12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

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

I have a very old World War 2 Veteran in my family. By his words as having fought on both eastern and western front.

"When you are in battle, you don't give a **** about the rules. They don't matter when your life is on the line."

 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.

If you can state anything that it did accomplish then I would be all ears for it. ( Besides the obvious we rose up against our opressors ). Again I am arguing that was she did to the people in those Roman settlements is not justifiable ( said people being mostly Britons themselves ). I am not talking of what she did to the Roman soldiers she encountered.

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

The chance of anyone locking this thread for the discussion we have here is close to nill ( the mod which locked the Alistair and Zevran threads is no longer here after all ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
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.

I am not trying to judge her ethically, that's something I do not do while looking at history. I question the purpose, practicality and usefullness of such acts. They are unnecessary / avoidable. That's all I am saying. 

I am not trying to say that extreme violence is never necessary. Imo, the atomic bombing of Japan for instance had a purpose behind it and it was arguably necessary or at the very least very helpful, enough to warrant it in my eyes. The fire bombing of Dresden however was not.  I am not trying to judge either act ethically, but one act I can accept despite inflicting much more casualties, while the other I don't because it served no purpose.

Here, I fail to see the purpose of Boudica's brutality. And I do not think she lived in a time where the mass murder of cities was common place. Now had she pillaged several cities along the way to supply her armies, then that serves a purpose. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...


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.

The last part is partially true. the first part, however, is not. If there were no factions, the Bannorn would not be in constant conflict with one another. Said factions and alliegences shift and change with the wind. But there are always factions within the Bannorn.

In fact, part of the Bannorn did support Loghain in the civil war. The war was because another faction did not, and decided to act accordingly. They have not all stirred crap. Individual Banns, like anyone, will inevitably have individual opinions and policies in how they rule, and who they support. Some are wise, some are petty and foolish, some in between.

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. 

Even those Banns who support you? You would slaughter them as well? You would kill useful allies? And children? Kids not even old enough to write, let alone swing a blade, must also die? because of what their families might have done?

Some spouses might be involved. others wouldn't. Some might even support you over their own spouse, given that msot noble marriages are purely political, not sentimental, and often involve arrangements made before birth. it is not uncommon for a noble couple to be at odds politically.

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.

"Right" of law only applies to the nation/culture where that law is recognized. The Romans had the right of Roman law on their side, in their eyes. However, Boudica and her husband made the deal from the point of Iceni law. Whatever the Romans might have thought, the Iceni made the deal from their own terms, and thus, had the right of Iceni law on their side.

See? Knife cuts both ways.

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.

Not necessarily. babies, old people, and pregnant women did not go to war. In fact, the helvitis fleeing were mostly farmers and artisans. They were not engaging the Romans. They left to avoid having to live under Roman rule.

And not every tribe had the same policy. In fact, there really was no universal standard, each tribe behaved differently. In some cases, everyone fought. In others, they did not. the Romans did not care, however. they wanted to makie examples and destroy any future support for future rebellions.

My point being that, whatever their reasons, the Romans quite often engaged in the wholesale slaughter of entire populations. The reasons they did this are not important to my point. My point is, they did engage in such behavior, and saw nothing wrong with it. Neither did Boudica. For whatever reason she had.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...



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







I have a very old World War 2 Veteran in my family. By his words as having fought on both eastern and western front.



"When you are in battle, you don't give a **** about the rules. They don't matter when your life is on the line."

My great uncle was also a WW" vet, landed at Normandy. he pretty much said the same thing. And having been in the military (though thankfully, never had to participate in an active conflict), I know it to be truth. All the plattitudes and "enlightened" policies and attempts to make war "kinder and gentler" pretty much get flushed down the crapper the moment the first enemy mortal lands on your unit. It is then that the rule of the jungle, the most base of human instincts and drives, take over.

[Costin_Razvan]

Even those Banns who support you? You would slaughter them as well? You would kill useful allies? And children? Kids not even old enough to write, let alone swing a blade, must also die? because of what their families might have done?

Some spouses might be involved. others wouldn't. Some might even support you over their own spouse, given that msot noble marriages are purely political, not sentimental, and often involve arrangements made before birth. it is not uncommon for a noble couple to be at odds politically.

