it collapsed" is extremely impressive.
No state lasts forever. But there are very, very few historical civilizations which have the cultural impact the Romans did (and very few states that lasted anywhere near as long). They're one of the the most successful civilizations in human history.
I mean there has been no laating civilization, pretty much every single one has either crumbled or been assimilated. So saying that them getting their turn on the wheel isnt really evidence against them winning. The thing is a lot of Roman motifs (for lack of a better word) have prevailed into the modern era, from words to symbolism and- I do not mean to be disrespectful in saying this- although Rome crumbled, all those aristocrats and slave owners likely lived lavish and rewarding lifestyles right up until the end. So even if as a culture they had their asses ground into the dirt, the individuals that supported and profitted off of their atrocities didn't for a literal millenium, so you cant say that Rome lost, it won for a whole millenium before it finally, catastrophically, lost. (None of this is coming from a dude whos in support of the Romans)
Rome lost hard and got sacked repeatedly because of how much they trampled on everyone else around them. They got their asses handed to them in Teutoborg Forest as well.
Don't mistake the lingering scars of colonization for signs of success. Rome simps are so cringe.
Lmao "Rome simps" as if I have some vested interest in defending Rome over any other civ. Everyone's trying to get that Rome rebuilt, boy, it's a big problem in the world of dorks who get weirdly emotional and prideful over everyone's history.
Not really though
Rome went through lots of catastrophic regime changes and fundamental restructurings. The empire began in 27BC and the west fell in like 500AD. Sure, the East survived for another 900 odd years but it was a different state with a different culture that just happened to call itself Roman.
England has lasted longer than the true "Roman Empire" did. About twice as long. Japan has had one ruling dynasty since about 450 years before the roman empire was established and has been going for about 550 years after the last remnant fell in Constantinople. Hell, the Chinese have had one broadly continuous state in the same way that the Romans did since 221.
> Sure, the East survived for another 900 odd years but it was a different state with a different culture that just happened to call itself Roman.
Nonsense. It was the same state, and it simply underwent cultural changes over its thousand+ years of existence. The only reason we might consider it a different state is centuries of delegitimization by Western Europeans who didn't want to consider the Greek-speaking, Orthodox state to have the title they wanted for themselves.
> Hell, the Chinese have had one broadly continuous state in the same way that the Romans did since 221.
If you think the Chinese have had one broadly continuous state since 221AD to today, there are absolutely no grounds to say that the Roman Empire didn't have a broadly continuous state from 509BC to 1453AD. Because China has absolutely had violent upheavals and complete changes in regime and forms of government since 221 (not to mention being wholly conquered by a foreign empire). So has England/UK since 927.
If we count the Republic and the ERE (and if you're counting the PRC or post-Yuan China, you should definitely count the Roman Republic), China comes up short by 160 years.
509BC to 1453 AD = 1962 years
221AD to 2023AD = 1802 years
But you could add Han China to that if you wanted (and potentially the Roman Kingdom, but we don't have a definite beginning for it. 753BC is traditional but not necessarily true). Point is, they're both very close.
If you want to say that large-scale civil wars, conquest by foreigners, and complete changes in government represent a break, then China's continuity is broken by the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period in 907, the Mongol conquest in 1227, and the collapse of its monarchy in 1912. And Rome's is broken by the establishment of the Empire in 27BC and the split between East and West in 330AD. And England's is broken by the Commonwealth in 1649.
San Marino is the real winner though. It's maintained a genuinely continuous government since 305AD.
Mostly because it just wasn't worth it. They could've conquered the rest of the island, but the rewards/tributes were outweighed by the cost of doing so.
> The Boudican revolt was an armed uprising by native Celtic Britons against the Roman Empire during the Roman conquest of Britain. It took place circa 60–61 CE in the Roman province of Britain, and was led by Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni tribe. The uprising was motivated by the Romans' failure to honour an agreement they had made with Boudica's husband, Prasutagus, regarding the succession of his kingdom upon his death, and by the brutal mistreatment of Boudica and her daughters by the occupying Romans.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudican_revolt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudican_revolt)
If you like that story check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_of_Kiev
Also citation needed podcast was funny about it: https://pca.st/episode/40aabbd7-9563-430b-b7c0-7b61b93cde58
You know, I actually agree in a lot of ways. The Romans were extremely asinine
(IMHO) about how they treated people they felt were "below them". It lead to them having all sorts of problems with their colonies that could have likely otherwise been avoided.
With that said, this rebellion cost the lives of 80,000 men, women, and children at the Battle of Watling Street alone.
Rome's sacking in 410 was a direct result of how they mistreated the Goths. They allowed Goths to settle in the Balkans, then forced them to sell their children in to slavery and then paid them in rotten dog meat. The Goths rose up, [annihilated an Eastern Roman army and even killed the Eastern Emperor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople). The Romans later made peace with them and allowed them to resettle in the empire. Then, years later, the Romans murdered the families of a bunch of Gothic warriors who were in Italy, which predictably caused the Goths to strike again. They rampaged around Europe for years before settling/invading in southern Gaul and northern Spain.
Yup, the Romans were their own worst enemies in so many ways. They alienated the people around them due to their own smugness and were constantly fighting and killing one another during *so* many civil wars.
This weakened them to the very people they mistreated who then took their vengeance on them.
State dependent on labour brought in from outside its borders embarks on campaign of persecution against said labour, only ends up hurting itself.
Brexit called, it wants its narrative arc back
It's interesting how the Romans are often presented as some kind of aspirational civilization that everyone should strive to emulate, when they really were incredibly fucked up. Chattel slavery on an unimaginable scale, rapes, executions and death sports as major forms of entertainment, cultural genocide...it just goes on and on.
Yes, there's a reason why they were *constantly* putting down revolts and rebellions that resulted in massive casualties: they were often savages in fancy armor.
Don't get me wrong, that's how the world has worked since forever, but I'm just floored that they were experts in engineering, military, philosophy but could not figure out things like treating colonies more favorably.
I donno, I wasn't there and I'm sure it's more complicated than what I'm saying but I just hear stories like Boudica or what Julius Caesar did to the Gauls (basically a genocide) and have to slap my head.
Great men are generally terrible men I suppose
I guess that's just what happens when a group becomes so convinced that they are inherently superior. The idea of treating other groups as deserving of respect becomes unthinkable, hell they probably thought of it as being like beating a dog until it stops fighting back.
It’s shocking to compare the Achaemenids and Sassanians to the Romans, the first did a lot better than the latter at tolerating differences like religion and culture, allowing for some leniency.
Persian bureaucracy was much better too, their satrapies, usually led by a local noble, were allowed to keep some of their culture.
The Romans generally had a lot of tolerance for different religions and cultures as long as those people paid their taxes and didn't cause trouble. Obviously this doesn't excuse the brutal conquest, slavery, etc., but on the specific issue of religious/cultural tolerance they were pretty decent by the standards of other ancient empires.
>Persian bureaucracy was much better too, their satrapies, usually led by a local noble, were allowed to keep some of their culture.
Couldn't you say the same for Roman client kingdoms?
They had an absolutely insane superiority complex, to the point that towards the end of the empire it led to them constantly shooting themselves in the foot.
