Doctorpus does History

[Brett Alex]

This isn't just about Romans folks. Be sure it pipe in with any other interesting historical facts providing they're funny.

If Grausteins still online I think he's gonna agree with me about Boudicca's final battle being, if not funny then at least pitiable.

She had began a revolution, sacked three lightly defended settlements including Londinium and the capital Camulodenum, raised a massive army estimated at 180,000 Celts.

The Roman commander of Britain, Suetonius, faced almost certain defeat and loss of Britain, he could only gather 10,000 men.

After the battle, upwards of 60,000 celts lay dead, and Boudicca has poisoned herself to avoid capture.

I still don't understand how they could be so useless. 180,000 to 10,000. What the hell Boudicca, what the hell?

Presumably for the same reason that the forces of King Xerxes were defeated by the Spartans / Athenians (and I don't just mean the battle of Thermopolae, the entire war); the winners were the better trained fighting force. Sheer numbers do not always win (however much you believe Command and Conquer to be an accurate depiction of war).

Yes although there you are looking at a whole war, not just a single conflict in near open ground. Yes, numbers aren't everything, and no doubt it was the Romans skill, tactics, discipline and technology that won them the battle, but wouldn't you really think when you outnumber your enemies 18-1 and they aren't using any fortifications that in a single battle you should be able to inflict more than 300 or so casualties. Especially when they are advancing into your numerically superior force.

 

[Arntor]

I believe this is on topic.
pic

Ah, Soviet Russia, you and your Pikmin strategy.

 

[Lukeje]

I still don't understand how they could be so useless. 180,000 to 10,000. What the hell Boudicca, what the hell?

Presumably for the same reason that the forces of King Xerxes were defeated by the Spartans / Athenians (and I don't just mean the battle of Thermopolae, the entire war); the winners were the better trained fighting force. Sheer numbers do not always win (however much you believe Command and Conquer to be an accurate depiction of war).

Yes although there you are looking at a whole war, not just a single conflict in near open ground. Yes, numbers aren't everything, and no doubt it was the Romans skill, tactics, discipline and technology that won them the battle, but wouldn't you really think when you outnumber your enemies 18-1 and they aren't using any fortifications that in a single battle you should be able to inflict more than 300 or so casualties. Especially when they are advancing into your numerically superior force.

It's understandable if you point out that:
a)the rebels wouldn't have had any training (or at most very limited training)
b)they would not have free access to 'fighting' weapons; most would have consisted of pitch-forks and other farming equipment
c)they did not have someone trained in tactical thought leading their army
d)the Romans got lucky.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

I believe this is on topic.

Spoiler: pic

How the hell...? Surely the aircraft alone would have won that battle? The only way I can see is if the Soviets soldiers weren't very equipped (1 in 3 had guns type underequipped) and ammunition and fuel levels were non existant for the tanks and planes. By contrast the Finnish must have been eating their greens, had a lot of sleep and been massively prepared (they were on home territory according to that-its always easier to defend than attack).

 

[Brett Alex]

I still don't understand how they could be so useless. 180,000 to 10,000. What the hell Boudicca, what the hell?

Presumably for the same reason that the forces of King Xerxes were defeated by the Spartans / Athenians (and I don't just mean the battle of Thermopolae, the entire war); the winners were the better trained fighting force. Sheer numbers do not always win (however much you believe Command and Conquer to be an accurate depiction of war).

Yes although there you are looking at a whole war, not just a single conflict in near open ground. Yes, numbers aren't everything, and no doubt it was the Romans skill, tactics, discipline and technology that won them the battle, but wouldn't you really think when you outnumber your enemies 18-1 and they aren't using any fortifications that in a single battle you should be able to inflict more than 300 or so casualties. Especially when they are advancing into your numerically superior force.

It's understandable if you point out that:
a)the rebels wouldn't have had any training (or at most very limited training)
b)they would not have free access to 'fighting' weapons; most would have consisted of pitch-forks and other farming equipment
c)they did not have someone trained in tactical thought leading their army
d)the Romans got lucky.

They had Celtic tactics, which, as a relatively primitive warrior society placed a lot of emphasis on individual fighting skill and prowess, but not so much the big picture stuff.
They were well equipped by Celtic standards, its likely they would have all had swords and shields, and they also had a compliment of chariots. (Which is something that they were very deadly with. Those same chariots had, only weeks before, routed the entire 9th Legion while it was on route march, which was partially the reason why Suetonius was left with so few men.)

I can entirely understand why they lost, but it just seems like they really shouldn't have, at least not so horrifically. Testament to the Roman military machine I guess.

