12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...



As for Boudica. She was nothing more then a pathetic butcher of innocents who led people in a useless revolt. The fact is she lost a battle where she outnumbered the enemy ten to one ( or 20 to one, but I laugh at that estimate )

Curious, coming from you. But she was far more than that. The revolt failed, but was hardly useless. or unfounded.

You really should read on what she did to her enemies. There are some things in our history that make me shudders to this day, and that is one of them.

Really? Again, coming from you, that's a bit of a hoot, really. She didn't do anything to her enemies that was unusually brutal, given the era, and the fact it was a war of sorts. The Romans and other "civilized" peoples did far worse to people for the sake of public amusement.

[Giggles_Manically]

Yes I am sure that Boudica deserved to be publicly stripped of her titles (due to Romans not allowing women to hold lands), and that her daughters who were raped by centurions deserved it.



Then the romans who called in loans and robbed the Iceni had plenty of justification.



What she did was terrible, what the romans did was terrible. They did start it though and their own heavy handedness bit them in the ass. Like it did in many places.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
As for Boudica. She was nothing more then a pathetic butcher of innocents who led people in a useless revolt. The fact is she lost a battle where she outnumbered the enemy ten to one ( or 20 to one, but I laugh at that estimate )

(hurrah for Celtic women )

You really should read on what she did to her enemies. There are some things in our history that make me shudders to this day, and that is one of them.

I'm supposed to pity the Romans?  Cry me a river.  They had no business being in Brittania in the first place.

Not like the island wasn't constantly being overrun by this or that invader, but I'm always going to come down on the side of the home team.

And as for civil revolt to free a land from a military occupation.... Loghain approves.  (straining to keep it on topic )

[CalJones]

Well, after they flogged her and raped her daughters, I think she had good reason to be angry.

[Giggles_Manically]

I wonder what they expected to happen though.



You cant honestly think you can show up and say:

Your land and titles are now mine, DEAL with it.



Then have a person just sit back and go ok.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Had the Romans taken what was rightfully mine, raped my daughters, and publically humiliated me, I'd have done far worse to them than what Boudica did. Far worse. I won't go into detail, but I'm sure an adequately perverse and demented imagination can take it from there.



I would have organized allies and generals better, but the Iceni, and by extension, the ancient Britons, weren't terribly sophisticated in such matters. But she did have the right idea, even if it failed in the end because of poor planning and execution. She came close enough, though.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The only thing I like about Boudica is that it shows women are capable of being as ruthless as men. Other than that, I am indifferent, and opposed to the unwarranted level of brutality that she inflicted, albeit I understand where she came from, it's not like the Romans were saints either (Corinth, Carthage...etc).

[Costin_Razvan]

Curious, coming from you. But she was far more than that. The revolt failed, but was hardly useless. or unfounded.

The only thing the revolt accomplished was to kill a bunch of innocent people who were not even Romans, so nice logic there.

Really? Again, coming from you, that's a bit of a hoot, really. She didn't do anything to her enemies that was unusually brutal, given the era, and the fact it was a war of sorts. The Romans and other "civilized" peoples did far worse to people for the sake of public amusement.

Actually it was quite pretty brutal for even that era. It is not so much of the crimes bur rather the scale that make it stand apart, and you will have to excuse me if I do argue for the wholesale slaughter of the Fereldan nobility ( a nobility which has brought the deaths of thousands over the most idiotic things ) while I do cringe at the slaughter of so many for the pathetic desire of revenge.

I'm supposed to pity the Romans? Cry me a river. They had no business being in Brittania in the first place.

Not like the island wasn't constantly being overrun by this or that invader, but I'm always going to come down on the side of the home team.

Oh? So you support those that murder, rape, pillage and the slaughter tens of thousands of civilians who were mostly BRITISH people that lived under Roman rule right. All in the name of your pathetic little ideal of fighting off "tyrants" and foreign invaders. But hey, fighting for freedom justifies it all. Right

You Americans need to realize that just because YOUR Revolution did more good then harm that others ( most of them ) did not. Knight mentioned this in another thread, and while I argued that some have been good I do have to agree with him that most have made things far worse.

What the Romans did does NOT justify what SHE did. 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 décembre 2010 - 09:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
 while I do cringe at the slaughter of so many for the pathetic desire of revenge.

This I agree with. I don't know why Costin is being single out as someone who wouldn't mind this, I never saw him accepting brutality other than for purely utilitarian / practical reasons.