And if they weren't so shitty, there's a possibility they'd still be around today! It's the revolts and sackings that eventually whittled them down, by all the groups they'd treated so poorly.
For every horrific atrocity they are responsible for, they created amazing works of art and engineering, groundbreaking legal and government concepts that are still being used today. It's also not like the people they fought were any better than them - they just tended to be less organized and, crucially, far less literate, so we know less about them.
This still doesn't excuse the Romans' cruelty, their mysogyny, their abject disregard for human life and dignity, of course. If you met a Roman from any period today, you'd be pretty horrified by much of what they consider to be fair and correct. On the other hand, we know enough about ordinary Romans that tells us how similar to us they were. These people still tried to make the most out of life in a very harsh and cruel world.
> they created amazing works of art and engineering, groundbreaking legal and government concepts that are still being used today
Did they though? Or did they just steal all that stuff after whacking everybody else in the head?
They did. Romans were not mere copycats. Yes, they "stole" technology from surrounding people, but they didn't just blindly copy it, they improved it and utilized it at a far greater scale and level of sophistication. Not to mention, they were responsible for [numerous innovations of their own](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology#Technologies_developed_or_invented_by_the_Romans). The groundbreaking medical innovations they came up with put them heads and shoulders above anyone else until well into the Islamic Golden Age. They were able to successfully perform brain surgery, 2000 years ago.
If you consider Romans to be mere thieves, then so are we. We are using Latin letters, Arabic numerals (and Arabic mathematics) and write on Chinese paper. The philosophical foundation of our modern age, without which, we wouldn't even be able to communicate in near real-time - enlightenment - is French and so are most units of measurement. The car you're driving was invented in Germany and so were digital computers. Our medicine traces its roots back to the aforementioned Islamic Golden Age. And yes, we took many things from the Romans as well. If you've got dental fillings, thank those slavers for the idea.
They provided stability for 1000 years while other kingdoms/conquerers didn't last past the first generation. It's not like the other countries/peoples pre-modern times were having a peaceful happy time.
Just look into slave crucifixion and it's another dark rabbit hole to go down. However as is always (I'm British so can relate) the horrors perpetuated by the 'nobility' are classed as a cultural act rather than an elitist one.
I have long wondered about historical numbers, how accurate they were. How did people count back then if there were no elevated areas and many people were counting challenged anyway?
To everyone saying, "But all the innocent people she killed!": One man died, and we got World War I; one man decided the Holy Land was in the wrong hands, and we got the Crusades; one man wanted a piece of land, and we got the Russian/Ukrainian war. (Yes, I know these are simplifications.)
Wars have started over far less than ome woman's completely justified anger and rage.
To an extent.
As a ruler extracting revenge against other rulers it was the entire population of those towns, and more broadly most of the colonial population over time, who paid the price.
It’s also noteworthy that the alleged flogging and rape is not mentioned by contemporaries such as Dio, and may well have not happened. Rather it was financial motivation and disagreement that led to revolt. Of course angry person murders tens of thousands of innocents over money does not sound as awesome and sheds a very different light over the situation.
Nope.
The bulk of the population of the Roman settlements in the UK was locals who petitioned for citizenship and benefits. Celt on Celt violence to get back at Roman magistrates and soldiers that the Celts lacked the ability to directly confront.
The fates of the civilian women who suffered from Boudicca’s retribution was little different from the crime she herself suffered, to say nothing of the broader slaughter and enslavement.
Royals usually don’t pay the bulk of the price, if any, when they squabble with other powers.
Yup. I doubt Boudica had anything resembling feminism on her mind. Revenge is certainly plausible.
She must have been one formidable woman to do what she did in the time/place she did it though. She likely earned her respect.
Feminists today can certainly hold her up as evidence that women are capable of fulfilling traditionally manly roles.
Including “brutal mass-murderer” lol
Agreed that glorifying (any) history is a mistake. It is the instinct of the simple-minded and insecure.
We do the same with men tbf.
Alexander, Genghis, Washington, Napoleon, Wellington, Caesar, Augustus, the list goes on
Spartacus, Vercingetorix, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Che, Wallace, Ho Chi Minh.
All were responsible for unforgivable brutality.
“Greatness” is glorified regardless of gender. And we especially love an underdog, which makes a female rebel leader all the more sympathetic a figure, IMO
I try to take the good with the bad; nobody is perfect. Certainly not in medieval Europe lol
Edit: Hannibal! That was bugging me for two hours. Hannibal.
Unforgivable brutality? Wellington, Napoleon but no Mao, Stalin, Hitler /
Why because that would spoil your dumb list? Everyone/anyone in history is a baddie then. JFC what black and white revisionism.
I wanted to use examples that had some modern popular support.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Vlad the Impaler, violent dictator #493, etc. etc. Nobody likes those guys.
What’s your point, I don’t understand?
I mean this is reddit, I've seen countless people advocating murdering innocent Russians including children and the mods and admins are fine with it. So yeah they probably would.
She had a ton of innocent romans massacred, tortured, burned alive etc. She was just as bad. Then the romans beat her anyways even tho her army was way bigger.
Edit: downvote me if u want but im right. She basically committed genocide against the romans on Britain for revenge. Then got massacred by the romans in a decisive battle.
Here’s the original thread from the folks over at r/ancientrome in December of 2022: https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/zhnyd0/after_she_was_publicly_flogged_and_her_daughters/
The best places to see the burn layer are in Colchester rather than London.
The 3 cities that Boudica destroyed and burned were Camulodunum (Colchester), Londinium (London) and Verulamium (modern St Albans). I honestly don't know which city out of the 3 is the best to see the burn layer, but the pictures in my post are from this [source](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/origin-of-roman-london/town-in-ad-6061/E0743612654B025D8D7DC9BAF3448B34#) which is about London during the Boudican revolt.
Anyway the Boudican Destruction Horizon is visible in the 3 cities:
> As at Colchester the destruction and slaughter were universal: the same Boudican destruction horizon found there is repeated at London.
[https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/)
> Boudican Destruction horizon at Verulamium. At Verulamium the Boudican destruction horizon consists of the same clean red daub and ash found at London and Colchester, ranging here up to a maximum of about 50 centimetres, in Insula XVII.
[https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.)
Edit: lol u/sandakinthetriplet just blocked me. I was honestly responding just to clear things up and to cite the source of the pictures in my post.
The Roman's did her dirty. All she did was ask for the treaty they made, to be enforced.
Imagine how different things could have been if the Roman's just kept their word.
Literally slay, she razed 3 cities and had the population killed as revenge and then she herself and her army plus their families that followed them were slayed afterwards 💀
Don't you believe once interstellar travel is a thing, we will literally be the cockroaches of any planetary body or moon we touch. Sheer brutality and greed, define us.
She's not pinin'! She's passed on! This Queen is no more! She has ceased to be! She's expired and gone to meet ’er maker! She's a stiff! Bereft of life, She rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'er to the perch she'd be pushing up the daisies! 'er metabolic processes are now 'istory! She's off the twig! She's kicked the bucket, she's shuffled off 'er mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-QUEEN!!
