I love the part where you say Boudica's army killed 80000 romans, because literally everything about it is incorrect. "The Battle of Watling Street took place in Roman Britain in AD 60 or 61 between an alliance of indigenous British peoples led by Boudica and a Roman army led by Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. Although heavily outnumbered, the Romans decisively defeated the allied tribes, inflicting heavy losses on them." Roman forces: 10000 men. Boudica: 230000 soldiers, plus women and children. Roman losses: 400 Boudica's losses: 80000 I... I don't even know what to say. This shit writes itself. Outnumbered 23 to 1, yet the Romans won with minimal losses? Excuse me, but how much do you have to suck at warfare to lose a battle with those odds?
Boudicia destroyed Camulodunum (modern Colchester). Boudica then led 100,000 Iceni, Trinovantes, and others to fight Legio IX Hispana, and burned and destroyed Londinium and Verulamium (modern-day St Albans). An estimated 70,000–80,000 Romans and British were then killed in the three cities by those led by Boudica. This happened before the Battle of Watling Street.
80000 Roman and British CIVILIANS. You conveniently forget that. Hitler wasn't victorious over 6 million unarmed jews, he commited a genocide.
Rome's entire military force was in legions. Meaning if she didn't encounter any legions, chances are she mostly fought peasants, traders, and roman noblemen. Hardly a great victory. When faced with an actual military force, her "army" was destroyed.
As for whether the army was 100000 or 230000, according to Cassius Dio, it was 230000, not counting women and children. But regardless of whether the Romans were outnumbered 23:1 or 10:1, it is still ridiculous how she could lose so badly. As comparison, Spartacus has an army of 100000 INCLUDING old, female slaves and their childen; they fought 40000 Romans, and managed to put a 4000 men dint in the Roman forces. I repeat, underfed slaves and underequipped gladiators outfought army of fiercy British warriors. Pathetic.
They were still 80,000 Romans no matter how you swing it. I dont disagree with anything you've said. The Romans did the same wherever they wentbwhen a nation would not bow down. Even Julius Caesar killed or enslaved or starved 1 million gauls to bring fail to heel.
Sorry, totally forgot about this. Julius Caesar isn't hailed for starving gauls though. He is hailed for leading successful military campaigns, maximizing the effectiveness of the Roman armies, and institutionalizing imperialism in Rome, overthrowing the bickering senate who was disabling itself. Julius Caesar is celebrated for succeeding in what many people have failed throughout history - being a dictator that did more good than harm.
In contrast, Boudica killed unarmed civilians. Women and children too, without mercy. That's not bravery or military expertise, that's brutality and a complete disregard for moral boundaries. She deserved a painful death, but she died like a coward, from poison, fleeing defeat.
Well most military generals deserved a brutal death. She more or less gave the Romans a taste of their own medicine, they were at the time of boudacias revolt wiping out the druids in Wales. Milo is Caesar may be known as a great general but he was a dictator and tyrant who committed genocide no different than the likes of Sadam Hussain or Gadaffi in modern times. Julius Caesar certainly did good for the Romans but not so much the gauls who went into a step decline as a people afterwards. Let's remember those 80,000 Romans were invaders that were oppressing her people.
"She more or less gave the Romans a taste of their own medicine" No, because Romans didn't casually slaughter and execute free people out of petty revenge. Taking a defenseless town, and then slaughtering its residents is NOT bravery or justice, and I am not aware of Romans doing that often. Romans usually took prisoners and slaves, it made no sense from their perspective to kill the unarmed civil population.
"wiping out the druids in Wales." Yeah, destabilising local religions is one of the first steps of assimilating a group of people. Still not the same as murdering innocent people by the thousands. Those weren't Roman soldiers or anything. They were Roman and Brit citizens.
"he was a dictator and tyrant" Every monarch is. Boudica was too. Hypocrite much? "who committed genocide" Proof? Closest thing I found was slaughtering a fleeing army of gauls - last I checked, killing soldiers or people on the battlefield in general is not genocide.
"Let's remember those 80,000 Romans were invaders that were oppressing her people." Too bad a good portion of them were Britons. Plus again. INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Didn't fight. If she had problem with them, she could have made them run. Pillaging and slaughtering is disgusting.
Boudica was a rebel leader not an invader. Those portion of her own people were traitors. The Britons didn't just kill 80,000 foreign invaders out of revenge but instead to destroy Rome's footholds in Briton which is why time settled town and built fortresses in the first place. Also Rome only exterminated and committed genocide when they wanted to send a message to peoples who did not submit to Roman authority.
"For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners." Plutarch. I dont get your hypocrisy villifying one genocide of a people fighting in a last ditch effort for freedom while justifying the genocide of your favourite dictator.
"Those portion of her own people were traitors." 'Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a traitor'
"but instead to destroy Rome's footholds in Briton" You can't seriously think that was going to happen. They couldn't have either. At that point Rome was the undefeated, undisputed conquerer of the World. If Boudica was so arrogant that she thought this would drive Rome out, she deserved it.
"Rome only exterminated and committed genocide when they wanted to send a message to peoples who did not submit to Roman authority." You can't show me a single example, can you? I can imagine 2 cases of clear open retribution from Rome - one was Spartacus's revolution. The other was Carthage. However, Carthage, unlike the Briton cities, DID fight back, held the Roman siege for 3 years, not to mention Hannibal Barca attacking Rome before. The retaliation was brutal, but justified - Carthage presented a threat to Rome.
"For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners." Not a single genocide mentioned.
"I dont get your hypocrisy villifying one genocide of a people fighting in a last ditch effort for freedom while justifying the genocide of your favourite dictator." 1) You STILL haven't brought up any genocide commited by Julius Caesar, or the Romans at the time of Boudica. 2) You know what makes people totally unsympathetic towards freedom fighters? Murdering innocents for being "traitors". People who just wanted to live their lives, but SHE thought SHE is better than them, so she had them murdered.
You are a deranged sociopath if you don't understand the difference.
1) You can't be a traitor if you weren't under an oath of some kind. They flat out refused their Briton leaders. End of story. Should racetraitors be killed too? Do you think THAT is acceptable?
2) Well, it wasn't possible to destroy the Roman foothold, as illustrated by the thundering victory of a tiny Roman army over more than 200000 Britons. Noobs.
... in Britain at that time. Rome was not invincible as had been shown in the teubourg forest in Germany barely 50 years before Boudicia's revolt, the Germans had shown it possible to rid one selves of the Romans. Far from being the undisputed conqueror of the world the Parthians in the east were checking Roman advance and had laid on many humiliating defeats in battle and wars, why 100 years before Boudicia's revolt the Parthians outnumbered 4-1 massacred the armies of crassus. During the Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE), the Romans massacred four towns and killed all of the male residents of a fifth because the Samnites were considered guilty of treason. I would say invading a country and killing 1 million , starving to death 1 million and another 1 million enslaved gauls counts as genocide by definition.
Julius Caesar also killed 200,000 men women and children, virtually an entire people. “I sent the cavalry behind to them. “The Germans heard screams behind him, and when they saw that their wives and children were slain, they threw down their weapons and ran headlong away from the camp. “When they had come to the point where the Meuse and Rhine rivers flow together, they saw no good in further flights. “A large number of them were slain, and the rest fell into the river, where they died overwhelmed by anxiety, fatigue and strength of the current.” — Caesar.
1. Traitor A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle. "he was a traitor to his own people" synonyms: betrayer, back-stabber, double-crosser, double-dealer, renegade, Judas, quisling, fifth columnist, viper; More turncoat, defector, apostate, deserter; collaborator, fraternizer, colluder, informer, double agent; informalsnake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab; raretraditor, tergiversator, renegado "he was tried in a military court as a traitor" If they weren't traitors them they were still enemies. 2. It failed and it was possible to destroy a Roman foothold as it had been done in Germany with the destruction of Roman legions and by the Parthians.