 

[Lukeje]

They had Celtic tactics, which, as a relatively primitive warrior society placed a lot of emphasis on individual fighting skill and prowess, but not so much the big picture stuff.
They were well equipped by Celtic standards, its likely they would have all had swords and shields, and they also had a compliment of chariots. (Which is something that they were very deadly with. Those same chariots had, only weeks before, routed the entire 9th Legion while it was on route march, which was partially the reason why Suetonius was left with so few men.)

I can entirely understand why they lost, but it just seems like they really shouldn't have, at least not so horrifically. Testament to the Roman military machine I guess.

Huh, I presumed that the Romans would have destroyed all of that stuff as soon as they invaded...

 

[ElephantGuts]

So...is this thread going to be about completely lopsided and ridiculous military conflicts? Because if so i should definetly bring up how Israel fought off invasion by like 6 Arab countries the day after it was established. And then pulled off similarly amazing military feats multiple times.

And on the Rome subject, ancient Romans were not Italian. Modern Romans (as in, from the city of Rome) are Italian. There are two kinds of Romans, you know.

 

[Lukeje]

You're underestimating the prowess of roman elite forces (see Centurions) and the rabble that was the Celtic army under some mad wrench, seriously the Celts had nothing but loin cloth and pitch forks on them (alright some had swords and small shields but mostly it was peasants.), the Romans had Balistas, Catapults, archers and centurions.

Believe it or not, fear is one of the decisive factors on a battle outcome, and put yourself into the Celts (untrained army) situation, watching big balls of fire (ahah) descending upon you and burning your companions to crisp, surely that would make you run no?

Well it made them. When the first lines start to fall the rest of the rabble just gets pants on head retarded and start retreating, then roman Scouts (proper name for their cavalry) would just chase and slaughter them.

That's how i see it happened and why they had such mass casualties.
Wasn't the first time it happened though, many battles ended that way as History was written.

Wasn't the start of the film 'Gladiator'?

 

[ElephantGuts]

So...is this thread going to be about completely lopsided and ridiculous military conflicts? Because if so i should definetly bring up how Israel fought off invasion by like 6 Arab countries the day after it was established. And then pulled off similarly amazing military feats multiple times.

And on the Rome subject, ancient Romans were not Italian. Modern Romans (as in, from the city of Rome) are Italian. There are two kinds of Romans, you know.

Source please.

No particular source, I think I was just using what I knew. The country of Italy wasn't created in ancient times, obviously, and I'm not aware of the term "Italy" being used in any other way during those times.

 

[Brett Alex]

This isn't just about Romans folks. Be sure it pipe in with any other interesting historical facts providing they're funny.

If Grausteins still online I think he's gonna agree with me about Boudicca's final battle being, if not funny then at least pitiable.

She had began a revolution, sacked three lightly defended settlements including Londinium and the capital Camulodenum, raised a massive army estimated at 180,000 Celts.

The Roman commander of Britain, Suetonius, faced almost certain defeat and loss of Britain, he could only gather 10,000 men.

After the battle, upwards of 60,000 celts lay dead, and Boudicca has poisoned herself to avoid capture.

I still don't understand how they could be so useless. 180,000 to 10,000. What the hell Boudicca, what the hell?

Presumably for the same reason that the forces of King Xerxes were defeated by the Spartans / Athenians (and I don't just mean the battle of Thermopolae, the entire war); the winners were the better trained fighting force. Sheer numbers do not always win (however much you believe Command and Conquer to be an accurate depiction of war).

Yes although there you are looking at a whole war, not just a single conflict in near open ground. Yes, numbers aren't everything, and no doubt it was the Romans skill, tactics, discipline and technology that won them the battle, but wouldn't you really think when you outnumber your enemies 18-1 and they aren't using any fortifications that in a single battle you should be able to inflict more than 300 or so casualties. Especially when they are advancing into your numerically superior force.

You're underestimating the prowess of roman elite forces (see Centurions) and the rabble that was the Celtic army under some mad wrench, seriously the Celts had nothing but loin cloth and pitch forks on them, the Romans had Balistas, Catapults, archers and centurions.

Believe it or not, fear is one of the decisive factors on a battle outcome, and put yourself into the Celts (untrained army) situation, watching big balls of fire (ahah) descending upon you and burning your companions to crisp, surely that would make you run no?

Well it made them. When the first lines start to fall the rest of the rabble just gets pants on head retarded and start retreating, then roman Scouts (proper name for their cavalry) would just chase and slaughter them.

That's how i see it happened and why they had such mass casualties.
Wasn't the first time it happened though, many battles ended that way as History was written.

Boudiccas Iceni actually hadn't done too badly, during the initial invasion their King (and Boudiccas wife) Prasutagus was made a client of the Romans, meaning if he payed tribute as a gesture of loyalty, they could keep their swords and freedom. But the procurator got greedy when Prasutagus died, and taxed the Iceni harder. The conditions were ripe for revolt with the bulk of Roman forces occupied elsewhere.

