Romans Vs Boudica Were They Just Fluky?

[wally1987]

Although the tactics the romans employed to beat boudicas army of tribesmen were perfect for the situation and used the terrain to they advantage, if boudicas superior numbers had have been more organised and less 'charge now plan later' would they have been more succesful?

 

 

 

 

 

cant help but think........poor little druids!!!

[Primus Pilus]

Certainly a change in tribal warfare tactics would've been beneficial to them, but it was generally the way that the Celts fought their wars. I don't blame Boudica or the Iceni, they were just tactically inferior to the Roman legions. Had they beaten one legion in open battle though... who knows how the rebellion could've spread.

[Ursus]

From what I've read, the Celtic tribes just rushed at their enemies like madman, every individual fighting for his own glory and honor.

 

If their opponents were unnerved by the mass of tall, smelly, sometimes painted barbarians making an insane charge at them, they broke ranks and fled, and the Celts would mow them down.

 

But if their opponents held their ground, eventually their more organized tactics would quickly wear down the Celts, and the Celts would lose their stomach for fighting and surrender or be slaughtered.

 

Once the Romans had gotten used to the sight of their colorful opponents and their unorthodox ways, they were usually able to stand their ground and use their superior organization against the incohesiveness of the Celtic advance.

 

Major revolts against Roman rule were generally infrequent in the Roman Empire. The Romans brought peace and prosperity, and the luxury loving Celts learned to buy into the Roman peace. The one who revolted were usually from the sectors of society that had held the most power before the coming of the Romans (nobles like Boudicia, or powerful castes like the Druids). Once these rebellions were crushed, the Celts of southern Britain seemed to assimilate readily into the empire and enjoy its riches.

[wally1987]

the roman battle formation was inspired though, the wedges formed just simply smashed through the masses of Iceni ...... with the terrain it was carried out upon, in my opinion unstopable.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think it would have been possible for the Iceni to have gone about it with more intelligence, but their defeat probably had to do with the nature of the rebellion itself. This rebellion was not an organized affair, it was not the declared war of a king, it was more of a mob movement from start to finish. I think any command structure was loose at best, and not even on par with what the Iceni could have accomplished if their rebellion was something more 'officially' started and organized, even if they were smelly barbarians.

[Pertinax]

The Icenii were outraged at being disarmed (being a client state) along with the other local troublemakers. In Roman terms keeping the rear areas quiet was good strategy insensitively applied.

Other opponents of Rome seem to have understood that an "imitation" legionary was the best countermeasure versus a real Legion , and at various times tried to emulate Rome to a degree (Numidian and Dacian experts may wish to disagree?). The constant modus operandi in Britain seems to have been petty kingdoms, tribal spats, and personal honour before any organised resistance at any level of social or political action.The Icenii tellingly failed to sow any crops prior to attacking ,which I suggest signals the "mob" nature of the uprising as suggested by FC above.

[Rameses the Great]

You guys are all a hundred percent right. The Celtic uprising usually started with one person, and spread to everyone. They had a common goal of breaking away and fighting for pride and their own interests. However when you attack like that you don't give consideration to agriculture, planning, and thinking ahead. Rome on the other hand mapped out their plan and as you said executed it. They made sure that they would defeat Boudicca and her army.

 

The Iceni saw an oppurtunity to escape with victories by overwhelming the Roman armies, but that is what Rome does best. If the formation of the legion is broken up it is easily cut down because of the bulk and protection. If it holds its ranks the unarmed Iceni meaninglessly running into a solid formation will be slaughtered in no time. When fighting the Celts, not only are tactics and deployment important but also mental toughness.

 

Clearly the Iceni had the intelligence to change but probably knew they can't out smart the Romans.

[Pertinax]

It was too late after the uprising, the Icenii suffered not only Roman reprisals but famine from their inattention to proper agriculture .

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

it all boils down to brains over braun in the end, all though the romans were massively out numberd and by rights should have been soundly defeated, thier superior organisational skills won out in the end, while the britons charged in recklessly hoping to simply overwhelm them the legions just kept thier formation and years of training and battles against other barbarian tribes almost certainly won them the battle.

 

lets not forget rome has been fighting these sort of battles for century and 9 out of 10 times experience and composure will give you the edge

 

 

although the britons were brave and fearless warriors they were no match for the roman legions

[longbow]

Everyone's assuming the Celtic warriors just rushed at the Roman lines,are we certain thats how these people fought there battles?I find it a bit hard to believe,usually a people will addapt tactics to suit the foe.The British 'Celts' new about Rome and its fighting style long before any legionnarie's landed on the shores,they new what they faced.

The British 'Celts' had chariots which carried a driver and a warrior,the driver would use his skill to get the chariot moving fast enougth and close enougth for the warrior to loose his javelins at the Roman ranks.For this to be done some discipline is required from the waiting mass of warriors or the chariots would be useleless.

So thats one tactic .

Another one was to ride your horse at the enemy then jump off and engage on foot,this sounds daft but if you think about it the Legionnaire would be expecting to fight a man on horse back then he's faced with a man on foot,it may catch you off guard for long enougth to cause problems.

How common was the famous Celtic longsword?a sword is a expensive bit of kit and a longsword is not only expensive it was hard to make in the period in question.I think they would of been reserved for the rich and famous with the majority of warriors armed with spears and Axes.You can make a defensive shield wall work if your troops are using the spear or the axe (Saxons made it work all day long at Hastings ).I dont think anyone's ever mentioned Celts using shield wall's but why wouldnt they?.Caractacus was supposed to be a good leader,i find it hard to believe that he would waist his men by letting them charge the Roman ranks one on one.

 

 

Longbow

Edited July 13, 2006 by longbow

[Pertinax]

Caractacus and Venuntius were accredited as the most wiley and cunning of fighters, I assume this was because they had the brains to avoid set piece combat and attempt guerilla interdiction and attrition. I suggest the problem is perhaps what we see in Saxon hearth troops ...men of fearsome fighting ability , the Huscarls are one of the most excellent elite units ever to grace the earth, but with a restricted personal loyalty to a "King".The cultural definition of honour and dignity are key issues here, if you take the cultural leap to mobilisation of "state " troops , by nature a considerable body of men, versus personal thegns , then numbers and discipline are key whereas honour and individuality are valuable but not the key to victory.