1) One can be a traitor from one person's perspective while not actually being a traitor. For example, I feel like my favourite sports team let me down by losing a match. They betrayed my trust, and I hate then for it. Am I justified punching them in the face for being traitors? I'd say I am a major douchebag if I do it. This has a pretty complex background in sociology, mor precisely game theory, but I don't want to go into it.
2) Caesar slaugtered the women and children who the celts BROUGHT ONTO THE BATTLEFIELD. WHO DOES THAT? Seriously, this is some kind of extreme idiocy. Why would you bring your weakest point onto the battlefield? Anyone on the battlefield is a soldier. A kid can stab you in the back if they have a knife or a sword. Thus anyone who is on the battlefield either surrenders, flees, or gets slaughtered if the enemy is better. Sportsmanship is one thing, but be honest with me - if someone tried to beat you up, and their balls were hanging out, wouldn't you kick them there? That's what I though. Caesar just did what any other military leader would have done.
As for the Parthians, actually the Romans slowly, but consistently beat the Partians, until the Sarracens finished their job. Regardless, the Parthians had an empire, armies, etc. They weren't cave dwelling idiots who brought their kids into battle.
And let's not put the Germans on the same page ad the Britons. For one, it happened way later. Secondly, the Germans actually had metal armors and weapons, battle tactics and training. They were so effective in fact that the Romans adopted their longer swords and their maille (spatha and lorica hamata). What did the Romans take from the Britons? Not much of cultural value.
Face it. Boudica and the Britons were murderious cavemen who sucked ass. Getting beaten 23:1 is a joke. It's like Ronaldo beating an entire football team plus the exchange players ALONE.
1 betraying your people to their enemies makes you a traitor. ie French men who joined the SS. 2. There is no sportsmanship in war. The women and children were on the battlefield because they had nowhere else to go. If they'd left the army they'd have been slaughtered or enslaved. 3. The Romans rarely beat the Parthians despite many defeats like when crassus had his army destroyed despite outnumbering the Parthians 4-1. Rome could never conquer the Parthians, Sasanian Empire replaced them and they would pay many mote defeats on the Romans even taking Egypt away from them. 3. The Romans just could never conquer the Germans despite many attempts. 4. The Britons as a celtic people like the Gauls were great metal workers, gold and silver smiths. The Roman Calvary sword the Spatha was adopted from the Celts. The Britons had previously traded weapons, art and jewellery with the Romans. Also the britons took care of their old and sick and didn't throw their babies into the river.
5. The Britons defeated Julius Caesar. 6. The Romans came to Briton for Britons wealth. If there was nothing worth taking they wouldn't have conquered it. It's why they left the last Celtic areas such as Hibernia and Caledonia alone.
It's getting really tiring arguing with you. 1) Fuck off. You can't be a traitor to a faction that never exsited. Boudica's father was with the Romans. The reason she was upset is because her father died, and the Romans wanted their land back, as it was given to him by Rome. Boudica was a spoiled kid who disappointed and betrayed her own father. How's that for irony. 2) Did they not have homes? Cities? Houses? Come on, don't give me this bullshit. Wars have been fought since the dawn of timethe, and people didn't have a problem not dragging their loved ones onto the battlefield. 3) Rome conquered Parthia in 103 I think. So yeah. "Rarely". 4) I was wrong about the spatha, huh. I distinctly remembered it being German, but apparebtly those werepeople the celts. Oh well. But the fact still stands that Germans had better quality weapons. The Celts were just outweaponed and outwitted.
5) i wouldn't call installing a king sympathetic to Rome a defeat. In 55 BC, Julius Caesar had substantial victories in England, but like in most outside conquests, he didn't insist on keeping the land. Generally getting the locals to be agreeable with Rome was more than enough. By this logic, the US didn't defeat Japan, because they never annexed them. 6) I said there was nothing worth taking culturally. Let's face it, Romans saw celts as barbarians. Obviously trading and/or taxing, as well as increased inlfuence is how you grow as an empire, but they didn't appreciate the culture of the Celts. And I don't want to. sound demeaning, because they had an interesting culture. But it wasn't thethe main motivator for the Romans.
One additions, regarding weaponry. The Germans initially lacked quality metallurgy, but during thethe second half of their conflicts with Rome, their weaponry become more intricate, and they started using a lot more iron. This was also the point after which they started gaining on Rome. from a military perspective, and sometimes even pebetrating the peninsula with their campaigns. Ultimately their guerilla fighting style and their formation fighting made then more dangeorus than the normally more peaceful celts.
1. Boudicia's father was forced to submit after being conquered and his people's lands ylstolen from them. It was a rebellion and those so called Britons supported and fought with the Romans and thus were traitors to Briton under any definition of the word. Also they raped her and her daughter's. 2. No they did not have homes and if they did the Romans would have attacked them as they did to the gauls in their towns and villages. 3. Rome never conquered Parthia, they invaded many times but failed miserably and retreated in shame and defeat. 4. The Celts weren't out weapon, they were beaten by a professional army, the legionarie was the best soldier in the world at the time and the britons didn't know how to exploit the weaknesses of the legionaries. They were also up against a superior commander. The Briton warriors were mostly farmers not soldiers or warriors that were fighting for freedom. German sword smithing was superior right up to the medieval period only the Arabs were better.
5. Julius Caesar not being able to conquer and having to leave twice having gained nothing. The locals were already agreeable with Rome through trade. Technically the US bases and the take over of Japan by MacArthur in which he made laws indicates an annexation. Rome was only satisfied with agreement and client kingdoms when it cost too much to invade. 6. The Romans saw nearly everyone that wasn't Roman as a barbarian maybe or maybe not the Greeks or Egyptians as I dont know. Any culture that was not Roman was seen as barbaric but they did appreciate Celtic manufactured goods. The Romans as an empire saw people whether slaves or not as a resource which means more tax money, more food production, more manufactured goods, more slaves, more soldiers more workers. Roman cultural policy was very much like the British empires policy to "make the world England" or make the world Roman.
Yeah Gaius Soetonius Paulinus certainly helped save Roman face and prestige among the other empires and nations but the damage was done. When news spread around the empire of how one lowly woman rebelled against the might of the roman empire and burned 3 of their cities down it encouraged others such as the great Jewish revolt 5 years later and others. I dont think Gaius Soetonius Paulinus can be compared to Thermopylae as the Romans were comparable more to the invading Persians than the plucky Greeks defending their country against the most powerful emperor in the world. Roman sword making was notoriously poor that's why those that could afford it bought swords made by Germans or gauls. The Germans were more cunning than the Celts and didn't fight the way the Romans wanted them too. The Romans were at a major disadvantage against Calvary. The Celts were not more peaceful they were just more divided and used to fighting smaller more personal battles were individual combat mattered.
I am really tired of this, but I will address only this: "Roman sword making was notoriously poor that's why those that could afford it bought swords made by Germans or gauls." The quality had nothing to do with it. Iron was shit everywhere until the 7th century. I am an amateur blacksmith, so here are my two cents: you can't mass produce swords the size of spathas. Roman soldiers couldn't afford it, only cavalrymen and maybe centurions. When you are working with mild steel, every inch of length you add makes the chance of the blade just falling apart exponentially larger. The fact is that the celts didn't have a lot of swords either. Most used axes and spear, because they are cheaper and more effective. The Roman weapons were fine, but they needed to be longer. Too bad crucible steel came with the Vikings in the 7th century.
The celts were more peaceful compared to themen germans. That's a fact.
As for Thermopylae or not, he did the same thing. He backed the invading army into a valley, and gained the advantage through right ranks and supreme training. That's literally what happenedyou at Thermopylae. That's why I thinkam the comparison is apt.
And Romans DID have a lot of problem with cavalries. That is why the biggest step the Frank empire took in their warfare was to have heavily armored cavalry units. They realised that the Romans had the good formula for infantry, but mobility was shit. And inI fact Rome increased the number of cavalry units over time. I think the Huns gave them something to think about.