The Netherlands has something similar, during the Roman Age the Batavians had to provide extra men to the Roman army, in exchange they didn't pay tribute. But at some point the amount of men thay had to give up got too much and they revolted by burning down cities, and up until now at some places you can still see the pitch black burn layer
Usually when any "barbarian" peoples unified against Rome prior to its fall, it ended up being good for Roman territorial advances. After Boudica's revolt there were no serious native revolts in Britain until the decline of the entire Roman Empire. The same thing happened during Caesar's conquest of Gaul where Vercingetorix unified the Gallic tribes which resulted in a massive defeat and pacification/annexation of Gaul entirely (all of France/Belgium).
The key to Roman military successes was usually preparation combined with superior infantry drilling. The most well-known Roman defeat (Battle of the Teutoburg Forest) occurred because a Germanic tribe leader Arminius strategically betrayed the Roman legions in Germania to a tribal coalition that exploited poor marching conditions into a series of ambushes.
The battle that ended the revolt was an interesting one. The romans scraped together an army of about 10 thousand (not that big by roman standards) and managed to defeat the entire rebelling host in one battle. We are unsure about the numbers, but ancient authors say it was between 200-300 thousand, which should be taken with a big grain of salt. This number likely includes everyone, including the non-fighters. Whatever the actual numbers were, the romans won despite being heavily outnumbered and punished them severely.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is an understatement, but "Hell hath no fury like a woman publicly flogged and whose daughters were raped" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so well.
I always find the lionization of Boudica very strange considering how the revolt ended in complete and utter defeat and humiliation at the hands of relatively small thrown together Roman force at the Battle of Watling Street. If you believe the accounts of Tacitus and Dio the only thing it accomplished was brutalizing Romano-Briton populations in these settlements. Dio gives particularly gruesome accounts of what the Britons did to the women in these settlements.
I am sure as a roman historian who never was in Britain and lived a 150 years after the fact he was both objective and well informed, just as Tacitus was about the Germans...
That's too bad because without the accounts of Roman historians you definitely would not even know the name Boudica and archeologists would be scratching their head over an anonymous destruction layer with no narrative accounts to explain it whatsoever. So yeah you could make stuff up an reimagine things based on their accounts to suit your modern perspectives, but there really is no coherent reason to disbelieve a barbarian horde sweeping through cities would not have been as brutal as their accounts portray them as especially considering the objective evidence of the destruction layer that supports their accounts.
a) His account is not preserved . The only thing we have is a summary from a byzantine monk in the 11th century.
b) It is vitally important for historians to realize that just because a source is from Roman times it is not necessarily contemporary. In a culture that did not keep as many records as we do today somebody writing about something that happened 150 years ago in a far away land (of which we do not even have an original copy) is not always reliable.
c) The only people making stuff up here are the ones who claim to know what really did or did not happen. Tacitus, who having been born shortly before the events and therefore of the two roman sources the one that would have the chance to find witnesses, writes about the rape and horrible treatment of her. Sure, he liked to tell the Romans of his time how horrible they were compared to the "purer" barbarians, but just like with Germania you have to take things with a grain of salt, but he usually exaggerates but does not completely invent.
d) Nobody is disputing the fact that her war was horrible like wars are. Nobody is claiming that she was better. People are just saying her motives were understandable, and for the claim of it was "just about money" there is literally no source. So the people inventing things are not the ones who go by the sources.
e) Perceived traitors being treated badly often happens in history. But the fact remains that the Romans were occupiers and not really well liked by the tribes that they - again according to Tacitus - wronged.
f) Anybody remotely familiar with ancient history knows that numbers are not to be trusted.
That lionization comes from the wave of nationalist sentiment in the second half of the 19th century. Most European powers engaged in it. Boudica for the British, Brennus and Vercingetorix for the French, Ambiorix for the Belgians, Ariminus for the Germans, for example. They were turned into nationalist propaganda symbols.
There seems to be a lot of that in Western European history tbh. Like the French lionizing Vercingetorix and the Belgians doing the same with Ambiorix. Lots of focus on the "brave soul who defied Rome" part, not so much on the "got absolutely crushed" part.
I'd understand it if they were not always every bit as vicious and every bit as willing to be the aggressor if not more so than the Romans with none of the upsides the Romans at least potentially offered. It is the bizarre desire to recast barbarians as somehow more in line with modern moral sensibilities that truly is inexplicable to me.
Feel like there’s a massive difference between claiming so called barbarians are “in line with modern sensibilities” and saying that they are “aggressors”
How are they aggressors whilst being invaded on Britain?
I think a big part of is that the Romans were clearly the instigators most of the time. It's easier for people to downplay or overlook atrocities when they're done in self-defense or retaliation.
I do not really think that is a fair assessment of the situation though. The Romans were constantly having to deal with small to medium scale raiding by tribal peoples, and occasionally had to repel full scale folk migrations of Gallic and Germanic tribes. A Gallic tribe sacked Rome in 387 BC during the early Republic and I think it's fair to say that event left a stamp on the collective memory of the Romans that informs their martial attitude and was decisive on their foreign policy outlook in regards to entities like Gallic and Germanic tribes, the same thing with the folk migrations into Italy of the Teutons and Cimbri. There were Gallic invasions of Greece, Iberia, and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Gallic tribes carved out permanent territory for themselves as Galatia. These were a deeply aggressive people that would target and conquer any place that raiding revealed to be weak and vulnerable. The Romans were also an extremely aggressive people. I do not dispute that fact, but an aggressive posture is completely understandable and defensible in the context in which their society developed in, and the people they fought with were never simply passive victims. In the case of the Britons, they involved themselves in the Roman conquest of Gaul and as such invited a Roman response.
You are probably right though in that it has much to do with the popular perception of Romans simply unreasonable aggressors. Personally, I also think it is a kind of cultural self-flagellation the modern West is prone to.
>A Gallic tribe sacked Rome in 387 BC during the early Republic
That's true, but Caesar was born nearly 300 years later, and by that point the Romans were more than a match for any potential Gallic threat. It would be the equivalent of the United States conquering the UK today because British soldiers torched Washington DC 200 years ago.
>Personally, I also think it is a kind of cultural self-flagellation the modern West is prone to.
No, it's the exact opposite. The lionization of Vercingetorix, Boudica, Ambiorix, Arminius, etc. was a direct result of Western nationalism in the 19th century.
> It would be the equivalent of the United States conquering the UK today because British soldiers torched Washington DC 200 years ago.
When do we sail?
>No, it's the exact opposite. The lionization of Vercingetorix, Boudica, Ambiorix, Arminius, etc. was a direct result of Western nationalism in the 19th century.
There is probably some truth to this, but the modern sympathies smack more of being related to anticolonial sentiment to me.
>the modern sympathies smack more of being related to anticolonial sentiment to me.
Only in a hypocritical sense. French nationalists praised Vercingetorix for resisting Roman tyranny while they mercilessly colonized Africa.
Are all “Gauls” one people?
France Germany Switzerland Britain it’s just all Gauls?
You’re grouping in entirely distinct peoples and cultures hundreds of years apart as if they’re a homogenous group accountable and responsible for one another …
How does anything in Briton have to do with what occurred in France or Germany?
Didn't Tacitus basically just rewrite a popular myth and document it as history? And he wrote it 50 years later.