I think I was just trying to generalize a too large subject. But obviously there would be some supporters. But yes I would not kill those supporting me ( if I could be believe they would not be warmongering fools ) nor would I kill the spouses not involved.

As for the children. There are several ways to handle it. Either kill them all or kill those old enough to understand what is going on and spare the rest while sending them away in exile where they would not know of their birth. With spies of course to watch over them so that they don't return.

I think you know well enough how many times a child has caused a war when he laid claim to a tittle...I would rather avoid that.

My point being that, whatever their reasons, the Romans quite often engaged in the wholesale slaughter of entire populations. The reasons they did this are not important to my point. My point is, they did engage in such behavior, and saw nothing wrong with it. Neither did Boudica. For whatever reason she had.

I am not exactly certain what was the point of bringing this all up is anyway? I did not deny that the Romans engaged in cruel practices against their enemies because they did. ( Mass Slavery would be one of them ).

However my original point was that what Boudica did specifically does stand apart. The Romans did not usually do it to such a scale because it was profitable for them to sell them as slaves so that Rome would gain coin.

 My great uncle was also a WW" vet, landed at Normandy. he pretty much said the same thing. And having been in the military (though thankfully, never had to participate in an active conflict), I know it to be truth. All the plattitudes and "enlightened" policies and attempts to make war "kinder and gentler" pretty much get flushed down the crapper the moment the first enemy mortal lands on your unit. It is then that the rule of the jungle, the most base of human instincts and drives, take over.

I've also said this before: But I also have been in the military, so yes I know what it boils down to. Seriously I find the whole thinking of making war morally acceptable as laughable.

However ( to give a better analogy ) What a soldier thinks and how he acts is quite vastly different to how a general thinks and acts. To me Boudica acted like a soldier and not a general.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:49 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...
"When you are in battle, you don't give a **** about the rules. They don't matter when your life is on the line."

My great uncle was also a WW" vet, landed at Normandy. he pretty much said the same thing. And having been in the military (though thankfully, never had to participate in an active conflict), I know it to be truth. All the plattitudes and "enlightened" policies and attempts to make war "kinder and gentler" pretty much get flushed down the crapper the moment the first enemy mortal lands on your unit. It is then that the rule of the jungle, the most base of human instincts and drives, take over.

That's what soldiers might think and for obvious understandable reasons. but there is a difference between soliders getting carried away, and state initiated brutality that may or may not be necessary.

I am a hardcore realist, I think everyone knows that already. But yes, I do believe that wars can have different scales of brutality. Not all wars were the same and not all wars involved mass murder on large scales. It doesn't have to be for ethical reasons, or because of cultural superiority. I think at the core, it was for practical material reasons that such acts were avoided.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 décembre 2010 - 11:49 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Here, I fail to see the purpose of Boudica's brutality. And I do not think she lived in a time where the mass murder of cities was common place. Now had she pillaged several cities along the way to supply her armies, then that serves a purpose. 

Mass murder is mass murder, and not limited to cities. At a time when most of the population of Europe was rural, mass murders were mainly committed against populations. mass murder of populations outside cities was pretty common, and I do not hold the existance and lives of city dwellers as more signifgant than country dwellers or "pagans" as the Romans called them. So it was pretty common.

As far as the usefulness of Boudica's slaughter, one must consider the culture of the time. The "barbarian" tribes did not conquer and rule enemies as the norm, they pretty much eliminated or drove out competition. When you fought with neighbors over land and resources, you did so with the intention of getting rid of them permanently. Given the climate and landscape of alot of Northern Europe at the time,  you did not have an abundance of space and resources that could sustain both invading and conqoured populations with the technology at hand. The climate was much colder, the land much more limited in how much food it could produce to support your population, unlike in the Mediterranean basin, where mild climate and advanced technology allowed larger civilizations. including large slave populations, to exist.

When resources are limited, it is far more feasible to simply wipe out the competition, rather than conquer and assimilate. This was a general policy in many parts of the world where land and climate tend to be more extreme and less favorable. Boudica, being of such stock, saw anyone not on board with her as an enemy that should be eliminated. This is one of the reasons people of Northern Europe were infamous for seldom taking prisoners. Prisoners mean more mouths to feed. Much more practical to kill said mouths. This also occurs in other parts of the world where resources are limited, as well as technology.

Not that I'm saying such logic is agreeable, just a reality in areas where survival is a more primal game than others.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...