I wouldn't attribute too much success to Boudica - she hardly madea a difference. Rome stood for another 400 years, and ir was thea Germans and internal issues that brought it to its knees. Don't attribute false success to people because they haveare a vagina.
It's well know that Roman metal forging techniques were very low tech around the time of Julius Caesar to Caligula mostly because they were only just capturing areas were good steel was available in haul and Britain. The celts wete among the first to use pattern welding techniques. The Roman gladius was used because it suited Roman infantry tactics, later Roman legionaries carried the Spatha instead of the gladius as Roman infantry tactics changed due to the effectiveness of the legionaries on the battlefield fading and the lack of well trained legionaries. The Romans always feared the Celts because of how the Celts sacked Rome, the Greeks feared the too. The Romans feared the Celts so much that they built two walls to keep them out of Roman territory. At the end of the day a proffessional army defeated a bunch of farmers, it doesn't compare to thermopoly where the Greeks defeated a much larger army or to Alexander the great of to Julius Caesar or to Trajan or to Constantine.
The Frank's adopted Calvary very late, they were mostly infantry armies right up until after the battle of tours. The Frank's mostly fought on foot favouring the Francisca axe, spear and swords if the could get one. The huns, the satlrmatian and Parthians gave the Romans a lot to think about about and it was when then other barbarians like the vandals and Goths started to exploit Roman Calvary weakness, most of times cavalry were auxiliaries and and huge number of their infantry were too recruited out of barbarian tribes and trained yo fight by Romans. The difference Boudicia made was that she cut the Romans, there had been a long period of Roman peace and after the revolt there was blood in the water and everyone knew it, revolts arose everywhere in the empire after all 80,000 Romans had been slaughtered. It took emperor's like vespasian and trajan to bring peace to the empire and maintain its strength. I'm not sure you know much about history.
Pattern welding doesn't mean shit if you don't have carbon steel in the first place. Just ask the japanese. They went to hell and back to make the best pattern welded swords of the world - yet you can't strike with the flat of the katana because it bends like a bitch.
Trust me, if you are talking mild steel, you can patter weld it all you want, it will be useless. The neat trick, the revolution, was crucible steel, probably the last useful invention coming out of India for the next thousand years. The explanation is simple. Directly out of Wikipedia, just as I expected: "The relatively low quality of Roman weaponry was primarily a function of its large-scale production, and later factors such as governmental price fixing for certain items, which gave no allowance for quality, and incentivised cheap, poor-quality goods."
"later Roman legionaries carried the Spatha instead of the gladius as Roman infantry tactics changed due to the effectiveness of the legionaries on the battlefield fading" I wouldn't say fading. They needed to adapt to a new kind of fighting style. Formations still worked well, but the gladius was less useful when ranks broke up, and open fighting started. Still, the real value of the spatha came with the larger scale introduction of cavalry, as naturally cavalrymen needed longer weapons.
"the lack of well trained legionaries." LOL Remember when 230000 britons were defeated by 10000 legionaires? Lack of well trained legionaires by ass.
As for celts sacking rome - 1) that happened 400 years earlier. 2) legionaries were far better trained in the imperial periods - remember, the daily march was increased from 12 to 20something km during the imperial era, so they were probably far more formidable opponents. 3) The gauls were at least outnumbering the romans 2 to 1. At most 4 to 1
Regardless, I don't think Romans would fear a group of scattered people who defeated them once around 400 BC, when they had innumerable victories over the same celts. By this logic, the Celts must have been shitting their pants at just the sight of a Roman.
"At the end of the day a proffessional army defeated a bunch of farmers, it doesn't compare to thermopoly where the Greeks defeated a much larger army" What are you even talking about? The Greeks LOST at Thermopylae. Also, the numbers were pretty comparable. Realistic estimates put the Persian army at 120000 people. The greek had 4000-5000 people. That's almost the same ratio as with the romans. Of course the Persians had actual soldiers - but they also won decisively. I am not trying to overstate the victory, I am just laughing at the fact that you brough up a female military leader who essentially lost a battle when every bet was against the Romans. It's just comical.
"The evidence of Gregory and of the Lex Salica implies that the early Franks were a cavalry people. In fact, some modern historians have hypothesised that the Franks possessed so numerous a body of horses that they could use them to plough fields and thus were agriculturally technologically advanced over their neighbours." Also, even if they adopted cavalry very late (which is demonstrably untrue), they were STILL the first people in the history of humankind to successfully use the crush-and-awe effect of heavy cavalry.
"The Frank's mostly fought on foot" No shit. Even during the late middle ages/early renaissance, armies didn't use more than about 10% heavy cavalry, because they are expensive. The idea of heavy cavalry is that they break the ranks of the enemy troops, and break their morale too. They were never meant to be the body of an army. Their value is mobility. If the whole army is mobile, mobility makes no sense.
"The huns, the satlrmatian and Parthians gave the Romans a lot to think about about and it was when then other barbarians like the vandals and Goths started to exploit Roman Calvary weakness, most of times cavalry were auxiliaries and and huge number of their infantry were too recruited out of barbarian tribes and trained yo fight by Romans." I agree with every word here.
"The difference Boudicia made was that she cut the Romans, there had been a long period of Roman peace and after the revolt there was blood in the water and everyone knew it, revolts arose everywhere in the empire after all 80,000 Romans had been slaughtered." I don't think it was this relevant. Show me definitive proof that there was a large spike of revolts and violence in the next 10 years, and I'll admit that you are right. But generally, Rome always had very violent "politics".
"It took emperor's like vespasian and trajan to bring peace to the empire and maintain its strength." Yeah. She did that. Alone. OK.
AD 60 Boudica, a queen of the Iceni, was appointed to lead a revolt of the Iceni and the Trinovantes against Rome. AD 66 First Jewish–Roman War: The Jewish population of Judea revolted against Roman rule. Roman Senate had declared him an enemy of the state and ordered him brought to the Forum to be publicly beaten to death. He had an aid kill him. Zealot Temple Siege: The forces of Ananus ben Ananus, the Jewish former High Priest of Israel, laid siege to the Zealots in the Second Temple. AD69 The Praetorian Guard assassinated Galba and acclaimed Otho ruler of Rome. Following his defeat by Vitellius, the commander of the Roman army on the lower Rhine, near modern Calvatone, and to prevent further civil war, Otho committed suicide. Revolt of the Batavi: Gaius Julius Civilis, commander of the Batavi auxiliaries in the Rhine legions, turned against Rome. The Senate recognized Vespasian, the commander of Roman forces in Egypt and Judea, as ruler of Rome.
Vitellius was executed in Rome by troops loyal to Vespasian. Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE): The Roman general Titus breached the walls of Jerusalem, sacked the city and destroyed the Second Temple. AD 71 Roman conquest of Britain: Roman forces entered modern Scotland. AD73 Siege of Masada: Roman forces breached the walls of Masada, a mountain fortress held by the Jewish extremist sect the Sicarii.
When I say lack of well trained legionaries that is actually true. Trajan had a real problem with it when confronting the Parthians because naturally legions also had to be deployed in Britain, Gaul, North Italy, Davis Greece, North Africa to defend the empire from opportunistic nations. I wasn't talking either about when Roman armies were at their strongest like during Boudicia's time. Civil wars before and during the barbarian invasions meant that time had few legionaries to fight barbarian armies and had grown dependent on auxiliaries and mercenaries. The quality of the legionaries slipped too. Rome became a greatly advanced empire technologically but at the time of Julius Caesar it was not and others were more advanced in certain things.
Women shouldn't be in the military. They don't make very good soldiers, and they're too individualistic to embrace the concept of unit pride that is critical to creating esprit de corps.
Joan of Arc was known as mistress of Gilles de Rais, a 'noble' guilty of pedophile kidnappings and murders, not yet arrested then because the king hoped he could use his troops against the English. 'Saint' Joan of Arc wanted a less risky lover: the king. The rest is romantic legend.