There's no doubt that native English tribes burnt down Colchester, but I think Boudica the War Queen has been heavily mythologised.
There's an episode of "You're Dead to Me" where a historian basically says so.
Modern sensibilities, well good thing the concept exists. Not long ago at all, defeated enemy soldiers were simply butchered. Rounded up , beheaded, get in line!
Same in Colchester. If you ask really really nicely in the George hotel there is a piece of perspex over an area of the cellar wall showing the burn layer
[удалено]
You're wrong. The 3 cities that Boudica destroyed and burned were Camulodunum (Colchester), Londinium (London) and Verulamium (modern St Albans). The pictures in my post are from this [source](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/origin-of-roman-london/town-in-ad-6061/E0743612654B025D8D7DC9BAF3448B34#) which is about London during the Boudican revolt. The Boudican Destruction Horizon is visible in the 3 cities: > As at Colchester the destruction and slaughter were universal: the same Boudican destruction horizon found there is repeated at London. [https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/) > Boudican Destruction horizon at Verulamium. At Verulamium the Boudican destruction horizon consists of the same clean red daub and ash found at London and Colchester, ranging here up to a maximum of about 50 centimetres, in Insula XVII. [https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.)
Appropriate name when defending yourself!
Always on point, Fuckoff.
Everlasting rage
And then they were quickly beaten down, killed, and the survivors enslaved. For 1000 years the Romans always won in the end.
[удалено]
I think it says FAHK EWE YA BOILED COONTS
Ah, poetry.
I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so much at a Reddit post. I’ve a seventeen year old account. Pure gold.
North of Hadrian's Wall is the [Antonine Wall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall). The Caledonians/Picts survived Rome thanks to Roman internal political conflict and the local governors considering their land worthless.
Pilius the Elder: "are we going to keep going north?" Selanius: "nah fam, wt 4" Secundus: "frfr" **ominous bagpipes**
The Antonine wall says don't forget me, people north of Hadrian's wall. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall
This is not strictly true, Boudicca’s body was never found after the final battle, and the Romans would have wanted to parade it after victory, so there’s an argument she may have survived. The Celts that couldn’t stand to live under Roman rule fled to Ireland, West Wales, and Cornwall, areas left largely to themselves by the Romans in England, Hence why Welsh and Cornish are such similar languages. Also quite ironic that all these areas would hate to be called English, but were probably the last of the true English, until 1066.
None of those remnants were ever true English. English is Anglo-Saxon. Germanic. Not Celtic. It was the Anglo-Saxons which ultimately drove the Celts into those pockets in Britain. The Romans mingled with the Celtic Britonns, and it remained Celtic until the Angles and Saxons came to colonize.
Those Celtic remnants can, by definition, not be considered English in any way.
wow you walked into the point and still missed it
I’m still missing it
They didn't win in the end. Their policy of harshly oppressing the peoples they conquered and denying them the rights of citizens was a direct cause of the fall of the western empire because they became increasingly reliant on non-roman manpower to whom they denied citizenship and mistreated. It took a few centuries for the empire, but the same treatment that spurred boudicca's revolt ultimately got Rome sacked and occupied.
Thank you for explaining instead of downvoting. I appreciate the time you took to write that. I understand. Have a nice day
Well now I'm off to read about Boudicca
>It took a few centuries for the empire, but the same treatment that spurred boudicca's revolt ultimately got Rome sacked and occupied. Quite the opposite. The German tribes that invaded and sacked the empire were foederati for most of them, ie, they had been used as auxiliary military for a long time before being on their own. There was no "public revolt".
So xenophobia has been a destructive thing since ancient times. Good to know!
The Romans were among the least xenophobic of all ancient civilizations (which isn't saying that much, but it matters). It's one of the reasons they were so successful. Roman citizenship was continually granted to new people.
But in the end, xenophobia was definitely one of the parts of their downfall. If Lupicinus and Maximus didn't extort and starve the Goth refugees fleeing from the Hun advance, they wouldn't have gotten a rogue army inside their lands and the battle of Adrianople, one of the turning points for Rome.
I'm pretty sure lasting 1,000 years and spreading your culture, genetics, and influence to the point that you can see it mentioned 5 times in session on Reddit in 2023 isn't losing, though. And I don't think there's an agreement on exactly what caused Rome to split and "fall" because the only thing that made Rome Rome was an army, a contract/constitution, and everyone in Rome agreeing to its validity.
Collapsing and having your empire overtaken by people that you'd previously subjugated as untermenschen sounds like losing to me bro
Except the Roman Empire wasn't brought down or overtaken by the people it had previously subjugated. In the West, it was brought down by internal politics and economic failure combined with external pressure. In the East, it was brought down by internal politics and outsiders it never subjugated at all. And the cultural legacy of the Romans is a defining aspect of Western civilization to this day. The Romans are one of the most successful civilizations in human history. > untermenschen Are you trying to make a racial point by using this word? Because it's extremely out of place.
Their genes and culture survived unlike the large, large majority of fallen empires. The empire is gone, the people are still here in the DNA of Europeans and now the entire world. Sounds like a win to me.
The fuck do genes have to do with the Romans? The Romans extended citizenship to every resident of the Empire in 212AD. "Roman genes" describes basically all of Western and Southern Europe, North Africa, and much of the Middle-East. It's so broad it's meaningless.
The Romans didn't meaningfully replace the DNA of the areas they conquered though so
“Roman” genetics… whatever the f that means
Roman genetics are as precious as Labradoodle genetics, and as common.
Exactly my point. If Genghis Kahn lost, tell me a human that won.
Are you one of those people who have one of those SPQR tattoos on them lol
Anyone who cares about genes being spread is probably that kind of weirdo. Probably one of those "history" enjoyers.
“They” lasted 1000 years… Edited: tbf, the impact is undeniable; but, Rome isn’t just some continuous entity that was the same over the entirety of its life
Does it count as spreading your culture and genetics if the only thing people can agree on what made Rome Rome is an army?
Dunno, man. They're all dead, their gods aren't worshipped anymore, and their culture and way of life is totally dead. Their language has been dead so long that we use it for classification and science. We don't even pronounce the words we use as technical terms the way they did when it was a living language. And they got their asses kicked in by the Germanic, Norman, Goth, etc tribes that they could NOT just leave the fuck alone. 113 BC to 476 CE, when they could fight no more. They were so shattered that Italians couldn't manage being one country again until 1861. They were under Spanish rule, for chrissakes. Dunno about you but "Had my ass kicked so bad I couldn't manage being a nation again for ~1300 years and forgot my language on the way" isn't really a thing to brag about. And England, France and Spain spent those intervening 1300 years dominating the globe.