I don't know that much about Boudica (there are much more interesting people out there to study than her), but what I do know is that her massacres were not that useful, or at the very least not necessary or helpful so much as to warrant that level of brutality.

Then again, revenge is truly for me " a sucker's game", especially when it starts involving the lives of thousands of people who had nothing to do with your plight. Essentially, people who like Boudica should have no problem with Commander Raleigh, who proudly boasts about his brutality and rape of Orlesians. I found him despicable (though I can understand where he is coming from) and I like the fact that Maric punished him (I would be tempted to execute him, unless he is too useful).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 décembre 2010 - 10:06 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...


The only thing the revolt accomplished was to kill a bunch of innocent people who were not even Romans, so nice logic there.

I'm not talking about what it accomplished, it failed. I'm talking about the reasons behind it. Which were hardly "petty".

Actually it was quite pretty brutal for even that era. It is not so much of the crimes bur rather the scale that make it stand apart, and you will have to excuse me if I do argue for the wholesale slaughter of the Fereldan nobility ( a nobility which has brought the deaths of thousands over the most idiotic things ) while I do cringe at the slaughter of so many for the pathetic desire of revenge.

Really? Mutilating and killing your enemies or their collaborators through fire and cricifxion are somehow worse than routine crucifixion, beheadings, mass murder and enslavement of entire populations, or having prisoners ripped tp pieces by animals for public entertainment? Really? I disagree.

In fact, Boudica's actions were indeed standard fare for the time. the Romans disapproved and called it "barbaric and brutal" when others were doing it.

As far as your arguing for the full scale slaughter of ferelden nobles (including their families, as well as innocent nobles not involved) well...nuff said there. Pointless slaughter of innocents for what reason? Because of what they "might" do in the future?

Oh? So you support those that murder, rape, pillage and the slaughter tens of thousands of civilians who were mostly BRITISH people that lived under Roman rule right. All in the name of your pathetic little ideal of fighting off "tyrants" and foreign invaders. But hey, fighting for freedom justifies it all. Right

Civilians who were in support of Roman occupation. Collaborators. In otherwords, they might as well be Romans.

Slaughter, murder, and rape of civilians is quite despicable, sure. it's also a fact of life in war, no matter how noble or ignoble reasons. Every army has engaged in it, some with more gusto than others. It is vile behavior. But at it's core, so is war. And unfortunately, there are many cases where war is the only answer to a major problem.

Fighting for freedom from a foreign occupier, in my opinion, is always a sound justification for war. (And yeah, that applies across the board, for anyone anywhere. Insert the names of relevant countries as needed in whatever role, as needed. I'll refrain from naming names in current world politics to avoid heated debate)

You Americans need to realize that just because YOUR Revolution did more good then harm that others ( most of them ) did not. Knight mentioned this in another thread, and while I argued that some have been good I do have to agree with him that most have made things far worse.

Costin, when you start a paragraph insulting one's nationality and making broad, idiotic statements like this, it really kill any chance of taking your rants seriously. Stop making silly assumptions based on a person's nationality. It really does kill your arguement.

What the Romans did does NOT justify what SHE did. 

it justified her rebellion. She would have been far less respectable had she just sat back and said "sure, guys, take it all, rape my daughters, whatever, just don't hurt me, please". It failed, sure, but thats the fortunes of war. Risks are necessary, the world would be a crappier place if no one took risks for fear of what might come.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This I agree with. I don't know why Costin is being single out as someone who wouldn't mind this, I never saw him accepting brutality other than for purely utilitarian / practical reasons.

Because he seems to regard Boudica's brutality as somehow exceptional or cringe worthy. When in fact, given what other armies for even less provocation, have done far, far worse, yet history brushes this over because they won.

Victors write history. The Romans won. They were also known to embellish or blow up the crude, sadistic behavior of enemies while brushing away their own in many cases.

I simply do not see why Boudica's behavior towards enemies somehow detracts from the overall focus and purpose of the rebellion. The Romans, greeks, persians, ect all committed atrocities and abuse of civilians on a much larger scale, but people often overlook that because they won, and thus, were able to write down their legacies in a more positive light.

[Costin_Razvan]

Pointless slaughter of innocents for what reason? Because of what they "might" do in the future?

Might do it? OH they will do it as they have for centuries. The Fereldan nobility needs to go, one way or another. Knight has his plans for this, I have my own. I feel no sympathy for those like them.