@Valiant Wikipedia is only doubtful when it's about hot actuality like politics. For all historical and scientific purposes it's as good as any encyclopedia
When Joan of Arc was imprisoned by the Burgundians at Beaurevoir Castle her biggest fear was being raped. So even the almighty Joan Of Arc was powerless in a hand to hand confrontation and scared shitless of being raped by male prison guards. That, my dear, is exactly why responsible men try to keep their women a safe distance from combat.
Isn't your biggest fear if imprisoned being raped by male prision guards or fellow prisoners? So even the almighty @castratedwhiteguy powerless in a hand to hand confrontation and scared shitless of being raped by male prisoners and guards. That, my dear, is exactly why responsible women should try to keep their men a safe distance from combat.
Joan of Arc was a mere cheerleader, assuming that her legend is even true. Personally, I have serious doubts concerning the whole Joan of Arc fairy tale. Do you really believe that an 18th century illiterate peasant girl would have had the knowledge, wisdom and drive to lead France against the English at the end of the 100 years war? Especially when more educated military men could have done the job better. Chances are that the whole Joan of Arc story is a product of the sexual fantasies of some Catholic monk much like Playboy's "women in uniform" issue was a product of Hugh Hefner's submissive sexual fantasies. It's all a big lie!
Ask the English who she beat, they burnt her as a witch. Before she came the English were hammering the French, after the English were forced out of France after 100 years of war.
Like I said earlier, I don't believe this whole narrative. If the French defeated Britten in the 100 years war than FRENCH MEN won that war! Joan of Arc was just a poster child - a sexy detraction. Nothing more!
Inspirational leadership? Maybe? Physical leadership? No way! No 17 year old girl could have possibly survived the intense front line hand to hand combat that was fought in those days. So get off your high horse, because The Joan Of Arc fairy tale is pure bullshit.
Only if you believe this fairy tale as the Catholic Church tells it. Personally. I'm not buying it. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Just some corrupt mid-evil monks passing on their sexual fantasies for posterity. That's how I see it.
Women evolved as nurturers, not warriors. You do not have the mental or physical strength to endure combat... The only reason women are included at all is because the military (and the entire world) has become so fuckin' weak and spineless that they feel the need to bow to every whim of the (((cultural-marxist))) PC culture.
There are about 203,000 in 2011, or 14.5% of the active-duty force of nearly 1.4 million. -- That number comprises about 74,000 in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps. Officers/enlisted: -- Nearly 167,000 women were in the enlisted ranks, making up 14.2% of that force. -- There were 36,000 women in the officer corps, or 16.6%. -- Among the top ranks, 69 of the 976 generals and admirals -- 7.1% -- were women. There were 28 female generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps and 21 female admirals in the Navy. -- Of the 3,698 new female officers in 2011, 579 were graduates of the nation's service academies. -- In addition, 18% of the 722,000 enlisted reservists and National Guard troops and 19% of their 113,000 officers are women.
Front-line duties: -- Enlisted women made up 2.7% of the military's front-line units. Women were barred from the infantry, but were allowed to serve on gun crews, air crews and in seamanship specialties. Among officers, women represented 5.4% of those involved in "tactical operations." -- Despite the official ban on combat, women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan often found themselves engaged in firefights. Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded.
Assignments: -- Among the enlisted ranks, women were most represented in the medical (30.5%) and administrative (30.1%) specialties. They made up about 17% of supply units, 14% of communications staff and 10% of electronics technicians. -- Health care was the top field for female officers, at 39%. They made up nearly 28% of administrative officers, 19% of intelligence officers and 18% of supply officers. -- In the Navy, 46% of all female officers were in the medical field.
Nice job copying and pasting. I am already aware of the statistics. Is there a point to this?
... And it's like I said, the only reason these women even qualify for enrollment is because the standards for women are drastically lowered and because it's financially incentivized.
Again your source is based on all male combat infantry battalions which only make up about 15% of the entire military. The military needs women because without women they'd have 200,000 less personal to fulfil all the various roles which allow the military to field forces at home and abroad. I'm not sure you understand how a modern military works. To put 3 infantry soldiers in the field it takes 7 other military personnel to support them.
Again, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I realize 80% of military posts are non-combat and I realize the vast majority of female military personnel do not see action, this is not the only issue... Women are not only physically weaker than men, women are mentally weaker as well... They are governed by emotion rather than logic. They do not understand tactical-strategy and they cannot run logistics. They panic under pressure, and they're "people-pleasers"... I'll concede one point to you. When it comes to hands-on medical care at field and base hospitals, fine, women are probably better at that... When it comes to combat, strategy, intelligence, logistics, and research, women should not be involved in any way, shape, or form... And when it comes to administration, communications, IT, financial, and legal... I do not see the need to bring less qualified females in to do jobs that men could do more effectively and efficiently...
And as far as 3 field soldiers needing a 7 head support-staff? It simply isn't true... previous Secretaries Of Defense loaded the DOD down with so many unnecessary regulations the entire department has become bloated with useless post-fillers.
Infantry men are backed by air power, artillery, medics, communications, naval support, armour, inteligence logistics and a whole range of other fields that require large numbers of personnel to put infantry men into the field naturally it takes 7 for every 3 to keep that working. In world war 2 women were deployed in strategy, intelligence, logistics, and research fields in did quite well. Especially in code-breaking, Espionage and interpreting aerial photographs, women in these fields made D-DAY possible. Also women worked on virtually every other field and showed themselves just as capable as men. Who do you think built all those war planes for the allies? Your argument really falls apart. My take was about women in the military but you are kind of clueless about the military.
@Catholicgirl22 Okay GI Jane, why don't you explain to me how it works? Why don't you tell me what the 5 branches are? @FireAsh Women like my "sexist attitude". I get more action in a month than you'll likely get in your entire life.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
41Opinion
I think its great to have women serve beside men as long as the standards aren't lowered in any regards especially physically.
I love the part where you say Boudica's army killed 80000 romans, because literally everything about it is incorrect.
"The Battle of Watling Street took place in Roman Britain in AD 60 or 61 between an alliance of indigenous British peoples led by Boudica and a Roman army led by Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. Although heavily outnumbered, the Romans decisively defeated the allied tribes, inflicting heavy losses on them."
Roman forces: 10000 men.
Boudica: 230000 soldiers, plus women and children.
Roman losses: 400
Boudica's losses: 80000
I... I don't even know what to say. This shit writes itself. Outnumbered 23 to 1, yet the Romans won with minimal losses? Excuse me, but how much do you have to suck at warfare to lose a battle with those odds?
Oh, and shoutout to Gaius Soetonius Paulinus for pulling a Thermopylae on the Brits. He brought honour to the name of Rome.
Boudicia destroyed Camulodunum (modern Colchester). Boudica then led 100,000 Iceni, Trinovantes, and others to fight Legio IX Hispana, and burned and destroyed Londinium and Verulamium (modern-day St Albans). An estimated 70,000–80,000 Romans and British were then killed in the three cities by those led by Boudica. This happened before the Battle of Watling Street.
80000 Roman and British CIVILIANS. You conveniently forget that. Hitler wasn't victorious over 6 million unarmed jews, he commited a genocide.
Rome's entire military force was in legions. Meaning if she didn't encounter any legions, chances are she mostly fought peasants, traders, and roman noblemen. Hardly a great victory. When faced with an actual military force, her "army" was destroyed.
As for whether the army was 100000 or 230000, according to Cassius Dio, it was 230000, not counting women and children. But regardless of whether the Romans were outnumbered 23:1 or 10:1, it is still ridiculous how she could lose so badly. As comparison, Spartacus has an army of 100000 INCLUDING old, female slaves and their childen; they fought 40000 Romans, and managed to put a 4000 men dint in the Roman forces.
I repeat, underfed slaves and underequipped gladiators outfought army of fiercy British warriors. Pathetic.
They were still 80,000 Romans no matter how you swing it. I dont disagree with anything you've said. The Romans did the same wherever they wentbwhen a nation would not bow down. Even Julius Caesar killed or enslaved or starved 1 million gauls to bring fail to heel.