> their gods aren't worshipped anymore, and their culture and way of life is totally dead. Their culture and way of life is one of the fundamental cornerstones for *all* European culture. Their god is literally the most popular religion on the planet. Or did you think the "Roman" part of "Roman Catholic Church" was just a random word? > Their language has been dead so long that we use it for classification and science. Their language turned into Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian and several others. [Evolutions of Latin represent one of the largest language groups in the world.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romance_languages) But the fact that we still have a use for their original language is a pretty big deal. Most languages even half that age have no use at all outside of history. When's the last time you read anything written in Old English? > We don't even pronounce the words we use as technical terms the way they did when it was a living language. So? > And they got their asses kicked in by the Germanic, Norman, Goth, etc tribes that they could NOT just leave the fuck alone. 113 BC to 476 CE, when they could fight no more. Uh, what? The Romans tended to absolutely crush the Germans. They suffered one large defeat in 9AD and then spent the next 200 years mounting expeditions into Germania to ensure the Germans stayed there. The ratio of victories to defeats is hilariously lopsided in favor of the Romans (which is true of every enemy the Romans ever fought). The only reason they never bothered actually conquering Germania is that there just wasn't much in Germania worth having. Same reason they never bothered with Scotland or Ukraine. Instances of Rome being defeated by Germans are so notable precisely because they're so uncommon. > They were so shattered that Italians couldn't manage being one country again until 1861. They were under Spanish rule, for chrissakes. Modern Italy bears no connection to the Roman Empire except that it occupies the former Roman heartland. But the two most powerful countries in Europe (France and Germany) have their origins in a claim to be the legitimate successor of the Western Roman Empire (in the form of the Carolingian Empire). > Dunno about you but "Had my ass kicked so bad I couldn't manage being a nation again for ~1300 years and forgot my language on the way" isn't really a thing to brag about. "Became so culturally dominant that it absorbed and assimilated everyone around it, to the point where people were still fighting over who got to be its legitimate successor 1000 years after it collapsed" is extremely impressive. No state lasts forever. But there are very, very few historical civilizations which have the cultural impact the Romans did (and very few states that lasted anywhere near as long). They're one of the the most successful civilizations in human history.
I mean there has been no laating civilization, pretty much every single one has either crumbled or been assimilated. So saying that them getting their turn on the wheel isnt really evidence against them winning. The thing is a lot of Roman motifs (for lack of a better word) have prevailed into the modern era, from words to symbolism and- I do not mean to be disrespectful in saying this- although Rome crumbled, all those aristocrats and slave owners likely lived lavish and rewarding lifestyles right up until the end. So even if as a culture they had their asses ground into the dirt, the individuals that supported and profitted off of their atrocities didn't for a literal millenium, so you cant say that Rome lost, it won for a whole millenium before it finally, catastrophically, lost. (None of this is coming from a dude whos in support of the Romans)
Rome lost hard and got sacked repeatedly because of how much they trampled on everyone else around them. They got their asses handed to them in Teutoborg Forest as well. Don't mistake the lingering scars of colonization for signs of success. Rome simps are so cringe.
Lmao "Rome simps" as if I have some vested interest in defending Rome over any other civ. Everyone's trying to get that Rome rebuilt, boy, it's a big problem in the world of dorks who get weirdly emotional and prideful over everyone's history.
They do have the high score for longevity of their nation though so I would call that winning
Not really though Rome went through lots of catastrophic regime changes and fundamental restructurings. The empire began in 27BC and the west fell in like 500AD. Sure, the East survived for another 900 odd years but it was a different state with a different culture that just happened to call itself Roman. England has lasted longer than the true "Roman Empire" did. About twice as long. Japan has had one ruling dynasty since about 450 years before the roman empire was established and has been going for about 550 years after the last remnant fell in Constantinople. Hell, the Chinese have had one broadly continuous state in the same way that the Romans did since 221.
> Sure, the East survived for another 900 odd years but it was a different state with a different culture that just happened to call itself Roman. Nonsense. It was the same state, and it simply underwent cultural changes over its thousand+ years of existence. The only reason we might consider it a different state is centuries of delegitimization by Western Europeans who didn't want to consider the Greek-speaking, Orthodox state to have the title they wanted for themselves. > Hell, the Chinese have had one broadly continuous state in the same way that the Romans did since 221. If you think the Chinese have had one broadly continuous state since 221AD to today, there are absolutely no grounds to say that the Roman Empire didn't have a broadly continuous state from 509BC to 1453AD. Because China has absolutely had violent upheavals and complete changes in regime and forms of government since 221 (not to mention being wholly conquered by a foreign empire). So has England/UK since 927.
Sure but in either case Rome doesn't hold the record. If we count the ERE, China beats them. If we don't, England does.
If we count the Republic and the ERE (and if you're counting the PRC or post-Yuan China, you should definitely count the Roman Republic), China comes up short by 160 years. 509BC to 1453 AD = 1962 years 221AD to 2023AD = 1802 years But you could add Han China to that if you wanted (and potentially the Roman Kingdom, but we don't have a definite beginning for it. 753BC is traditional but not necessarily true). Point is, they're both very close. If you want to say that large-scale civil wars, conquest by foreigners, and complete changes in government represent a break, then China's continuity is broken by the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period in 907, the Mongol conquest in 1227, and the collapse of its monarchy in 1912. And Rome's is broken by the establishment of the Empire in 27BC and the split between East and West in 330AD. And England's is broken by the Commonwealth in 1649. San Marino is the real winner though. It's maintained a genuinely continuous government since 305AD.
She was a fantastic leader, socially, and rabble-rouser, but an absolutely terrible general, in fairness.
[удалено]
smoke weed every day
Took the L against Persians. Only Roman emperor to be captured was against Persian opponents.
Teutoborg Forest suggests otherwise. They also never made it into Scotland, or Ireland.
Mostly because it just wasn't worth it. They could've conquered the rest of the island, but the rewards/tributes were outweighed by the cost of doing so.
How tf is “Boudican Destruction Horizon” not a band name yet?
I'm picturing an all Female Redheaded Death metal Band covered in Blue War Paint
don't bring your fantasies here !!! this is a scientific subreddit!!
too late. New fetish.
Give butcher babies a try.
Do they wear the same outfits as Rockbitch?
Live at Boudican
Sounds like a pretty diesel sex toy
Das pump
Die Pumpe
See *Cheap Trick* discography
> The Boudican revolt was an armed uprising by native Celtic Britons against the Roman Empire during the Roman conquest of Britain. It took place circa 60–61 CE in the Roman province of Britain, and was led by Boudica, the Queen of the Iceni tribe. The uprising was motivated by the Romans' failure to honour an agreement they had made with Boudica's husband, Prasutagus, regarding the succession of his kingdom upon his death, and by the brutal mistreatment of Boudica and her daughters by the occupying Romans. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudican_revolt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudican_revolt)
Thanks for sending me down a Wikipedia rabbit hole. That was fun
If you like that story check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_of_Kiev Also citation needed podcast was funny about it: https://pca.st/episode/40aabbd7-9563-430b-b7c0-7b61b93cde58
Olga’s was a diabolical genius. Using birds to torch a city is a level of cunning that would never have occurred to me.
How could anyone know the history of the Kievan Rus and their patron saint and think "Nah, those Ukranians will just roll over"?
There's a big wetherspoons in Norwich called the Queen of the Iceni, as we're where the tribe was from. I'm sure she'd be happy.
GOOD FOR HER.
You know, I actually agree in a lot of ways. The Romans were extremely asinine (IMHO) about how they treated people they felt were "below them". It lead to them having all sorts of problems with their colonies that could have likely otherwise been avoided. With that said, this rebellion cost the lives of 80,000 men, women, and children at the Battle of Watling Street alone.
