Talk:Defeat of Boudica

message: I've proposed this article for deletion on two grounds. One, it duplicates the entry on Boudicca, and two, although the identification of the battle site as Watling Street seems likely, it's conjecture. I've never heard Boudicca's last stand refered to as the "Battle of Watling Street" before, so I can't imagine anyone looking for information on it would look it up under that title. If there's a good reason keeping this entry and not, say, expanding the report of the battle under Boudicca, please go to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Battle of Watling Street page and have your say. --Nicknack009 08:54, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: On 1 April 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Battle of Watling Street for a record of the discussion. – ABCD 01:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD

message: The size of Boadicea's forces is mentioned to have been between 200 000-400 000 in the article. Is this possible? Above it is claimed that History Channel has stated the army was around 60 000-300 000.
Can the larger figures be correct? 10 000 Romans defeating an army of 400 000 seems hard to believe, even when you take into account the differences in equipment, training and other factors. If Boadiceas casualties were 150 000, this means that every Roman soldier on average killed 15 people that day - suffering only 400 casualties. Given that most of the combat was hand-to-hand, how can this be?
Could it be possible that the Roman sources (Tacitus etc) cited in this article are exaggerating the size of the opposing force and its losses? What is the consensus of researchers on the subject? Have any other accounts of the battle, in addition to the Roman ones, been preserved?
Now that I decided to write about this subject, could someone else also clarify the following. The beginning of the article states:
Traveling north along Watling Street with Boudica and her army close behind, Paulinus chose an open field along the road surrounded by forest on three sides. The forest provided protection for the Roman flanks and rear against attack.
How do you protect your flanks with a forest? What prevented an army of tens or hundreds of thousands from sending detachments through the forests and effectively encircle the Romans? One can surely walk through a wood - and Boadicea's army was hardly the kind of army that fought in a carefully co-ordinated formation.
:You're quite right about the numbers. The Roman reports may well be exaggerated, but they're less than the numbers that were given here. Tacitus numbers the rebels at 100,000 at one point, as says that "according to one report" (suggesting he wasn't certain) almost 80,000 Britons and only 400 Romans fell. Dio Cassius says that, by the time of the final battle the Britons numbered 230,000. As far as the battlefield is concerned, Tacitus says that Suetonius took his stand "approached by a narrow defile [a narrow passage or gorge - Webster], closed in at the rear by a forest". The sides of the defile would protect the flanks and make it much difficult to approach from the rear, and the wood would be a further impediment had they managed to get that far. The point of choosing such a field was to narrow the front line, so Boudica couldn't present any more more men than the Romans could fight at any one time. I've fixed both points in the article. --Nicknack009 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting myself - I can't find any reference to the numbers of the rebels in Tacitus, so I've removed that. --Nicknack009 16:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, re the number of Britons killed, after the battle broke the Romans went on the rampage against the women and children at the back of the field, as well as the combatants, which would have pushed the casualty numbers up. Nicknack009 16:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous vandal seems determined to change the numbers. I have therefore requested semi-protection for this page. --Nicknack009 22:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the account of the battle historical? 

message: The title of this article doesn't make any sense, nor do the claims in the text that it happened around a place called Watling Street.  Does anyone know more background here??--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read a couple of the references and I think this article should be retitled, although to what I do not know.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watling Street? 

message: Read Tacitus. There was famine in the aftermath of the revolt. --Nicknack009 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "An army that size would starve" 

message: The map at right would be useful; I'd have entered it, but the captioning is in German. Anyone want to doctor it?--Wetman 23:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: What was the Latin name which the Romans themselves used of the battle? --88.114.235.214 21:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin name 

