6
Battle of Watling street AKA why women should not be soldiers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Watling_Street
Boudica fought for Grrl Powah RAWR!!!As their armies deployed, the commanders would have sought to motivate their soldiers. Tacitus, who wrote of the battle more than fifty years later, claims to relate Boudica's speech to her followers:
"'But now,' she said, 'it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very persons, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves.'"
Boudica led her army forward across the plain and into the narrowing field in a massive frontal attack. As they advanced, they were channelled into a tightly packed mass. At approximately forty yards, their advance was staggered by a volley of Roman pila, the Roman javelin. The pilum was designed to bend when it hit a shield, making it impossible to pull out; the enemy would either be encumbered with a heavy iron spear weighing down his shield, or have to discard it and fight unprotected; A second volley followed, as each Roman legionary carried two pila. This tactic destroyed any organised advance by the Britons.400 losses on the Roman side and perhaps 80,000 for the Celts! This is the price of cuckoldry. I always heard of Boudica as if it were some big blow for women's rights. More like a blow for exterminating white men, which is the real purpose of feminitz anyhow.With the Britons in disarray, Suetonius ordered his legionaries and auxiliaries to push forward in small multiple wedge formation units. With their superior discipline, the Romans were able to continue fighting as fiercely as ever. The Romans, with a clear advantage in armour, weapons, and discipline, had a decisive advantage in the close quarters fighting against the tightly packed Britons. The Roman cavalry, lances extended, then entered the battle. As the Briton's losses increased, the Britons tried to retreat, but their flight was blocked by the ring of wagons and the Britons were massacred. The Roman cavalry also attacked the Britons from the flanks as the Roman infantry advanced. The Romans killed not only the warriors but also the women, children, and even pack animals. Tacitus relates a rumour that 80,000 Britons fell for the loss of only 400 Romans. However the figures quoted for the campaign in the ancient sources are regarded by modern historians as extravagant
As for the number inflation, this is typical bullshit. Romans were actually fairly strict about such accounts but modern retards do not understand jack shit about the time period. In medieval times the army numbers were small, so they assume they were even smaller back then. But in medieval times mostly mercenaries and nobles did all the fighting. In Iron Age times if you fought a tribe, you fought the whole tribe - every man and sometimes the women as well.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Mingle
Bookmarks