The Celts may have been a rabble, but having sacked three Roman towns had given them incredible confidence/cockyness. It is also believed that Boudicca was quite charismatic.

The odd thing was that the Romans had neither archers nor catapults with them, they only had a few ballista. The cavalry certainly helped, but it was the wedge battle formation that won them the day.

Of course in your assessment of the Celts you forget their magical tattoos that protected them from harm.

 

[Brett Alex]

So...is this thread going to be about completely lopsided and ridiculous military conflicts? Because if so i should definetly bring up how Israel fought off invasion by like 6 Arab countries the day after it was established. And then pulled off similarly amazing military feats multiple times.

And on the Rome subject, ancient Romans were not Italian. Modern Romans (as in, from the city of Rome) are Italian. There are two kinds of Romans, you know.

Source please.

Covered here. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.76036#889109]

 

[Dele]

W-T-F. How? Is Finland some super high tech civilization from the future or what?

Finland was one of the countries that worshipped Odin.

It's really the only way I can explain the awesomeness.

Sorry, we instead believed in some guy riding on clouds making it rain and throwing lighting bolts around

Funny fact from the war: At the time of the war we had one of the worlds best systems for focusing and targeting artillery fire. Too bad we didnt have any ammo as soviets fired more artillery rounds in just two days than Finland in the whole freaking war (Yeah, Soviets had unlimited ammo and fuel code ). Also its good to remember that those numbers are only estimates so the casualties might be even higher especially on Soviet part since they were known to hide information)

It is believed that soviets screwing up was one of Hitlers reasons for starting Barbarossa and one of the reasons why soviets started reforming their army again so they wouldnt actually lose the war the second one german stepped on soviet ground.

 

[Xaryn Mar]

Wasn't the start of the film 'Gladiator'?

No that was against the early germanic tribes (can't remember what they were called), which ultimately stopped the roman empire from advancing further north than the Rhine river.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Wasn't the start of the film 'Gladiator'?

No that was against the early germanic tribes (can't remember what they were called), which ultimately stopped the roman empire from advancing further north than the Rhine river.

I thought it was against the Franks but aparantly they don't specify in the film and wikipedia just calls them "the germanic barbarians".
How the germanic tribes spread:

red= pre 570BC
orange= new settlements by 500bc
yellow=new settlements by 250bc
green=new settlements by AD 1

Edit also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War is a pretty good read why do we not havea game about this? The "Red" army versus the pro-tsarist "White" army (including support from notables such as Japan, Greece, USA, Canada, France, Italy, UK) with an anarchist "black" army (Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine) hostile to both appearing too.

 

[Aries_Split]

So...is this thread going to be about completely lopsided and ridiculous military conflicts? Because if so i should definetly bring up how Israel fought off invasion by like 6 Arab countries the day after it was established. And then pulled off similarly amazing military feats multiple times.

Well...umm...duh.

They have GOD on their side.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Right now in History class I'm learning about Russia/the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1941. I'm only on right now because the big picture of Leon Trotsky I'm printing is taking a while.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

History time eh?
*Lights cigar, swills brandy balloon around*
Well, in modern times citizens of Rome are Italian, but in Ancient Rome, what we refer to as The Roman Republic (pre Caesars Civil War) and the Roman Empire (post Caesars Civil war) Italians were technically vassal states. They were often allies of Rome, although they conflicts did sometimes emerge. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_War_(91?88_BC)]

Good summary. One might also add that at one point, parts of Italy were inhabited by the Etruscans, and that the south end and Sicily were Magna Graecia and Carthage.
At least according to The Aenid (sp?) the Romans saw them selves as descendants of Ilion (Troy), specifically Aeneas's son Iulus was the ancestor of the Iulii (Caesar and Augustus for example).

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

Finland is getting technology from Torchwood.

 

[Ralackk]

Hannibal's battle of Cannae fits into the underdogs kicking the crap out of the suposidly better force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

He had a force of roughly 40,000 vs a Roman army of close to 90,000 and managed to kill off 50-70,000 as an estimate.

Also I believe the Romans were Roman not Italian as Rome was a city state to begin with, before becoming much more powerful and building its empire. This is just like Spartans coming from their city state of Sparta or the Athenians coming from Athens rather then being identifyed as being greek.

 

[Jamanticus]

Yes, Romans lived in Italy, but there was another group (or several) living in Italy at the time, known as Italians, or whatever the Latin equivalent is to that term.

Yeah, I know the Etruscans were part of that 'non-Roman' group... They, along with the Greeks, gave Rome just about everything.