Sorry, totally forgot about this.
Julius Caesar isn't hailed for starving gauls though. He is hailed for leading successful military campaigns, maximizing the effectiveness of the Roman armies, and institutionalizing imperialism in Rome, overthrowing the bickering senate who was disabling itself. Julius Caesar is celebrated for succeeding in what many people have failed throughout history - being a dictator that did more good than harm.
In contrast, Boudica killed unarmed civilians. Women and children too, without mercy. That's not bravery or military expertise, that's brutality and a complete disregard for moral boundaries. She deserved a painful death, but she died like a coward, from poison, fleeing defeat.
Well most military generals deserved a brutal death. She more or less gave the Romans a taste of their own medicine, they were at the time of boudacias revolt wiping out the druids in Wales.
Milo is Caesar may be known as a great general but he was a dictator and tyrant who committed genocide no different than the likes of Sadam Hussain or Gadaffi in modern times. Julius Caesar certainly did good for the Romans but not so much the gauls who went into a step decline as a people afterwards. Let's remember those 80,000 Romans were invaders that were oppressing her people.
"She more or less gave the Romans a taste of their own medicine"
No, because Romans didn't casually slaughter and execute free people out of petty revenge.
Taking a defenseless town, and then slaughtering its residents is NOT bravery or justice, and I am not aware of Romans doing that often. Romans usually took prisoners and slaves, it made no sense from their perspective to kill the unarmed civil population.
"wiping out the druids in Wales."
Yeah, destabilising local religions is one of the first steps of assimilating a group of people. Still not the same as murdering innocent people by the thousands. Those weren't Roman soldiers or anything. They were Roman and Brit citizens.
"he was a dictator and tyrant"
Every monarch is. Boudica was too. Hypocrite much?
"who committed genocide"
Proof? Closest thing I found was slaughtering a fleeing army of gauls - last I checked, killing soldiers or people on the battlefield in general is not genocide.
"Let's remember those 80,000 Romans were invaders that were oppressing her people."
Too bad a good portion of them were Britons. Plus again. INNOCENT CIVILIANS. Didn't fight. If she had problem with them, she could have made them run. Pillaging and slaughtering is disgusting.
Boudica was a rebel leader not an invader. Those portion of her own people were traitors. The Britons didn't just kill 80,000 foreign invaders out of revenge but instead to destroy Rome's footholds in Briton which is why time settled town and built fortresses in the first place. Also Rome only exterminated and committed genocide when they wanted to send a message to peoples who did not submit to Roman authority.
"For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners." Plutarch.
I dont get your hypocrisy villifying one genocide of a people fighting in a last ditch effort for freedom while justifying the genocide of your favourite dictator.
"Those portion of her own people were traitors."
'Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a traitor'
"but instead to destroy Rome's footholds in Briton"
You can't seriously think that was going to happen. They couldn't have either. At that point Rome was the undefeated, undisputed conquerer of the World. If Boudica was so arrogant that she thought this would drive Rome out, she deserved it.
"Rome only exterminated and committed genocide when they wanted to send a message to peoples who did not submit to Roman authority."
You can't show me a single example, can you? I can imagine 2 cases of clear open retribution from Rome - one was Spartacus's revolution. The other was Carthage. However, Carthage, unlike the Briton cities, DID fight back, held the Roman siege for 3 years, not to mention Hannibal Barca attacking Rome before. The retaliation was brutal, but justified - Carthage presented a threat to Rome.
"For although it was not full ten years that he waged war in Gaul, he took by storm more than eight hundred cities, subdued three hundred nations, and fought pitched battles at different times with three million men, of whom he slew one million in hand to hand fighting and took as many more prisoners."
Not a single genocide mentioned.
"I dont get your hypocrisy villifying one genocide of a people fighting in a last ditch effort for freedom while justifying the genocide of your favourite dictator."
1) You STILL haven't brought up any genocide commited by Julius Caesar, or the Romans at the time of Boudica.
2) You know what makes people totally unsympathetic towards freedom fighters? Murdering innocents for being "traitors". People who just wanted to live their lives, but SHE thought SHE is better than them, so she had them murdered.
You are a deranged sociopath if you don't understand the difference.
Lol disagreeing does not make you a traitor but helping your people's enemies does.
It was possible at the time to destroy the Roman foothold
1) You can't be a traitor if you weren't under an oath of some kind. They flat out refused their Briton leaders. End of story. Should racetraitors be killed too? Do you think THAT is acceptable?
2) Well, it wasn't possible to destroy the Roman foothold, as illustrated by the thundering victory of a tiny Roman army over more than 200000 Britons. Noobs.
... in Britain at that time. Rome was not invincible as had been shown in the teubourg forest in Germany barely 50 years before Boudicia's revolt, the Germans had shown it possible to rid one selves of the Romans. Far from being the undisputed conqueror of the world the Parthians in the east were checking Roman advance and had laid on many humiliating defeats in battle and wars, why 100 years before Boudicia's revolt the Parthians outnumbered 4-1 massacred the armies of crassus.
During the Second Samnite War (326-304 BCE), the Romans massacred four towns and killed all of the male residents of a fifth because the Samnites were considered guilty of treason.
I would say invading a country and killing 1 million , starving to death 1 million and another 1 million enslaved gauls counts as genocide by definition.
Julius Caesar also killed 200,000 men women and children, virtually an entire people.
“I sent the cavalry behind to them.
“The Germans heard screams behind him, and when they saw that their wives and children were slain, they threw down their weapons and ran headlong away from the camp.
“When they had come to the point where the Meuse and Rhine rivers flow together, they saw no good in further flights.
“A large number of them were slain, and the rest fell into the river, where they died overwhelmed by anxiety, fatigue and strength of the current.” — Caesar.
1. Traitor
A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.
"he was a traitor to his own people"
synonyms: betrayer, back-stabber, double-crosser, double-dealer, renegade, Judas, quisling, fifth columnist, viper; More
turncoat, defector, apostate, deserter;
collaborator, fraternizer, colluder, informer, double agent;
informalsnake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab;
raretraditor, tergiversator, renegado
"he was tried in a military court as a traitor"
If they weren't traitors them they were still enemies.
2. It failed and it was possible to destroy a Roman foothold as it had been done in Germany with the destruction of Roman legions and by the Parthians.
1) One can be a traitor from one person's perspective while not actually being a traitor. For example, I feel like my favourite sports team let me down by losing a match. They betrayed my trust, and I hate then for it. Am I justified punching them in the face for being traitors? I'd say I am a major douchebag if I do it.
This has a pretty complex background in sociology, mor precisely game theory, but I don't want to go into it.
2) Caesar slaugtered the women and children who the celts BROUGHT ONTO THE BATTLEFIELD. WHO DOES THAT? Seriously, this is some kind of extreme idiocy. Why would you bring your weakest point onto the battlefield? Anyone on the battlefield is a soldier. A kid can stab you in the back if they have a knife or a sword. Thus anyone who is on the battlefield either surrenders, flees, or gets slaughtered if the enemy is better.
Sportsmanship is one thing, but be honest with me - if someone tried to beat you up, and their balls were hanging out, wouldn't you kick them there? That's what I though. Caesar just did what any other military leader would have done.
As for the Parthians, actually the Romans slowly, but consistently beat the Partians, until the Sarracens finished their job. Regardless, the Parthians had an empire, armies, etc. They weren't cave dwelling idiots who brought their kids into battle.
And let's not put the Germans on the same page ad the Britons. For one, it happened way later. Secondly, the Germans actually had metal armors and weapons, battle tactics and training. They were so effective in fact that the Romans adopted their longer swords and their maille (spatha and lorica hamata). What did the Romans take from the Britons? Not much of cultural value.
Face it. Boudica and the Britons were murderious cavemen who sucked ass. Getting beaten 23:1 is a joke. It's like Ronaldo beating an entire football team plus the exchange players ALONE.