Stop making silly assumptions based on a person's nationality. It really does kill your arguement.

Oh yes, because those arguing here in favor of her are... surprisingly Americans.

Slaughter, murder, and rape of civilians is quite despicable, sure. it's also a fact of life in war, no matter how noble or ignoble reasons. Every army has engaged in it, some with more gusto than others. It is vile behavior. But at it's core, so is war. And unfortunately, there are many cases where war is the only answer to a major problem.

Here I can agree. However slaughter and rape for no reason other then revenge is not justified in my eyes. She did not settle for simply torturing or raping those in those cities, oh no. She killed them all.

While we have many situations in that era where we saw mass enslavement and mass rape ( as you correctly mentioned it was common in war for those things to happen ) we rarely have a situation where we have mass murder ( not even the Romans when they smashed Carthage did they kill everyone and to say they hated Carthage would be putting it mildly )

it justified her rebellion. She would have been far less respectable had she just sat back and said "sure, guys, take it all, rape my daughters, whatever, just don't hurt me, please". It failed, sure, but thats the fortunes of war. Risks are necessary, the world would be a crappier place if no one took risks for fear of what might come.

Boudica did not sit on her ass before the Romans came and flogged her then raped her daughters. She tried to fight for the throne though she had no right to keep it seeing that the Iceni were a client state to Rome and those had to abide by Roman law.

She tried to break the law and Romans tried putting her in her place. Idiotic mistake on their part I think.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 décembre 2010 - 10:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Slaughter, murder, and rape of civilians is quite despicable, sure. it's also a fact of life in war, no matter how noble or ignoble reasons. Every army has engaged in it, some with more gusto than others. It is vile behavior. But at it's core, so is war. And unfortunately, there are many cases where war is the only answer to a major problem.

The pillaging of cities happened all the time and yes rape happened during. But the mass murder of cities was not that common in antiquity or the middle ages (for a whole mess of reasons), though yes practised by Romans on some occasions. Indeed, many peoples and empires did it, but empires and peoples that made it intrinsically part of their strategy, such as the mongols and arguable the Crusaders (Ma'rat, Jerusalem), were not that common. 
The systematic slaughter of 3 cities (not one to set an example) by Boudica, is just unnecessary.

And I'd be careful with saying that those who live under Roman rule are necessarily collaborators and as such their murder is completely justified. That logic can lead to very horrible places. And it did historically and recently, in my region specifically and I don't think I need to say what I feel about that. It's useless, pointless and abhorent.

With that logic, most of Ferelden's population can be justifiably killed. Most of the French who accepted German occupation (the resistance was tiny) can be justifiably murdered. 
To say that thousands of civilians who accept Roman rule (because they have no real choice and would rather live their lives in peace) are necessarily collaborators that can be killed just weakens the claim of "national liberation".

Then again, I am biased. Though it was in a specific context, the Arab expansion to me shows that mass murdering cities is rarely necessary or helpful enough to warrant it. Never did they resort to such tactics and they were generally welcomed by the populace despite being the invaders (a main reason is because they don't resort to such tactics). Not trying to say that the expansion was peaceful, it wasn't. But it did not resort to the same level of barbarity (from what I know, the Muslim armies did not pillage cities either, in fact they were forbidden to enter any city by Caliph Umar, partially for this reason).

What I am trying to say is that there is psychological warfare, that is necessary in every war. And there is excessive brutality that becomes self defeating and impractical. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 décembre 2010 - 10:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
not even the Romans when they smashed Carthage did they kill everyone and to say they hated Carthage would be putting it mildly

They did kill at least 1/3 of the population IIRC. Heck, even the general who was told to order the massacre cried.
That too was unnecessary, but after years of siege, soldiers can get carried away.

[Costin_Razvan]

And they enslaved/raped etc the rest. Yes I know of that Knight. The fall of Carthage has been a good subject of study for me, but that wasn't really unexpected considering how much the two sides hated each other.

However as you said, it was unnecessary even then. It should be mentioned however that almost every single Carthaginian fought in that siege, while in the case of Boudica there was no real resistance to her assault.

"Sigh" If only Hannibal had not had an idiot for a brother. Though I would rather not imagine what he and his Gauls would have done to the people of Rome had the city fallen.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 décembre 2010 - 10:47 .