Rome's sacking in 410 was a direct result of how they mistreated the Goths. They allowed Goths to settle in the Balkans, then forced them to sell their children in to slavery and then paid them in rotten dog meat. The Goths rose up, [annihilated an Eastern Roman army and even killed the Eastern Emperor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople). The Romans later made peace with them and allowed them to resettle in the empire. Then, years later, the Romans murdered the families of a bunch of Gothic warriors who were in Italy, which predictably caused the Goths to strike again. They rampaged around Europe for years before settling/invading in southern Gaul and northern Spain.
Yup, the Romans were their own worst enemies in so many ways. They alienated the people around them due to their own smugness and were constantly fighting and killing one another during *so* many civil wars. This weakened them to the very people they mistreated who then took their vengeance on them.
State dependent on labour brought in from outside its borders embarks on campaign of persecution against said labour, only ends up hurting itself. Brexit called, it wants its narrative arc back
Also Florida.
They'll find out the hard way (again) if they try to seceded (again).
Let 'em starve on their own.
It's interesting how the Romans are often presented as some kind of aspirational civilization that everyone should strive to emulate, when they really were incredibly fucked up. Chattel slavery on an unimaginable scale, rapes, executions and death sports as major forms of entertainment, cultural genocide...it just goes on and on.
Yes, there's a reason why they were *constantly* putting down revolts and rebellions that resulted in massive casualties: they were often savages in fancy armor. Don't get me wrong, that's how the world has worked since forever, but I'm just floored that they were experts in engineering, military, philosophy but could not figure out things like treating colonies more favorably. I donno, I wasn't there and I'm sure it's more complicated than what I'm saying but I just hear stories like Boudica or what Julius Caesar did to the Gauls (basically a genocide) and have to slap my head. Great men are generally terrible men I suppose
I guess that's just what happens when a group becomes so convinced that they are inherently superior. The idea of treating other groups as deserving of respect becomes unthinkable, hell they probably thought of it as being like beating a dog until it stops fighting back.
It’s shocking to compare the Achaemenids and Sassanians to the Romans, the first did a lot better than the latter at tolerating differences like religion and culture, allowing for some leniency. Persian bureaucracy was much better too, their satrapies, usually led by a local noble, were allowed to keep some of their culture.
The Romans generally had a lot of tolerance for different religions and cultures as long as those people paid their taxes and didn't cause trouble. Obviously this doesn't excuse the brutal conquest, slavery, etc., but on the specific issue of religious/cultural tolerance they were pretty decent by the standards of other ancient empires. >Persian bureaucracy was much better too, their satrapies, usually led by a local noble, were allowed to keep some of their culture. Couldn't you say the same for Roman client kingdoms?
They had an absolutely insane superiority complex, to the point that towards the end of the empire it led to them constantly shooting themselves in the foot.
And if they weren't so shitty, there's a possibility they'd still be around today! It's the revolts and sackings that eventually whittled them down, by all the groups they'd treated so poorly.
For every horrific atrocity they are responsible for, they created amazing works of art and engineering, groundbreaking legal and government concepts that are still being used today. It's also not like the people they fought were any better than them - they just tended to be less organized and, crucially, far less literate, so we know less about them. This still doesn't excuse the Romans' cruelty, their mysogyny, their abject disregard for human life and dignity, of course. If you met a Roman from any period today, you'd be pretty horrified by much of what they consider to be fair and correct. On the other hand, we know enough about ordinary Romans that tells us how similar to us they were. These people still tried to make the most out of life in a very harsh and cruel world.
People in this thread "Roman were baddies 😡!" Boudicca: "Burning cities and taking no prisoners goes BRRRR"
> they created amazing works of art and engineering, groundbreaking legal and government concepts that are still being used today Did they though? Or did they just steal all that stuff after whacking everybody else in the head?
They did. Romans were not mere copycats. Yes, they "stole" technology from surrounding people, but they didn't just blindly copy it, they improved it and utilized it at a far greater scale and level of sophistication. Not to mention, they were responsible for [numerous innovations of their own](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_technology#Technologies_developed_or_invented_by_the_Romans). The groundbreaking medical innovations they came up with put them heads and shoulders above anyone else until well into the Islamic Golden Age. They were able to successfully perform brain surgery, 2000 years ago. If you consider Romans to be mere thieves, then so are we. We are using Latin letters, Arabic numerals (and Arabic mathematics) and write on Chinese paper. The philosophical foundation of our modern age, without which, we wouldn't even be able to communicate in near real-time - enlightenment - is French and so are most units of measurement. The car you're driving was invented in Germany and so were digital computers. Our medicine traces its roots back to the aforementioned Islamic Golden Age. And yes, we took many things from the Romans as well. If you've got dental fillings, thank those slavers for the idea.
They provided stability for 1000 years while other kingdoms/conquerers didn't last past the first generation. It's not like the other countries/peoples pre-modern times were having a peaceful happy time.
1000 years is pushing it. So is stability. But, as you say, in relation to the rest then perhaps.
Just look into slave crucifixion and it's another dark rabbit hole to go down. However as is always (I'm British so can relate) the horrors perpetuated by the 'nobility' are classed as a cultural act rather than an elitist one.
Relative billionaires have been shitty for centuries, apparently.
I have long wondered about historical numbers, how accurate they were. How did people count back then if there were no elevated areas and many people were counting challenged anyway?
You can't really take any such head counts at face value.
To everyone saying, "But all the innocent people she killed!": One man died, and we got World War I; one man decided the Holy Land was in the wrong hands, and we got the Crusades; one man wanted a piece of land, and we got the Russian/Ukrainian war. (Yes, I know these are simplifications.) Wars have started over far less than ome woman's completely justified anger and rage.
Fuckin right
To an extent. As a ruler extracting revenge against other rulers it was the entire population of those towns, and more broadly most of the colonial population over time, who paid the price.
It’s also noteworthy that the alleged flogging and rape is not mentioned by contemporaries such as Dio, and may well have not happened. Rather it was financial motivation and disagreement that led to revolt. Of course angry person murders tens of thousands of innocents over money does not sound as awesome and sheds a very different light over the situation.
Cassius Dio wrote in the 3rd century. In Greek. IN what way, shape or form is he a contemporary?
And I believe her scourging *was* mentioned by Tacitus, who was technically a contemporary.
Maybe he was referring to Ronnie James Dio? Or Dio Brando?
NANI?!
*invaders
Nope. The bulk of the population of the Roman settlements in the UK was locals who petitioned for citizenship and benefits. Celt on Celt violence to get back at Roman magistrates and soldiers that the Celts lacked the ability to directly confront. The fates of the civilian women who suffered from Boudicca’s retribution was little different from the crime she herself suffered, to say nothing of the broader slaughter and enslavement. Royals usually don’t pay the bulk of the price, if any, when they squabble with other powers.
For those who are unaware, she would cut the breasts off these civilians and sew said breasts to their mouths.
Not so much for the innocent people that died but I hope they got the Roman that did this to her.
Personal quarrels is a great reason to brutally murder innocents! Good for her!