1 betraying your people to their enemies makes you a traitor. ie French men who joined the SS.
2. There is no sportsmanship in war. The women and children were on the battlefield because they had nowhere else to go. If they'd left the army they'd have been slaughtered or enslaved.
3. The Romans rarely beat the Parthians despite many defeats like when crassus had his army destroyed despite outnumbering the Parthians 4-1. Rome could never conquer the Parthians, Sasanian Empire replaced them and they would pay many mote defeats on the Romans even taking Egypt away from them.
3. The Romans just could never conquer the Germans despite many attempts.
4. The Britons as a celtic people like the Gauls were great metal workers, gold and silver smiths. The Roman Calvary sword the Spatha was adopted from the Celts. The Britons had previously traded weapons, art and jewellery with the Romans. Also the britons took care of their old and sick and didn't throw their babies into the river.
5. The Britons defeated Julius Caesar.
6. The Romans came to Briton for Britons wealth. If there was nothing worth taking they wouldn't have conquered it. It's why they left the last Celtic areas such as Hibernia and Caledonia alone.
It's getting really tiring arguing with you.
1) Fuck off. You can't be a traitor to a faction that never exsited. Boudica's father was with the Romans. The reason she was upset is because her father died, and the Romans wanted their land back, as it was given to him by Rome. Boudica was a spoiled kid who disappointed and betrayed her own father. How's that for irony.
2) Did they not have homes? Cities? Houses? Come on, don't give me this bullshit. Wars have been fought since the dawn of timethe, and people didn't have a problem not dragging their loved ones onto the battlefield.
3) Rome conquered Parthia in 103 I think. So yeah. "Rarely".
4) I was wrong about the spatha, huh. I distinctly remembered it being German, but apparebtly those werepeople the celts. Oh well. But the fact still stands that Germans had better quality weapons. The Celts were just outweaponed and outwitted.
5) i wouldn't call installing a king sympathetic to Rome a defeat. In 55 BC, Julius Caesar had substantial victories in England, but like in most outside conquests, he didn't insist on keeping the land. Generally getting the locals to be agreeable with Rome was more than enough. By this logic, the US didn't defeat Japan, because they never annexed them.
6) I said there was nothing worth taking culturally. Let's face it, Romans saw celts as barbarians. Obviously trading and/or taxing, as well as increased inlfuence is how you grow as an empire, but they didn't appreciate the culture of the Celts. And I don't want to. sound demeaning, because they had an interesting culture. But it wasn't thethe main motivator for the Romans.
One additions, regarding weaponry. The Germans initially lacked quality metallurgy, but during thethe second half of their conflicts with Rome, their weaponry become more intricate, and they started using a lot more iron. This was also the point after which they started gaining on Rome. from a military perspective, and sometimes even pebetrating the peninsula with their campaigns. Ultimately their guerilla fighting style and their formation fighting made then more dangeorus than the normally more peaceful celts.
1. Boudicia's father was forced to submit after being conquered and his people's lands ylstolen from them. It was a rebellion and those so called Britons supported and fought with the Romans and thus were traitors to Briton under any definition of the word. Also they raped her and her daughter's.
2. No they did not have homes and if they did the Romans would have attacked them as they did to the gauls in their towns and villages.
3. Rome never conquered Parthia, they invaded many times but failed miserably and retreated in shame and defeat.
4. The Celts weren't out weapon, they were beaten by a professional army, the legionarie was the best soldier in the world at the time and the britons didn't know how to exploit the weaknesses of the legionaries. They were also up against a superior commander. The Briton warriors were mostly farmers not soldiers or warriors that were fighting for freedom. German sword smithing was superior right up to the medieval period only the Arabs were better.
5. Julius Caesar not being able to conquer and having to leave twice having gained nothing. The locals were already agreeable with Rome through trade.
Technically the US bases and the take over of Japan by MacArthur in which he made laws indicates an annexation. Rome was only satisfied with agreement and client kingdoms when it cost too much to invade.
6. The Romans saw nearly everyone that wasn't Roman as a barbarian maybe or maybe not the Greeks or Egyptians as I dont know. Any culture that was not Roman was seen as barbaric but they did appreciate Celtic manufactured goods. The Romans as an empire saw people whether slaves or not as a resource which means more tax money, more food production, more manufactured goods, more slaves, more soldiers more workers.
Roman cultural policy was very much like the British empires policy to "make the world England" or make the world Roman.
Yeah Gaius Soetonius Paulinus certainly helped save Roman face and prestige among the other empires and nations but the damage was done. When news spread around the empire of how one lowly woman rebelled against the might of the roman empire and burned 3 of their cities down it encouraged others such as the great Jewish revolt 5 years later and others.
I dont think Gaius Soetonius Paulinus can be compared to Thermopylae as the Romans were comparable more to the invading Persians than the plucky Greeks defending their country against the most powerful emperor in the world.
Roman sword making was notoriously poor that's why those that could afford it bought swords made by Germans or gauls. The Germans were more cunning than the Celts and didn't fight the way the Romans wanted them too. The Romans were at a major disadvantage against Calvary. The Celts were not more peaceful they were just more divided and used to fighting smaller more personal battles were individual combat mattered.
I am really tired of this, but I will address only this:
"Roman sword making was notoriously poor that's why those that could afford it bought swords made by Germans or gauls."
The quality had nothing to do with it. Iron was shit everywhere until the 7th century. I am an amateur blacksmith, so here are my two cents: you can't mass produce swords the size of spathas. Roman soldiers couldn't afford it, only cavalrymen and maybe centurions. When you are working with mild steel, every inch of length you add makes the chance of the blade just falling apart exponentially larger. The fact is that the celts didn't have a lot of swords either. Most used axes and spear, because they are cheaper and more effective.
The Roman weapons were fine, but they needed to be longer. Too bad crucible steel came with the Vikings in the 7th century.
The celts were more peaceful compared to themen germans. That's a fact.
As for Thermopylae or not, he did the same thing. He backed the invading army into a valley, and gained the advantage through right ranks and supreme training. That's literally what happenedyou at Thermopylae. That's why I thinkam the comparison is apt.
And Romans DID have a lot of problem with cavalries. That is why the biggest step the Frank empire took in their warfare was to have heavily armored cavalry units. They realised that the Romans had the good formula for infantry, but mobility was shit. And inI fact Rome increased the number of cavalry units over time. I think the Huns gave them something to think about.
I wouldn't attribute too much success to Boudica - she hardly madea a difference. Rome stood for another 400 years, and ir was thea Germans and internal issues that brought it to its knees. Don't attribute false success to people because they haveare a vagina.
It's well know that Roman metal forging techniques were very low tech around the time of Julius Caesar to Caligula mostly because they were only just capturing areas were good steel was available in haul and Britain. The celts wete among the first to use pattern welding techniques. The Roman gladius was used because it suited Roman infantry tactics, later Roman legionaries carried the Spatha instead of the gladius as Roman infantry tactics changed due to the effectiveness of the legionaries on the battlefield fading and the lack of well trained legionaries.
The Romans always feared the Celts because of how the Celts sacked Rome, the Greeks feared the too. The Romans feared the Celts so much that they built two walls to keep them out of Roman territory.
At the end of the day a proffessional army defeated a bunch of farmers, it doesn't compare to thermopoly where the Greeks defeated a much larger army or to Alexander the great of to Julius Caesar or to Trajan or to Constantine.
The Frank's adopted Calvary very late, they were mostly infantry armies right up until after the battle of tours. The Frank's mostly fought on foot favouring the Francisca axe, spear and swords if the could get one.
The huns, the satlrmatian and Parthians gave the Romans a lot to think about about and it was when then other barbarians like the vandals and Goths started to exploit Roman Calvary weakness, most of times cavalry were auxiliaries and and huge number of their infantry were too recruited out of barbarian tribes and trained yo fight by Romans.