[CalJones]

And somehow we've got into a historical wankfest again. Off to bed for me!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
"Sigh" If only Hannibal had not had an idiot for a brother.

Tell me about it. Or if only the Carthaginian senate wasn't made of idiots who refused to assist him. History could have been altered forever.

Funny how most of the nobility in both Rome and Carthage showed how stupid and incompetent they were.

[mousestalker]

It's interesting how people still choose sides over ancient history.



Not to toot my own horn, but our household is pretty much over the whole Roman conquest/British rebellion thing. If it weren't for those bloody Saxons invading when they did, everything would have turned out all right. Not to mention the Angles and the Jutes.

[Costin_Razvan]

Funny how most of the nobility in both Rome and Carthage showed how stupid and incompetent they were.

Roman People: We wantz battle! We wantz their blood! Send forth the Legions and cover the land with the bodies!



Roman Senate: Yes, we shall appease the people! Kill them all!



Fabius: Senators....I must ask that you reconsi..



Roman Senate: NOU! Kill, maim, burn!



"Legions march out, with all their pride and glory."



Hannibal: Oh? ANOTHER Roman army? Do they ever learn?



"Hannibal crushes the Romans."



Fabius: "facepalm"



That can pretty much describe Cannae.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Roman People: We wantz battle! We wantz their blood! Send forth the Legions and cover the land with the bodies!

Roman Senate: Yes, we shall appease the people! Kill them all!

Fabius: Senators....I must ask that you reconsi..

Roman Senate: NOU! Kill, maim, burn!

"Legions march out, with all their pride and glory."

Hannibal: Oh? ANOTHER Roman army? Do they ever learn?

"Hannibal crushes the Romans."

Fabius: "facepalm"

That can pretty much describe Cannae.

The tragedy is:

Paullus: Maybe it isn't wise to engage Hannibal here...
Varro: Nonsense! We fight now!

Crushed at Cannae.
Paullus dies, Varro escapes.

Fate does have a sense of humor.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 décembre 2010 - 10:57 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Might do it? OH they will do it as they have for centuries. The Fereldan nobility needs to go, one way or another. Knight has his plans for this, I have my own. I feel no sympathy for those like them.

Oh, so you know for a fact that all of them will? Really? Wow. So predicting the future activity of every noble in Ferelden is another specialty?

The Bannorn in general has a tendancy to stir crap. Individual Banns, however, might not. In fact, many might even be more disposed to supporting a unified country. Yet you would kill them all, supporters included (as well as children and spouses not involved) because of what a faction may or may not do?

Sure, the system needs to go. And if you think slaughtering an entire class, including those not involved or old enough to be involved. is a rockin' good idea, knock yourself out. It still makes your horror at wartime atrocities of civilians rather comical.

Oh yes, because those arguing here in favor of her are... surprisingly Americans.

Cal Jones is American? Really? Someone should inform her of this quickly.

Here I can agree. However slaughter and rape for no reason other then revenge is not justified in my eyes. She did not settle for simply torturing or raping those in those cities, oh no. She killed them all.

But it was for more than revenge. She was double crossed by the Romans. The Romans took the power that was hers because of their attitudes and laws on male only inheritance. She objected pretty strongly, to say the least. They turned around and committed grave offenses against herself and her daughters.

So, no. She did not start the war for pure revenge. It was an escalation of events, with revenge for abuses inflicted on herself and kin that became the final straw.

While we have many situations in that era where we saw mass enslavement and mass rape ( as you correctly mentioned it was common in war for those things to happen ) we rarely have a situation where we have mass murder ( not even the Romans when they smashed Carthage did they kill everyone and to say they hated Carthage would be putting it mildly )

The romans slaughtered tens of thousands of helviti who were leaving their homes. In fact, alot of times, they would slaughter entire tribes, women and children included. It was also practice to kill off all the male children in a tribe to eliminate future warriors.

And that's just the Romans. So whole scale slaughter of entire populations was pretty standard fare. Cities were treated differently usually, because of differing attitudes towards the usefulness of cities and city dwellers. However, the general attitude was that "barbarians" (i.e. pretty much anyone north of the alps, in this case) were generally inferior, and less mercy was shown such populations.

Boudica did not sit on her ass before the Romans came and flogged her then raped her daughters. She tried to fight for the throne though she had no right to keep it seeing that the Iceni were a client state to Rome and those had to abide by Roman law.

She tried to break the law and Romans tried putting her in her place. Idiotic mistake on their part I think.