I think I was just trying to generalize a too large subject. But obviously there would be some supporters. But yes I would not kill those supporting me ( if I could be believe they would not be warmongering fools ) nor would I kill the spouses not involved.

As for the children. There are several ways to handle it. Either kill them all or kill those old enough to understand what is going on and spare the rest while sending them away in exile where they would not know of their birth. With spies of course to watch over them so that they don't return.

I think you know well enough how many times a child has caused a war when he laid claim to a tittle...I would rather avoid that.

Ok, now that you clarified this (you originally said all Banns, so I assumed you were taking the tack of killing them all and letting the Maker sort em out) now I have a better grasp of where you are coming from.

And while I might disagree in general on how to deal with them (I prefer to sow the seeds of their destruction through ways not tracable back to me), at least it makes more sense to me now. Thanks for clarifying.

I am not exactly certain what was the point of bringing this all up is anyway? I did not deny that the Romans engaged in cruel practices against their enemies because they did. ( Mass Slavery would be one of them ).

However my original point was that what Boudica did specifically does stand apart. The Romans did not usually do it to such a scale because it was profitable for them to sell them as slaves so that Rome would gain coin.

And my point is that I personally don't see the difference. It's a point we shall have to disagree on.

I've also said this before: But I also have been in the military, so yes I know what it boils down to. Seriously I find the whole thinking of making war morally acceptable as laughable.

However ( to give a better analogy ) What a soldier thinks and how he acts is quite vastly different to how a general thinks and acts. To me Boudica acted like a soldier and not a general.

In those times, amongst the British and continental tribes, soldier and general were distinguished by rank or title, but not in thought. In fact, it was almost expected that a tribal leader be every bit as savage and brutal and the soldiers he led. Social structure and class dinctions were quite blurry amongst your average tribe, unlike in Rome, where there was a clear and distinct difference between the ruling and ruled. This carried over to their armies, where Roman generals were noticibly different in manner, attitudes, and education from their troops. Amongst the tribes, however, it was not as apparant or fixed.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Not that I'm saying such logic is agreeable, just a reality in areas where survival is a more primal game than others.

That logic applies to land, not cities. Yes, rural mass murder and urban mass murder are different. Not because one life is more valuable than the other. But because, as you said, driving out rural competition to acquire land makes sense in certain contexts. The same does not really apply to cities, which can be pillaged and isolated, or mass enslaved, instead of mass murdered. Other than psychological warfare or the desire to populate the cities with your own people (which I don't think was the case for Boudica, for her to mass murder 3 cities and not just one and that can easily be replaced with mass deportation), it serves little purpose. 

And this is not mentionning that she is slaughtering her people that she claims she wants to liberate.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Not that I'm saying such logic is agreeable, just a reality in areas where survival is a more primal game than others.

That logic applies to land, not cities. Yes, rural mass murder and urban mass murder are different. Not because one life is more valuable than the other. But because, as you said, driving out rural competition to acquire land makes sense in certain contexts. The same does not really apply to cities, which can be pillaged and isolated, or mass enslaved, instead of mass murdered. Other than psycholigical warfare or the desire to populate the cities with your own people (which I don't think was the case for Boudica, for her to mass murder 3 cities and not just one), it serves little purpose. 

Cities rely on the countryside for their existance. City dwellers do not grow food, country folk do (in those times). The cities in britian sacked and annhilated are still populations utilizing the same resources as the rest of the country. People in the cities still have to eat the same food that everyone else does. They are still mouths to feed.

A city might be a useful center of trade and culture, or strategic importance, all of which have more value to a developed civilization such as Rome than they would to a relatively primitive culture such as the Iceni. You are dealing with two drastically different cultures born of different drives and goals. To person from a greater civilization, such acts would seem pointless and stupid, to a person of a less developed society, such actions would make plenty of sense.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Cities rely on the countryside for their existance. City dwellers do not grow food, country folk do (in those times). The cities in britian sacked and annhilated are still populations utilizing the same resources as the rest of the country. People in the cities still have to eat the same food that everyone else does. They are still mouths to feed.

That's obvious. However, there exists alternatives, like mass deportation or slavery to get some coin from them.
And those cities are inhabitated by her own people. You are saying that it was impossible for her to win their loyalty? Making them worth the food they are eating? Perhaps conscripting them in her armies?
Heck, she doesn't even need to feed them, she can plunder the rural areas and plunder the city and stil not resort to mass murder. Unless someone wants to argue that Boudica wanted to grant the city dwellers a quick death preferrable to starvation.

So in essence, Boudica is not a national liberator as some made it out to be. Just a common (rather savage) warlord. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:33 .

[TJPags]

Awww, I saw all the activity and I thought someone was arguing about Loghain again. 

Since it's just Costin's Plans for World Domination ™  I'll just sit back with my popcorn. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

And since hold part responsibility for derailing this topic, I'll contribute to bringing it back on topic, though this debate has been thouroughly enjoyable.



Been popping in the NWN2 forums out of nostalgia, and reminiscing over what was, before DA, my favorite RPG, I thought about some of the NWN2 characters. Ammon Jerro in particular, and was struck how many similarities in principle he shares with loghain.



1. Both jerro and Loghain are patriotic towards their respective homelands, to a level that transcends their own personal wants.

2. Both were disgusted by what they saw as the petty posturing and bickering of the nobility in their homelands when a greater threat was looming above them all.

3. Both ended up taking drastic and extreme measures to conbat/confront this threat.

4. Both took it upon themselves to battle this threat, believing no one else had the capable drive or dedication to do whatever necessary.

5. Both made deals with devils (Jerro literally, Loghain figuratively in the form of allying with Howe, Tevinter slavers, ect) to gain the necessary resources and power to achieve their objectives.

6. Both were under no illusions of the consequences of their actions or the nature of their allies, but willingly accepted them because they felt the greater good outweighed a lesser evil.

7. Both became reviled or feared by many because of their methods.

8. When defeated, despite their initial dislike of the protagonist, are willing to put aside past grievances and join forces to defeat a common foe.

9. Both, if treated fairly, conceed they did wrong, and show desire to make up for their mistakes, whatever it takes.

10. Though both conceed wrong doing in the end, both believe everything they did was necessary, and if made to do it all over again with the same info, would still make the same descisions because they saw no other feasible way.

11. Both were at one time part of the nobility, but no longer are, and are quite glad of the fact.

12. Both have blonde female progeny that are the last of their respective lines.

13. Both spend a good deal of the game antagonizing your character through followers and assets.

14. Both, if they survive the game, have rather uncertain and less than illustrious futures ahead of them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

And since hold part responsibility for derailing this topic, I'll contribute to bringing it back on topic, though this debate has been thouroughly enjoyable.

It has.
Although I am going to concede. I find it quite presemptious on my part to argue about a specific historical topic I don't know much about. I do not know all the details, so I don't have sufficient info to judge. I do not reject mass murder as potentialy a useful tool (though I rarely find it so). It worked well with the mongols, so it might have worked in her case as well.

And that Jerro sounds interesting.
How come I never tried NWN2

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So in essence, Boudica is not a national liberator as some made it out to be. Just a common (rather savage) warlord. 

To us, maybe. But to the Ancient Britons, there really is no distinction. However much their ways seem savage and primitive, it was their way, and they didn't care much for Romans inflicting their cultural biases and attitudes upon them.

And the only reason she wasn't a liberator is because she lost.

the arguement here, for me, is not about whose way is better (the Romans changed britain for the better in the long run), but looking through the eyes of a person at that time and in that context, who was a native Briton and had their own culture. If I was a briton at the time, growing up in that context, I would also see her as a liberator, and wouldn't blink at idea of wasting entire populations.

We are discussing people who once sacrificed kings when crops failed to appease angry gods, as well as general and routine human sacrifices for various holidays. Their perspective and attitudes were vastly different, to say the least.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
If I was a briton at the time, growing up in that context, I would also see her as a liberator, and wouldn't blink at idea of wasting entire populations.

Unless of course you happen to be a Briton who lives in a city.

[Costin_Razvan]

How come I never tried NWN2

Trust me don't. The Camera of that game is cringe worthy and it lags a LOT.

 the arguement here, for me, is not about whose way is better (the Romans changed britain for the better in the long run), but looking through the eyes of a person at that time and in that context, who was a native Briton and had their own culture. If I was a briton at the time, growing up in that context, I would also see her as a liberator, and wouldn't blink at idea of wasting entire populations.  