The difference Boudicia made was that she cut the Romans, there had been a long period of Roman peace and after the revolt there was blood in the water and everyone knew it, revolts arose everywhere in the empire after all 80,000 Romans had been slaughtered. It took emperor's like vespasian and trajan to bring peace to the empire and maintain its strength.
I'm not sure you know much about history.
Pattern welding doesn't mean shit if you don't have carbon steel in the first place. Just ask the japanese. They went to hell and back to make the best pattern welded swords of the world - yet you can't strike with the flat of the katana because it bends like a bitch.
Trust me, if you are talking mild steel, you can patter weld it all you want, it will be useless. The neat trick, the revolution, was crucible steel, probably the last useful invention coming out of India for the next thousand years.
The explanation is simple. Directly out of Wikipedia, just as I expected:
"The relatively low quality of Roman weaponry was primarily a function of its large-scale production, and later factors such as governmental price fixing for certain items, which gave no allowance for quality, and incentivised cheap, poor-quality goods."
"later Roman legionaries carried the Spatha instead of the gladius as Roman infantry tactics changed due to the effectiveness of the legionaries on the battlefield fading"
I wouldn't say fading. They needed to adapt to a new kind of fighting style. Formations still worked well, but the gladius was less useful when ranks broke up, and open fighting started.
Still, the real value of the spatha came with the larger scale introduction of cavalry, as naturally cavalrymen needed longer weapons.
"the lack of well trained legionaries."
LOL
Remember when 230000 britons were defeated by 10000 legionaires?
Lack of well trained legionaires by ass.
As for celts sacking rome -
1) that happened 400 years earlier.
2) legionaries were far better trained in the imperial periods - remember, the daily march was increased from 12 to 20something km during the imperial era, so they were probably far more formidable opponents.
3) The gauls were at least outnumbering the romans 2 to 1. At most 4 to 1
Regardless, I don't think Romans would fear a group of scattered people who defeated them once around 400 BC, when they had innumerable victories over the same celts. By this logic, the Celts must have been shitting their pants at just the sight of a Roman.
"At the end of the day a proffessional army defeated a bunch of farmers, it doesn't compare to thermopoly where the Greeks defeated a much larger army"
What are you even talking about? The Greeks LOST at Thermopylae. Also, the numbers were pretty comparable. Realistic estimates put the Persian army at 120000 people. The greek had 4000-5000 people. That's almost the same ratio as with the romans. Of course the Persians had actual soldiers - but they also won decisively.
I am not trying to overstate the victory, I am just laughing at the fact that you brough up a female military leader who essentially lost a battle when every bet was against the Romans. It's just comical.
"The evidence of Gregory and of the Lex Salica implies that the early Franks were a cavalry people. In fact, some modern historians have hypothesised that the Franks possessed so numerous a body of horses that they could use them to plough fields and thus were agriculturally technologically advanced over their neighbours."
Also, even if they adopted cavalry very late (which is demonstrably untrue), they were STILL the first people in the history of humankind to successfully use the crush-and-awe effect of heavy cavalry.
"The Frank's mostly fought on foot"
No shit.
Even during the late middle ages/early renaissance, armies didn't use more than about 10% heavy cavalry, because they are expensive. The idea of heavy cavalry is that they break the ranks of the enemy troops, and break their morale too. They were never meant to be the body of an army. Their value is mobility. If the whole army is mobile, mobility makes no sense.
"The huns, the satlrmatian and Parthians gave the Romans a lot to think about about and it was when then other barbarians like the vandals and Goths started to exploit Roman Calvary weakness, most of times cavalry were auxiliaries and and huge number of their infantry were too recruited out of barbarian tribes and trained yo fight by Romans."
I agree with every word here.
"The difference Boudicia made was that she cut the Romans, there had been a long period of Roman peace and after the revolt there was blood in the water and everyone knew it, revolts arose everywhere in the empire after all 80,000 Romans had been slaughtered."
I don't think it was this relevant. Show me definitive proof that there was a large spike of revolts and violence in the next 10 years, and I'll admit that you are right. But generally, Rome always had very violent "politics".
"It took emperor's like vespasian and trajan to bring peace to the empire and maintain its strength."
Yeah. She did that. Alone. OK.
"I'm not sure you know much about history. "
I could say the same about you.
AD 60 Boudica, a queen of the Iceni, was appointed to lead a revolt of the Iceni and the Trinovantes against Rome.
AD 66
First Jewish–Roman War: The Jewish population of Judea revolted against Roman rule.
Roman Senate had declared him an enemy of the state and ordered him brought to the Forum to be publicly beaten to death. He had an aid kill him.
Zealot Temple Siege: The forces of Ananus ben Ananus, the Jewish former High Priest of Israel, laid siege to the Zealots in the Second Temple.
AD69
The Praetorian Guard assassinated Galba and acclaimed Otho ruler of Rome.
Following his defeat by Vitellius, the commander of the Roman army on the lower Rhine, near modern Calvatone, and to prevent further civil war, Otho committed suicide.
Revolt of the Batavi: Gaius Julius Civilis, commander of the Batavi auxiliaries in the Rhine legions, turned against Rome.
The Senate recognized Vespasian, the commander of Roman forces in Egypt and Judea, as ruler of Rome.
Vitellius was executed in Rome by troops loyal to Vespasian.
Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE): The Roman general Titus breached the walls of Jerusalem, sacked the city and destroyed the Second Temple.
AD 71
Roman conquest of Britain: Roman forces entered modern Scotland.
AD73
Siege of Masada: Roman forces breached the walls of Masada, a mountain fortress held by the Jewish extremist sect the Sicarii.
When I say lack of well trained legionaries that is actually true. Trajan had a real problem with it when confronting the Parthians because naturally legions also had to be deployed in Britain, Gaul, North Italy, Davis Greece, North Africa to defend the empire from opportunistic nations. I wasn't talking either about when Roman armies were at their strongest like during Boudicia's time. Civil wars before and during the barbarian invasions meant that time had few legionaries to fight barbarian armies and had grown dependent on auxiliaries and mercenaries. The quality of the legionaries slipped too.
Rome became a greatly advanced empire technologically but at the time of Julius Caesar it was not and others were more advanced in certain things.
Women shouldn't be in the military. They don't make very good soldiers, and they're too individualistic to embrace the concept of unit pride that is critical to creating esprit de corps.
Good Mytake, sexist pigs failed at history
Women were always in the military
Um... Joan of Arc had to pretend to be man.
Oh so did Mulan. Can't believe I forgot her. Doesn't matter though she was still a woman who fought English knights and foot soldiers.
Joan of Arc was known as mistress of Gilles de Rais, a 'noble' guilty of pedophile kidnappings and murders, not yet arrested then because the king hoped he could use his troops against the English.
'Saint' Joan of Arc wanted a less risky lover: the king.
The rest is romantic legend.
@jacquesvol that sounds like alternative facts.
@jacquesvol yeah I’ve studied her and I’ve never heard any of that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais
@jacquesvol lmfao did you really just link a Wikipedia page as an actual source?
www.google.be/search
Easy to find
@Valiant Wikipedia is only doubtful when it's about hot actuality like politics. For all historical and scientific purposes it's as good as any encyclopedia
@jacquesvol no, it’s not. When a site can be edited by anyone without being checked it’s invalid.
Wikipedia is constantly checked : every change is immediately notified to its mods.
@jacquesvol Doesn’t mean it’s corrected- find me a source with a. gov or a. edu or a. net. Not Wikipedia.
Find me a source that doesn't attack Joan of arc because she's a religious or national symbol?
@Catholicgirl22
She certainly is used as symbol but symbols often are legends which don't correspond to facts.
@jacquesvol or often revised when they don't fit the politics narrative of some.
That's the most probable way she became a virgin saint
@jacquesvol in your opinion.
Lovely, girls in uniform rock my world, including Catholic girls, this was a really good read.
I love Queen Boudicca.
Good Take! I enjoyed reading it!
If women like to fight, let them do it.
Women have kicked some serious butt!
Men and women have always been together.