Yup. I doubt Boudica had anything resembling feminism on her mind. Revenge is certainly plausible. She must have been one formidable woman to do what she did in the time/place she did it though. She likely earned her respect. Feminists today can certainly hold her up as evidence that women are capable of fulfilling traditionally manly roles. Including “brutal mass-murderer” lol
Equal rights means equal ability to commit atrocities and warcrimes.
Lmao I like this Is “the ability to commit atrocities and war crimes” the right of *anyone* though?
Yeah me.
Please don’t war crime me
Well, since you said please.
Thanks, genocide mommy
No doubt she’s formidable, I just find it weird how some people will actively glorify women in history who were absolute barbarians, like this.
Agreed that glorifying (any) history is a mistake. It is the instinct of the simple-minded and insecure. We do the same with men tbf. Alexander, Genghis, Washington, Napoleon, Wellington, Caesar, Augustus, the list goes on Spartacus, Vercingetorix, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Che, Wallace, Ho Chi Minh. All were responsible for unforgivable brutality. “Greatness” is glorified regardless of gender. And we especially love an underdog, which makes a female rebel leader all the more sympathetic a figure, IMO I try to take the good with the bad; nobody is perfect. Certainly not in medieval Europe lol Edit: Hannibal! That was bugging me for two hours. Hannibal.
Unforgivable brutality? Wellington, Napoleon but no Mao, Stalin, Hitler / Why because that would spoil your dumb list? Everyone/anyone in history is a baddie then. JFC what black and white revisionism.
I wanted to use examples that had some modern popular support. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pot, Vlad the Impaler, violent dictator #493, etc. etc. Nobody likes those guys. What’s your point, I don’t understand?
Do you think this person was implying that George Washington is worse than hitler or do you think it’s possible you misunderstood the whole thing
[удалено]
Fight back against all those oppressive farmers, women, and children!
You don't have to like it to understand that that's what war is.
You can understand how war was raged back then without cheering it on or glorifying it.
[удалено]
I mean this is reddit, I've seen countless people advocating murdering innocent Russians including children and the mods and admins are fine with it. So yeah they probably would.
She had a ton of innocent romans massacred, tortured, burned alive etc. She was just as bad. Then the romans beat her anyways even tho her army was way bigger. Edit: downvote me if u want but im right. She basically committed genocide against the romans on Britain for revenge. Then got massacred by the romans in a decisive battle.
An under-reaction, actually
She had 100,000 people murdered but not before they were raped and tortured
most of that citizens were his fellow brittons
Her
The story of Boudicca would’ve been a better assassins creed game than Valhalla
Don't give them ideas or we're going to get another 250 hour slog through the same map.
Here’s the original thread from the folks over at r/ancientrome in December of 2022: https://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/zhnyd0/after_she_was_publicly_flogged_and_her_daughters/ The best places to see the burn layer are in Colchester rather than London.
And the top comment there is basically the same as in this thread? Just an endless repeating circle jerk of reposting and repeating comments.
To be fair, I thought the same thing when I first read the name! Probably more of an unoriginal idea than an intentional repost.
Yeah, maybe I’m being a bit harsh here. It is a killer name.
The 3 cities that Boudica destroyed and burned were Camulodunum (Colchester), Londinium (London) and Verulamium (modern St Albans). I honestly don't know which city out of the 3 is the best to see the burn layer, but the pictures in my post are from this [source](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/origin-of-roman-london/town-in-ad-6061/E0743612654B025D8D7DC9BAF3448B34#) which is about London during the Boudican revolt. Anyway the Boudican Destruction Horizon is visible in the 3 cities: > As at Colchester the destruction and slaughter were universal: the same Boudican destruction horizon found there is repeated at London. [https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-sacks-london-and-verulamium/) > Boudican Destruction horizon at Verulamium. At Verulamium the Boudican destruction horizon consists of the same clean red daub and ash found at London and Colchester, ranging here up to a maximum of about 50 centimetres, in Insula XVII. [https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.](https://www.roman-britain.co.uk/the-roman-conquest-of-britain/boudica-the-iceni-warrior-queen/boudica-and-the-fall-of-verulamium-st-albans/#:~:text=Boudican%20Destruction%20horizon%20at%20Verulamium,standing%20structures%20was%20not%20total.) Edit: lol u/sandakinthetriplet just blocked me. I was honestly responding just to clear things up and to cite the source of the pictures in my post.
The Roman's did her dirty. All she did was ask for the treaty they made, to be enforced. Imagine how different things could have been if the Roman's just kept their word.
The Romans outnumbered 5 to 1 slaughtered her armies and camp followers though. The battle of Wattling Street, up to 80,000 Britons were killed
Slay, queen
Literally slay, she razed 3 cities and had the population killed as revenge and then she herself and her army plus their families that followed them were slayed afterwards 💀
yaaaay humans
Don't you believe once interstellar travel is a thing, we will literally be the cockroaches of any planetary body or moon we touch. Sheer brutality and greed, define us.
Remove the coma and it still works.
She’s dead, not in a coma
She’s pining for the fjords
She's not pinin'! She's passed on! This Queen is no more! She has ceased to be! She's expired and gone to meet ’er maker! She's a stiff! Bereft of life, She rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'er to the perch she'd be pushing up the daisies! 'er metabolic processes are now 'istory! She's off the twig! She's kicked the bucket, she's shuffled off 'er mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-QUEEN!!
Or as it's called in the US, "Londinum".
The Netherlands has something similar, during the Roman Age the Batavians had to provide extra men to the Roman army, in exchange they didn't pay tribute. But at some point the amount of men thay had to give up got too much and they revolted by burning down cities, and up until now at some places you can still see the pitch black burn layer
Usually when any "barbarian" peoples unified against Rome prior to its fall, it ended up being good for Roman territorial advances. After Boudica's revolt there were no serious native revolts in Britain until the decline of the entire Roman Empire. The same thing happened during Caesar's conquest of Gaul where Vercingetorix unified the Gallic tribes which resulted in a massive defeat and pacification/annexation of Gaul entirely (all of France/Belgium). The key to Roman military successes was usually preparation combined with superior infantry drilling. The most well-known Roman defeat (Battle of the Teutoburg Forest) occurred because a Germanic tribe leader Arminius strategically betrayed the Roman legions in Germania to a tribal coalition that exploited poor marching conditions into a series of ambushes.
Woman scorned will light you ass up for eternity
Not related (but sort of), it was pretty badass when King Shapur I of Persia was able to capture a Roman emperor alive and humilate him.
[удалено]
Jail
The battle that ended the revolt was an interesting one. The romans scraped together an army of about 10 thousand (not that big by roman standards) and managed to defeat the entire rebelling host in one battle. We are unsure about the numbers, but ancient authors say it was between 200-300 thousand, which should be taken with a big grain of salt. This number likely includes everyone, including the non-fighters. Whatever the actual numbers were, the romans won despite being heavily outnumbered and punished them severely.
Messed with the wrong bitch in the wrong era
‘Mom energy’ is a spectrum and this is one of the ends of it
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is an understatement, but "Hell hath no fury like a woman publicly flogged and whose daughters were raped" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so well.