message: i am suggesting to change the army size to 60'000 (modern estimates) followed by 250'000. it seems impossible for Boudicca to gather that many due to the limited technology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immortals (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a cite for these "modern estimates"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any cites other than notoriously unreliable Roman sources for the numbers given? They don't make any sense whatsoever other than in the context of glorifying Roman victory -which was standard at the time. When we know sources not to be reliable, we shouldn't just present their assessment without qualification. Frankly, I have even doubts about 60,000, unless they include women and children of the tribes involved. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "notoriously unreliable Roman sources" are the only sources we have. I agree they shouldn't be presented without qualification (and I've added a "reported as" qualification to the one number that didn't already have one), but if we're going to replace them we need a reliable cite for the new number. Just because the source is unreliable, doesn't mean any number plucked out of the air is acceptable. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the Army Size 

message: Image with title of sculpture:  http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3303275/Hulton-Archive  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.39.184 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Thornycroft 

message: Having routed one legion, the Iceni and Trinovante must have gained at least some Roman arms from the routing.
Even if there is no agreement about the numbers of Boudicas army it is clear that the Romans were greatly outnumbered. It seems unlikely that the Romans would have advanced after only one Celtic charge. A veteran army wears down its enemy so possibly several charges were made and all beaten back. 
When the Celts realised that they were beaten and started to try and leave the battlefield, then was the ideal time for the Romans to advance in simple killing mode.AT Kunene (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  arms & numbers 

message: Excavations by Reading University around modern Silchester suggest that the Roman settlement in the area was possibly burned at the time of the Boudican rebellion and could mean that the Silures and other unrecorded tribes also climbed on the rebellion bandwagon.
After the burning of Camulodunum and Verulamium it may have seemed that the rebellion might succeed and the thought of easy loot attracted many more to the cause. Perhaps the higher estimates of numbers involved and killed may be closer to the truth than generally realised.
If the whole rebellion got moving before the harvest was planted or the Romans killed so many people that there were insufficient numbers to bring in that years harvest there could well have been an ensuing famine.AT Kunene (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers again 

message: Surely, the battle cannot be called "The Battle of Watling Street", as the name Watling Street did not enter into parlance until Saxon times, when that section of ITER III was christened "Wæcelinga Stræt"? "The Battle of Iter III" sounds just as flawed. Internet searches reveal plenty of references to "The Battle of Watling Street" but of the first 200 I read through, (I lost the will to carry on after that) most were recent entries; some referenced Tacitus, but not actually a passage specfically citing "The Battle of Watling Street" (Or ITER III). Isn't it time to be put this nonsense - innacurate by name and unplacable by geographic means - to bed? WillE (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name again 

message: (Discuss) – :Battle of Watling Street → :Boudica's  Defeat in Battle by the Romans – The name Watling Street dates from Saxon times, when that section of ITER III was christened "Wæcelinga Stræt". "The Battle of Iter III" sounds just as flawed. As the location of Boudica's Defeat in Battle by the Romans is unknown, I recommend referencing the event, not a location. WillE (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost anything would be better than the present indefensible title. Boudica's Defeat in Battle by the Romans seems reasonable, does anyone have a better suggestion? Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree, it's a terrible title, with no authority in scholarship or even in popular culture - it's an invention of Wikipedia. How about "Defeat of the Boudican rebellion"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, I think yours is too long. Nickknack's is better. Or could we go for "Defeat of Boudica"? Doug Weller talk 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Defeat of Boudica seems to be the best so far. 
While we're on the subject, George Shipway's fictional reconstruction of the strategy and the battle. "Imperial Governor" seems to me the most convincing account I've read. He was a cavalry colonel himself and knew how things were done. Not referenceable here, of course, but does anyone else have any opinions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, what about just turning this page into a redirect to Boudica? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Name Change 

message: Belatedly, Richard, Doug and Nick, I have moved the article to "Defeat of Boudica". I opted not to delete and merge content with Boudica's article, as there has been a vote to keep the article in the past. Happy to discuss. WillE (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Again I have reverted comments with inadequate referencing (Patreon's videos, for example, are quite unsuitable), and poor spelling and grammar. Please make sure that any changes are supported with reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing