Talk:Defeat of Boudica

[Untitled]

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)

VFD

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)

In that case, I've re-written it somewhat. I've cut down the background to bare essentials and corrected some errors of fact. --Nicknack009 10:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is assumed that the estimate of 1/3 of a million is possibly exaggerated. History Channel says it was most likely closer between 60,000-300,000.

Is the account of the battle historical?

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)

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)

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)

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)

Watling Street?

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)

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)

Bulst is cited as asserting that the Iceni army would have been depleted of arms owing to an earlier embargo, however this ignores the considerable victories achieved before the Battle of Watling Street. Even had an embargo reduced the availability of weapons, they could have been replaced by plundering, spoils and by simply making replacements or importation from surrounding areas. This comment needs to be qualified by context. Bulst is opining some two thousand years later and has leapt to a supposition, with this supposition being presented in the context of historical sources. The passage should make it clear that his is not only secondary evidence but supposition and dubious. Too often secondary sources are presented without context of their bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domitian999 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"An army that size would starve"

Read Tacitus. There was famine in the aftermath of the revolt. --Nicknack009 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Map

Map

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)

The pillum

The reason the pillum bent, was so that the enemy could not throw them back. roger.duprat.copenhagen

Latin name

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

Changing the Army Size

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)

Do you have a cite for these "modern estimates"? --Nicknack009 (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thomas Thornycroft

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)

arms & numbers

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)

numbers again

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)

Name again

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)

Suggested Name Change

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Or, what about just turning this page into a redirect to Boudica? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Name change

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)

Referencing

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)

Requested move 26 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per the discussion below. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 14:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Defeat of Boudica → Battle of Watling Street – I see that this page has been moved due to lack of use in scholarship or popular culture. However, I don't believe this is true. "Battle of Watling Street" has been used by several reliable sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica ( https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Watling-Street ), The Daily Telegraph ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/namesake-known-strength-defiance-really-like-called-boudicca/ ), Business Standard ( https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/theresa-may-told-to-find-her-inner-boudica-here-s-why-it-s-a-terrible-idea-118102300150_1.html ) and Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidberri/2018/04/08/of-course-women-can-lead-men-in-sports/#1cf4a06e3610 ) . Nicknack009's claim that the name is not used in popular culture doesn't seem to hold up either, As a google search gives me 265 000 results. Koopinator (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 13:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

These sources reflect popular culture, they are not appropriate (scholarly) sources for our purposes. Defeat of Boudica fits perfectly well with all the appropriate sources, but Battle of Watling Street fits in only with legendary history of the lineage of the Historia Regum Britanniae. I strongly recommend keeping this page here at Defeat of Boudica. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: How is Britannica not a scholarly source? Koopinator (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet that all those sources followed Wikipedia's usage. See Circular reporting, List of citogenesis incidents. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. And Britannica is not an academic publication written by academics. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Vide another of my pet hates - in cricket, four wickets in four balls being called a "double hat-trick" thousands of times with thousands of google hits - ALL after Malinga's feat because a Fox journalist erroneously used the term. If you wish to use Brittanica as a source, then the page should be called The Battle of a place near Wroxeter, placing it within a few miles of where it happened, but the source lacks detail - it just states the fact as a fait accompli. It can only have been written in the last hundred years as the writer appears to be still alive. If we are going to just pluck any old place out the sky for the site, I vote for the local (to me!) legend that says the battle was at Epping and that Boadicea (as we used to spell it and is on the "grave" stone) is buried in Coggeshall. WillE (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I support Richard. I'd written more but it got lost (I'd also set up sections for support and oppose). I've seen fringe added to the Britannica by someone who uses multiple socks to get it added here. It's ok to use specialist encyclopedias, but generalist ones can be dubious, and as I recall we have a better track record than the Britannica. See this earlier discussion. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Koopinator: you got those results because you didn't search for "Battle of Watling Street", which gives about 23,800 results, but just the 3 words with no quotation marks, so you'd find all sort of things that weren't even related to your search, and you certainly find mateial talking about a battle that took place somewhere near Watling Street. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Alright, I'll concede that the term wasn't used as often as i thought. However, I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that we're rejecting a name used by multiple reliable sources in favour of a non-name. In a lot of other articles where a battle has no common name, We still follow the format of "Battle of location" (e.g. Battle of the Shaer gas field (July 2014)) (Koopinator (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

And lo, another of my wiki pet hates - (Is that a category? Should be...) One size fits all, no changes, no matter what. So we stick to "Battle of Watling Street" even though Watling Street is not a location. A location is a fixed place. I defy you to "locate" the battle at any place along Watling Street, or anywhere else, come to that. Ergo, some flexibility to the premise has to logically apply. Else we get into territory where a correction to a film plot is correctly made, with citations backing up the change, but it was reverted because the article was "too lumpy already". What was more important? Accuracy or lumpiness, even if the lumpiness was backed up by wiki guidelines? A re-direct from The Battle of Watling Street? Definitely. Reverting the title? No. WillE (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, The Hydaspes River isn't a fixed location either, But we still have a Battle of the Hydaspes. Koopinator (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Precedent is an interesting thing. To quote Terry Pratchett - "You did something because it had always been done, and the explanation was 'but we've always done it this way.' A million dead people can't have been wrong, can they?" I would argue that if BotH is quoted in reputable sources, and dates from near the time in question, OK. If, though, the name comes from a street name that did not exist at the time, and is only popularised by repetition, (check through the first 30 or so google results - there is a large amount of copy and paste use of the same phrases) then that should be challenged too. WillE (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My favoured solution would be to merge this article and Battle of Camulodunum into a through article on the Boudican rebellion as a historical event, covering the politics, military strategy, geography, archaeology and so on, rather than divide it up artificially into separate engagements with invented titles. The current title is too focused on the person of Boudica - we already have an article on her as an individual. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Merging seems like a reasonable solution. But what would you suggest we name it? "the Boudican rebellion" is still focused on Boudica as an individual. Koopinator (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Focused yes, but too focused? She is the pivotal individual of the entire war. I'd be happy with either Defeat of Boudica or Boudican rebellion. I also notice that Watling Street is not the only defensible location indicator. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's standard to have a conflict named after a leader (cf. Mithridatic Wars). I support a merger in order to create a larger article entitled "Boudican rebellion". T8612 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well if this change stands there will have to be a lot of editing to the image and body of text, it will then be necessary to do the same to the Battle of Medway. I have always known the event as the Battle of Watling Street (40 years). All the credible candidate sites are on Watling Street we know Paulinus was using Watling Street and Boudicca did over St Albans and London on Watling Street, so Watling Street is really the only geographic fix we have with this campaign. Anyone searching for the conflict on line is likely to use "Battle of Watling Street" as a search term although the body of text could and did reflect the fact that the location is a matter of speculation.82.15.107.39 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been aware and interested in Boudica for so long she was still called Boadicea when I started, and I'd never heard of the final battle even having a name until I saw this article. And what is your yardstick for credible? Regardless, you still cannot place the battle anywhere on Watling Street as Watling Street was not named until much later. If you want to go for the "Battle of Iter III", you can, but you'll not get consensus.WillE (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

One thing i would like to point out is that the term "Battle of Watling Street" predates this Wikipedia article. While doing some research on the topic, I found this post (archive), posted on 12 September 2003, Which was sourced from DBA (whatever that might be) and created a full 395 days before this article was. Whatever this "DBA" source is, it means that the "Battle of Watling Street" did not come about via circular reporting. Koopinator (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

De Bellis Antiquitatis is not a reliable source for our purposes, though its authors, the Wargames Research Group, may well be the source of this particular name, merely amplified by us. And Watling Street is not the only credible candidate site. Other battles should be discussed on the appropriate talk pages. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of reliable sources, Do you actually have any source which calls this the "Defeat of Boudica"? I know that Britannica and Forbes are not exactly scholarly sources, But i've so far been the only one who has been providing any sources at all. Koopinator (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The title of this page is for us to decide by consensus, and there seems to be a strong consensus that the Battle of Watling Street is not a good title. Also that Defeat of Boudica will do, unless and until someone gets around to rolling it up with Boudica's defeat of the Ninth Hispana etc. I think it's time for all of us to drop the issue.Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Look, I'm willing to drop this issue and i promise to never touch this talk page or anything related to Boudica ever again. But first, I'd like to say that unless there are published, reliable sources calling this battle by any other name, I believe that Battle of Watling Street is the only viable name for this article. I understand if you think that title is inaccurate or wrong, but as someone who has tried to cite every sentence i've written, i hope you understand why i support it. Koopinator (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I do understand, without agreeing, and I am confident of your desire to build a good encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the text on the battle from the Cambridge Ancient History vol. X (text by John Wacher): "Suetonius, apprised of the rebellion, hastened from Wales in advance of his main army, and reached London before the rebels, but realized that there was little that could be done to save the town. He fell back to join his advancing army and finally brought the rebels to battle, probably somewhere along the middle section of Watling Street. The rebels were routed and the province saved." "Battle of Watling Street" only returns 1 result on JSTOR. So it seems that "Battle of Watling Street" is not supported in the academic literature, and as shown above, we are not sure it even took place on the road. T8612 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

this resolves it, BBC, Eddie Mair, Dr Aryeh Nusbacher, Mike Loades, all trusted sources, referred to the event as the Battle of Watling Street in Time Commanders on BBC2 in 2003 AD. So that pretty much seals it as the common name for the event as they wouldn't use it unless it was common parlance by then... Looking forward t seeing the travesty of unilateral re-naming reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.107.39 (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't "resolve" it. The BBC is not an academic source; they used "Watling Street" for vulgarisation. T8612 (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

"vulgarisation" love it, Watling Street and it's numerous candidate sites clearly out points any of the non-Watling Street locations of which there are no credible ones, Tring, Dunstable Virginia Water all had a go but Church Stowe and Mancetter remain head a shoulders above all others. Watling Street has been the accepted most likely location from Oman 1910, Webster 1962, Frere 1968, Marix Evans 2004, Mair 2003, Snow 2004, Ross (Dunstable) 2012. There are no credible sites off Watling Street yet so, on the preponderance of evidence, including a clear statement of location on Watling St on this very page, there is no credible case to change the title. A bit like there is no credible case for a battle site other than on Watling Street.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.107.39 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Watling Street is a medieval name, and the exact location is unknown. You have also omitted the very reputable source I gave above. T8612 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.