Could Boudicca have turned the tables at Mancetter?

[Tribunicus Potestus]

Was Boudica's army even an army in the real sense? or was it just a mob of people riding on anger and hatred of the Romans. Afterall they brought their wives and children with them to the battle of Watling Street. boudica's biggest mistake (if it really was Boudica leading the army) was to pit tribal warriors against much more professional soldiers in an open battle. She ought to have stuck to guerrilla warfare.

Concise, and to the point. With a possibly winning strategy, that may have been Sun Tzu's advice rather than my more complex one. I like it!!!

[Tribunicus Potestus]

[You are of course correct. But have some fun. Play armchair general and see if you can come up with an alternate strategy that may have worked. I'd love to hear it. Just try and be entertaining, please. No need to be stuffy with a "what if" Thread. You might incorporate the cultural biases of the two opponents. Or what ever you like.

 

Before this thread goes any further I think it appropriate to remind everyone of the forum guidelines Specifically this bit of 2a seems appropriate:

 

2a) Do not require proof of established consensus history. Obviously there are many items open to debate, but if you bring an unestablished opinion here, you must attempt to prove it before making an unsupported statement and requiring others to prove you wrong. (This goes along with general debate courtesy)

What precisely is it you wish me to defend? That an imaginary story can happen? That does not make sense.

My premise "that had Boudicca thought more like Sun Tzu things may have happened differently?"

Or is it each little detail in my yarn?

 

And when I defend the point of your objection.

How will I know you are satisfied?

What is the standard of "proof" acceptable to you?

How do we avoid another "chinese fire drill"? (for those unfamiliar with the term, chinese fire drill is when a car full of kids stops at a traffic light everyone jumps out runs 360 degrees around the car and jumps back into their seats. To great amusement).

[Guest ParatrooperLirelou]

Was Boudica's army even an army in the real sense? or was it just a mob of people riding on anger and hatred of the Romans. Afterall they brought their wives and children with them to the battle of Watling Street. boudica's biggest mistake (if it really was Boudica leading the army) was to pit tribal warriors against much more professional soldiers in an open battle. She ought to have stuck to guerrilla warfare.

 

Concise, and to the point. With a possibly winning strategy, that may have been Sun Tzu's advice rather than my more complex one. I like it!!!

 

Here we go again with the modernization of past armies.

 

No way is Boudica's army an Army in the Modern Sense. No denying that.

 

Please bear in mind however that neither the Roman Legions were an army at all in the modern sense.

 

If anything, the Roman Legions by today standards would be nothing but armed "Thugs" comparible to the Cao Dai and other gangster factions the permier Diem faced during his early years as President of South Vietnam.Basically they were armed but they WERE IN NO WAY AN ARMY and basically are poor rabble in modern military standards.

 

 

Please bear in mind that Sun Tzu's advice is not compatible with Boudica because Boudica was at heart fought like a "Clausewitz". The Western method of fighting was to take the enemy head on and clash with them no matter how superior they are, something Sun Tzu would avoid doing at all costs.Sun Tzu's way of warfare was to manuever and manuever until your opponent was put into a position where they had no choice but to either surrender or get destroyed in battle.

 

Its completely incompatible to apply Sun Tzu to Ancient Armies in the West because they fought through the principles of Clausewitz,the polar opposite of Sun Tzu.I'll post more on Sun Tzu Eastern Way of War VS Western Clausewitz way of war in a future article in the Universal History Subforum.

Edited October 18, 2011 by ParatrooperLirelou

[Virgil61]

Was Boudica's army even an army in the real sense? or was it just a mob of people riding on anger and hatred of the Romans. Afterall they brought their wives and children with them to the battle of Watling Street. boudica's biggest mistake (if it really was Boudica leading the army) was to pit tribal warriors against much more professional soldiers in an open battle. She ought to have stuck to guerrilla warfare.

 

Concise, and to the point. With a possibly winning strategy, that may have been Sun Tzu's advice rather than my more complex one. I like it!!!

 

Here we go again with the modernization of past armies.

 

No way is Boudica's army an Army in the Modern Sense. No denying that.

 

Please bear in mind however that neither the Roman Legions were an army at all in the modern sense.

 

He's not said anything about modernization he questioned whether they--the Brits--were an army in the 'real sense' (do they approach the Oxford or Webster's definition? Yes they seem to.) and he said the Romans were more professional, in fact they were professionals (i.e. full-time employment as soldiers). Neither is 'modernization' they are description.

[Melvadius]

If anything, the Roman Legions by today standards would be nothing but armed "Thugs"

 

I also find this description incompatible with the fact that in terms of their day they apparently received extensive battle training as exemplified by Vegetius descriptions in De Re Militari .

 

Do not fall into the same trap of thinking that they were not trained to a higher degree than most of the 'armies' they met.

[caldrail]

An army is simply a gathering of warriors. Although the modern meaning stresses organisation, the word also covers more casual forces used in concert. In any case, guerilla campaigns are only successfull against an organised army if organised themselves. Otherwise it's a pain the enemies butt and sooner or later they start picking off the various groups doing the guerillaring. The Romans themselves were quite adept at forcing resistance into small pockets where it could be elinated in one hard strike. The BAttle of Mona against the Druids. Pompey's victory over Spartacus. Or the attempted but ultimately disastrous campaign that led to the defeat at Adrianople.

[Melvadius]

...Pompey's victory over Spartacus...

 

N.B. This is true even if you consider that 'Crassus' rather than 'Pompey' defeated the main force under Spartacus.