I'm done debating this political gender bender. Lets just say that the world needs women in combat like a fish needs a bicycle.
And yet history says otherwise
When Joan of Arc was imprisoned by the Burgundians at Beaurevoir Castle her biggest fear was being raped. So even the almighty Joan Of Arc was powerless in a hand to hand confrontation and scared shitless of being raped by male prison guards. That, my dear, is exactly why responsible men try to keep their women a safe distance from combat.
Isn't your biggest fear if imprisoned being raped by male prision guards or fellow prisoners?
So even the almighty @castratedwhiteguy powerless in a hand to hand confrontation and scared shitless of being raped by male prisoners and guards. That, my dear, is exactly why responsible women should try to keep their men a safe distance from combat.
WTF? If I were in jail then my biggest fear would be being beaten up, not raped...
Lol usually one follows the other.
You could be beaten then raped or raped then beaten.
Not if a strong guy fights back. The problem was that Joan of Arc couldn't fight back. Big difference!
She killed enough English soldiers. Guys in prision aren't raped because they can't fight back.
https://youtu.be/ugQPlXVIGcc
https://youtu.be/dY6n8tIbqlY
https://youtu.be/LbR14hFipB4
https://youtu.be/t7hl7tG1WGQ
Correction! Her male soldiers killed enough English soldiers...
Not according to the English
Joan of Arc was a mere cheerleader, assuming that her legend is even true. Personally, I have serious doubts concerning the whole Joan of Arc fairy tale. Do you really believe that an 18th century illiterate peasant girl would have had the knowledge, wisdom and drive to lead France against the English at the end of the 100 years war? Especially when more educated military men could have done the job better. Chances are that the whole Joan of Arc story is a product of the sexual fantasies of some Catholic monk much like Playboy's "women in uniform" issue was a product of Hugh Hefner's submissive sexual fantasies. It's all a big lie!
Ask the English who she beat, they burnt her as a witch. Before she came the English were hammering the French, after the English were forced out of France after 100 years of war.
Like I said earlier, I don't believe this whole narrative. If the French defeated Britten in the 100 years war than FRENCH MEN won that war! Joan of Arc was just a poster child - a sexy detraction. Nothing more!
She led them to victory. The English burned her because of her inspirational leadership
Inspirational leadership? Maybe? Physical leadership? No way! No 17 year old girl could have possibly survived the intense front line hand to hand combat that was fought in those days. So get off your high horse, because The Joan Of Arc fairy tale is pure bullshit.
... and yet she did.
Only if you believe this fairy tale as the Catholic Church tells it. Personally. I'm not buying it. It just doesn't pass the smell test. Just some corrupt mid-evil monks passing on their sexual fantasies for posterity. That's how I see it.
It's not the catholic church telling it, it's the English who lost most of their lands due to Joan of arc.
I've always been in favor of women in the military
Too bad women today are moving backwards
Good take. I learned something new.
Good mytake, I love tough badass women
Women do not belong in the military. Period. End of story. Stop trying to be something you're not.
Sorry but the military depends on women and they are in the military.
LOL. How does the military "depend" on women?
Women evolved as nurturers, not warriors. You do not have the mental or physical strength to endure combat... The only reason women are included at all is because the military (and the entire world) has become so fuckin' weak and spineless that they feel the need to bow to every whim of the (((cultural-marxist))) PC culture.
There are about 203,000 in 2011, or 14.5% of the active-duty force of nearly 1.4 million.
-- That number comprises about 74,000 in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps.
Officers/enlisted:
-- Nearly 167,000 women were in the enlisted ranks, making up 14.2% of that force.
-- There were 36,000 women in the officer corps, or 16.6%.
-- Among the top ranks, 69 of the 976 generals and admirals -- 7.1% -- were women. There were 28 female generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps and 21 female admirals in the Navy.
-- Of the 3,698 new female officers in 2011, 579 were graduates of the nation's service academies.
-- In addition, 18% of the 722,000 enlisted reservists and National Guard troops and 19% of their 113,000 officers are women.
Front-line duties:
-- Enlisted women made up 2.7% of the military's front-line units. Women were barred from the infantry, but were allowed to serve on gun crews, air crews and in seamanship specialties. Among officers, women represented 5.4% of those involved in "tactical operations."
-- Despite the official ban on combat, women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan often found themselves engaged in firefights. Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded.
Assignments:
-- Among the enlisted ranks, women were most represented in the medical (30.5%) and administrative (30.1%) specialties. They made up about 17% of supply units, 14% of communications staff and 10% of electronics technicians.
-- Health care was the top field for female officers, at 39%. They made up nearly 28% of administrative officers, 19% of intelligence officers and 18% of supply officers.
-- In the Navy, 46% of all female officers were in the medical field.
In the US military only 15 percent are actually in an infantry role.
Nice job copying and pasting. I am already aware of the statistics. Is there a point to this?
... And it's like I said, the only reason these women even qualify for enrollment is because the standards for women are drastically lowered and because it's financially incentivized.
www.npr.org/.../marine-corps-study-finds-all-male-combat-units-faster-than-mixed-units
www.louderwithcrowder.com/.../
... And in case you didn't know, women in the military are basically used as blow-up dolls by the men... So I guess they're useful in that sense.
Again your source is based on all male combat infantry battalions which only make up about 15% of the entire military. The military needs women because without women they'd have 200,000 less personal to fulfil all the various roles which allow the military to field forces at home and abroad. I'm not sure you understand how a modern military works. To put 3 infantry soldiers in the field it takes 7 other military personnel to support them.
Again, you're not telling me anything I don't already know. I realize 80% of military posts are non-combat and I realize the vast majority of female military personnel do not see action, this is not the only issue... Women are not only physically weaker than men, women are mentally weaker as well... They are governed by emotion rather than logic. They do not understand tactical-strategy and they cannot run logistics. They panic under pressure, and they're "people-pleasers"... I'll concede one point to you. When it comes to hands-on medical care at field and base hospitals, fine, women are probably better at that... When it comes to combat, strategy, intelligence, logistics, and research, women should not be involved in any way, shape, or form... And when it comes to administration, communications, IT, financial, and legal... I do not see the need to bring less qualified females in to do jobs that men could do more effectively and efficiently...
And as far as 3 field soldiers needing a 7 head support-staff? It simply isn't true... previous Secretaries Of Defense loaded the DOD down with so many unnecessary regulations the entire department has become bloated with useless post-fillers.
And your Take was mostly about celebrating "women in combat " anyway. Don't pretend like it wasn't.
Infantry men are backed by air power, artillery, medics, communications, naval support, armour, inteligence logistics and a whole range of other fields that require large numbers of personnel to put infantry men into the field naturally it takes 7 for every 3 to keep that working.
In world war 2 women were deployed in strategy, intelligence, logistics, and research fields in did quite well. Especially in code-breaking, Espionage and interpreting aerial photographs, women in these fields made D-DAY possible. Also women worked on virtually every other field and showed themselves just as capable as men. Who do you think built all those war planes for the allies? Your argument really falls apart.
My take was about women in the military but you are kind of clueless about the military.
I addressed all that in my previous post. Read a little more carefully.
You addressed it but don't understand it.
No my dear, you're the one who does not understand it.
Hey look, your typical sexist socially conservative nut who likes to tell women what they can do and what they can't do
Hey pal, maybe move to Saudi Arabia? You would fit very well there with your sexist attitude
@FireAsh he just very little knowledge of how the military works.
@Catholicgirl22
Okay GI Jane, why don't you explain to me how it works? Why don't you tell me what the 5 branches are?
@FireAsh
Women like my "sexist attitude". I get more action in a month than you'll likely get in your entire life.
Sure they are dude lol
Maybe keeping telling that yourself it might come true
@FireAsh
***Sure they are*** What does that even mean? Did you even read my post?
Yep I did, it is just something you pull out of your ass
Are you mentally-retarded? You're not even making any sense.
l like nice police woman
thanks
Amazing
Nice post interesting read