And here is my issue. For me the fact the Romans improved Britain is enough for me to say that a rebellion against a Rome ( especially one like this ) was completely useless. I would also argue that while quite a few people did join her others did not.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:58 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
If I was a briton at the time, growing up in that context, I would also see her as a liberator, and wouldn't blink at idea of wasting entire populations.

Unless of course you happen to be a Briton who lives in a city.

Very true, for many reasons beyond the basic fact that getting killed and tortured sucks for anyone. A city-dwelling Briton, especially one supportive of Roman rule, would have very different attitudes to alot of things. Perhaps that is another part of the reasoning behind that: city dwelling Roman supporters were corrupted mentally and culturally by foreign ideas, and were too much trouble to convert back, and potentially risked spreading their "contamination".

Of course, psychological warfare could also apply as reasoning, since butchering people could send a message that it's total war, no prisoners, ect. Roman historians reported frequently that the Celtic tribes were quite fond of blatant displays of ruthlessness towards their enemies to intimidate and sow fear. In some cases, it worked. In other cases, it had the opposite effect.

We of course have the benefit of hindsight, where Boudica did not. She used terror on the premise of success, since I doubt failure of her rebellion was a possibility she considered. She was pretty intent of victory or death, no halfway points.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Trust me don't. The Camera of that game is cringe worthy and it lags a LOT.

I never had any problems with Camera and lag, just standard bugs.

And here is my issue. For me the fact the Romans improved Britain is enough for me to say that a rebellion against a Rome ( especially one like this ) was completely useless. I would also argue that while quite a few people did join her others did not.

In hindsight, we know they did. However, had I lived at that time, I would not have seen Roman rule/culture as a benefit. Quite the opposite.

For starters, I am a female, and a non-Roman one, to boot. Under Roman civilization, I am little more than chattel. property. My prospects, no matter how clever I might be, are incredibly limited, forever tied to male members of my family, or a husband of whom it is unlikely I'd even have a choice in marrying. I would not have property or inheritance rights indepedant of my male kin. Whereas, amongst my fellow britons, I'd have much more leeway in terms of opportunities and such, nor would I automatically be looked upon as inherently a brainless womb. If I showed talent or ability in some field, I would not be denied the opportunity to make that my life's calling.

Sure, materially and technologically, Roman rule had obvious advantages. I'd enjoy a better standard of living, life would be less crude, my male descendants could look forward to greater wealth and a more advanced culture. And for some people, this would certainly be enough to throw thier lot in with the invaders.

I, however, am one who would rather live a short, brutal and primitive life if it meant I could see to my own affairs or pursue my own ambitions. rather than live the comfortable, but limited life of a pampered chattel.

When looking from the perspective of someone living at the time in Britain, lines become alot fuzzier as to what is an imporvement.

[Giggles_Manically]

Okay reading about the Battle of Watling Street its clear that Boudica was stupid.

Running face first into two waiting legions?



Oh look she pulled a Cailan.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Okay reading about the Battle of Watling Street its clear that Boudica was stupid.
Running face first into two waiting legions?

Oh look she pulled a Cailan.

Yeah it was, but tactics weren't a strong point of the Celtic peoples. The Romans often described them as fearless and brave, but rather stupid and fighting from impulse more than any percievable strategy. There were certainly exceptions, and some Celtic chieftans and kings were actually pretty good strategists (especially if they recieved training by Roman forces previously) but in general, it was a case of "charge first, ask questions later".

Yeah, Cailan would have been pretty popular amongst many tribes.

[Giggles_Manically]

It sad that people can not grasp that fact:

It may be a bad idea to run face first into: pikes/cannons/machine guns.

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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

The chance of anyone locking this thread for the discussion we have here is close to nill ( the mod which locked the Alistair and Zevran threads is no longer here after all ).

The one who locked the dwarf thread IS, though, and unlike with the Alistair and Zevran threads, that was locked with only an implied reason why.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

It sad that people can not grasp that fact:
It may be a bad idea to run face first into: pikes/cannons/machine guns.

But it's such a GLORIOUS way to go!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Am I being hypocritical when complaining about Boudica slaughtering three cities when I just committed a genocide of unspeakable scale in Sins of a Solar Empire (I completely wiped out 5 planets of their entire population in a matter of seconds via Novalith cannons)?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:50 .