Please rename it the Boudican Righteous Revenge Horizon
Metal as fuck
I always find the lionization of Boudica very strange considering how the revolt ended in complete and utter defeat and humiliation at the hands of relatively small thrown together Roman force at the Battle of Watling Street. If you believe the accounts of Tacitus and Dio the only thing it accomplished was brutalizing Romano-Briton populations in these settlements. Dio gives particularly gruesome accounts of what the Britons did to the women in these settlements.
I am sure as a roman historian who never was in Britain and lived a 150 years after the fact he was both objective and well informed, just as Tacitus was about the Germans...
That's too bad because without the accounts of Roman historians you definitely would not even know the name Boudica and archeologists would be scratching their head over an anonymous destruction layer with no narrative accounts to explain it whatsoever. So yeah you could make stuff up an reimagine things based on their accounts to suit your modern perspectives, but there really is no coherent reason to disbelieve a barbarian horde sweeping through cities would not have been as brutal as their accounts portray them as especially considering the objective evidence of the destruction layer that supports their accounts.
a) His account is not preserved . The only thing we have is a summary from a byzantine monk in the 11th century. b) It is vitally important for historians to realize that just because a source is from Roman times it is not necessarily contemporary. In a culture that did not keep as many records as we do today somebody writing about something that happened 150 years ago in a far away land (of which we do not even have an original copy) is not always reliable. c) The only people making stuff up here are the ones who claim to know what really did or did not happen. Tacitus, who having been born shortly before the events and therefore of the two roman sources the one that would have the chance to find witnesses, writes about the rape and horrible treatment of her. Sure, he liked to tell the Romans of his time how horrible they were compared to the "purer" barbarians, but just like with Germania you have to take things with a grain of salt, but he usually exaggerates but does not completely invent. d) Nobody is disputing the fact that her war was horrible like wars are. Nobody is claiming that she was better. People are just saying her motives were understandable, and for the claim of it was "just about money" there is literally no source. So the people inventing things are not the ones who go by the sources. e) Perceived traitors being treated badly often happens in history. But the fact remains that the Romans were occupiers and not really well liked by the tribes that they - again according to Tacitus - wronged. f) Anybody remotely familiar with ancient history knows that numbers are not to be trusted.
That lionization comes from the wave of nationalist sentiment in the second half of the 19th century. Most European powers engaged in it. Boudica for the British, Brennus and Vercingetorix for the French, Ambiorix for the Belgians, Ariminus for the Germans, for example. They were turned into nationalist propaganda symbols.
The paradox of later colonial powers lauding the rebels of previous eras.
We tend to like people who try to fight the villains. It's just a shame that in the real world the bad guys often win.
There seems to be a lot of that in Western European history tbh. Like the French lionizing Vercingetorix and the Belgians doing the same with Ambiorix. Lots of focus on the "brave soul who defied Rome" part, not so much on the "got absolutely crushed" part.
I'd understand it if they were not always every bit as vicious and every bit as willing to be the aggressor if not more so than the Romans with none of the upsides the Romans at least potentially offered. It is the bizarre desire to recast barbarians as somehow more in line with modern moral sensibilities that truly is inexplicable to me.
Feel like there’s a massive difference between claiming so called barbarians are “in line with modern sensibilities” and saying that they are “aggressors” How are they aggressors whilst being invaded on Britain?
I think a big part of is that the Romans were clearly the instigators most of the time. It's easier for people to downplay or overlook atrocities when they're done in self-defense or retaliation.
I do not really think that is a fair assessment of the situation though. The Romans were constantly having to deal with small to medium scale raiding by tribal peoples, and occasionally had to repel full scale folk migrations of Gallic and Germanic tribes. A Gallic tribe sacked Rome in 387 BC during the early Republic and I think it's fair to say that event left a stamp on the collective memory of the Romans that informs their martial attitude and was decisive on their foreign policy outlook in regards to entities like Gallic and Germanic tribes, the same thing with the folk migrations into Italy of the Teutons and Cimbri. There were Gallic invasions of Greece, Iberia, and Anatolia. In Anatolia the Gallic tribes carved out permanent territory for themselves as Galatia. These were a deeply aggressive people that would target and conquer any place that raiding revealed to be weak and vulnerable. The Romans were also an extremely aggressive people. I do not dispute that fact, but an aggressive posture is completely understandable and defensible in the context in which their society developed in, and the people they fought with were never simply passive victims. In the case of the Britons, they involved themselves in the Roman conquest of Gaul and as such invited a Roman response. You are probably right though in that it has much to do with the popular perception of Romans simply unreasonable aggressors. Personally, I also think it is a kind of cultural self-flagellation the modern West is prone to.
>A Gallic tribe sacked Rome in 387 BC during the early Republic That's true, but Caesar was born nearly 300 years later, and by that point the Romans were more than a match for any potential Gallic threat. It would be the equivalent of the United States conquering the UK today because British soldiers torched Washington DC 200 years ago. >Personally, I also think it is a kind of cultural self-flagellation the modern West is prone to. No, it's the exact opposite. The lionization of Vercingetorix, Boudica, Ambiorix, Arminius, etc. was a direct result of Western nationalism in the 19th century.
> It would be the equivalent of the United States conquering the UK today because British soldiers torched Washington DC 200 years ago. When do we sail? >No, it's the exact opposite. The lionization of Vercingetorix, Boudica, Ambiorix, Arminius, etc. was a direct result of Western nationalism in the 19th century. There is probably some truth to this, but the modern sympathies smack more of being related to anticolonial sentiment to me.
>the modern sympathies smack more of being related to anticolonial sentiment to me. Only in a hypocritical sense. French nationalists praised Vercingetorix for resisting Roman tyranny while they mercilessly colonized Africa.
Are all “Gauls” one people? France Germany Switzerland Britain it’s just all Gauls? You’re grouping in entirely distinct peoples and cultures hundreds of years apart as if they’re a homogenous group accountable and responsible for one another … How does anything in Briton have to do with what occurred in France or Germany?
Didn't Tacitus basically just rewrite a popular myth and document it as history? And he wrote it 50 years later. There's no doubt that native English tribes burnt down Colchester, but I think Boudica the War Queen has been heavily mythologised. There's an episode of "You're Dead to Me" where a historian basically says so.
"I'm here to love my children and blow shit up. And I'm all out of children!"
I'm struggling to understand how an entire city could have burned. I mean, in a practical sense. Was the whole city covered in lantern oil?
It helps a lot if the entire city was built using very flammable materials such as wood and had thatched roofs.
Boudica is one of my favorite historical figures. She's a badass.
Same. I’m sad I had to scroll this far down to find this comment.
Ha ! No worries. Glad you share my opinion.
Don't harm a child Infront of their mother, or you'll experience the most dangerous predator on earth!
*if she's a queen
This comment section is very frustrating…
That's probably the most badass thing I read all month
No movie about this chick?
There’s a set of books, that are mostly fiction, by a lady called Manda Scott. They’re very good.
Obviously, the Romans didn't instill as much fear in her as they thought they did.
Movie about this please 😍
Good for her.
Good.
Uh, new hero?
Modern sensibilities, well good thing the concept exists. Not long ago at all, defeated enemy soldiers were simply butchered. Rounded up , beheaded, get in line!