She had every right to fight over it. her husband made the deal on the basis that succession would pass on to a joint partnership involving his wife and daughters, as was Iceni custom, which generally did not consider gender to be an obstacle in inheritence. Roman law, however, considered females unfit to inherit basic property, let alone rule.

So the Romans broke Iceni law/custom as well. So she had every right to tell them off and fight them, seeing how they did not hold up their end of the bargain.

[Costin_Razvan]

Crushed at Cannae.
Paullus dies, Varro escapes.

Fate does have a sense of humor

I think it was FAR worse to go back to the Senate to explain he had lost. "Chuckle" Oh it is very satisfying to think of that moment.

 The Bannorn in general has a tendancy to stir crap. Individual Banns, however, might not. In fact, many might even be more disposed to supporting a unified country. Yet you would kill them all, supporters included (as well as children and spouses not involved) because of what a faction may or may not do?  

The fact is they have all stirred crap over the course of Fereldan history. There is no "faction" in the Bannorn, there are just a few hundred idiots ruling there.

Yes, I would have no mercy for them or their families, but their supporters? Not really. Politicians like them deserve none of it ( I personally have seen too many of similar people running my country into the ground to have any ), and don't pretend that their wives would not be involved because they most certainly would.  

 So the Romans broke Iceni law/custom as well. So she had every right to tell them off and fight them, seeing how they did not hold up their end of the bargain.

The Iceni joined the Romans as a client state willingly, and thus they lost the right to decide. The Roman law was clear: A woman would not rule. Regardless of what her husband might have tried the Romans had the right of law on their side.

 The romans slaughtered tens of thousands of helviti who were leaving their homes. In fact, alot of times, they would slaughter entire tribes, women and children included. It was also practice to kill off all the male children in a tribe to eliminate future warriors.  

Different situation altogether: When a tribe when to war the entire tribe went to war. There was no such thing as a non-combatant in that case.

There was such a situation when it came to those cities Boudica destroyed.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:17 .

[Joy Divison]

We choose sides over ancient history because if I can somehow prove people who lived in the same region as I do were more righteous and cooler than the people who lived waaaaaaaaaaaay over there, then by extension that makes me also righteous and cool.  Because surely such things are immutable and inherited through the blood, right?

I mean Britain has been invaded and conquered so many times I find it baffling Boudica is somehow identified as being a Briton.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:08 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And I'd be careful with saying that those who live under Roman rule are necessarily collaborators and as such their murder is completely justified. That logic can lead to very horrible places. And it did historically and recently, in my region specifically and I don't think I need to say what I feel about that. It's useless, pointless and abhorent.

With that logic, most of Ferelden's population can be justifiably killed. Most of the French who accepted German occupation (the resistance was tiny) can be justifiably murdered. 
To say that thousands of civilians who accept Roman rule (because they have no real choice and would rather live their lives in peace) are necessarily collaborators that can be killed just weakens the claim of "national liberation".

My point is not that that "collaborators" in that sense deserve to be killed. My point being that Boudica did not simply attack them because they were there. She did so because, in her opinion at least, accepting Roman rule made you as bad as a Roman, and thus, given the mentality and attitudes towards behavior in warfare at the time, fair game for the slaughter.

By modern and civil standards, Boudica's armies behaviors towards civilian and military was quite nasty. But it was not noteworthy in terms of the time. The attitudes were pretty common in regards to the area and time they occurred in.

Hell, even in modern times with the Geneva conventions and "rules of engagement" we see that the time honored military traditions of rape, looting, murder and torture of civilians, and extermination of populations hasn't really changed much. (Example: The allied armies, whether Russian, American, British, ect) were well known to have engaged in war crimes on a massive scale against the civilian populations of the countries they invaded, including "friendly" countries). The only thing that has changed is general attitudes towards such things by the public at large, and in principle, though not always in practice, such behavior is punishable.

However, it still goes on, and all the laws, regulations, sanctions, and Hagues in the world will not change the tendancy of armies to behave like armies. It's like trying to force a cow not to chew cud. It's almost instinctual.

Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[Addai]

I don't know who you'd consider native Britons if not early Celts. The Romans sure as hell didn't have any business there. And just because the revolution failed doesn't mean they didn't have a right to revolt, or that it didn't accomplish anything.



I started this little rabbit trail, but I'd ask we get back to topic so the thread doesn't get locked.