Does she deserves all the praise she gets or she is just being pushed as an ancient feminist icon?
Does it really matter if the praise is warranted or not? This isn't even something that would be interesting to discuss, it's just lame gay subversive shit talk.
This will always devolve into two sides of the same retarded coin spouting shit.
>>398653
>Brings women and children to Sack London
>Has som 100,000 soldiers against the Romans 10,000
>"Lets attack in a frontal assault on an open field against an enemy who's entire military culture was built to counter such a scenario
>What could go wrong :DDDD
>Gets utterly rekt with the Romans barely suffering any casualties.
Seleucid tier leadership at best.
>>398653
She doesn't really deserve any of the praise. Her rebellion was a miserable failure in the end, and most of her tribesmen ended up getting slaughtered by a massively outnumbered force.
>>398695
this lol
>>398653
>she is just being pushed as an ancient feminist icon
She's actually pushed as a celtic/british icon more than a feminist one. And no, she doesn't deserve any praise, her only achievements were murdering a couple thousands civilians and getting her whole tribe genocided.
>>398653
10/10
Would watch her mud wrestle Cleopatra
This is gonna be such a good thread.
Frankly we should give up trying to discuss women in history impartially, way too much feminist/r9k spergs are attracted by those type of threads.
>>398653
>fight a battle with overwhelming numbers on your side
>get utter rekt anyway because notactics
Nah
>>398695
>>398718
>>398729
I'm inclined to agree that she was no hero and left no lasting accomplishments, but that doesn't make her any less interesting as a historical figure. Who wouldn't be fascinated by a Celtic warrior queen? It's completely understandable that her popularity has been growing; there aren't many other interesting female figures in ancient history.
>>399329
because if feminists like something we're not allowed to discuss it
>>398653
It doesn't have anything to do with feminism, even if it can be used by them.
Pretty much all relevant nations in Europe that were part of the Roman Empire or had contact with it have an icon figure of resistance against the Romans. Germany has Arminius, France has Vercingetorix, Spain has Viriatus and the Numantians. So Britain of course needed one too. They probably didn't pick a character that really can be paired with the other three, but well, are there better options?
>>399316
If anything our problem is the opposite: way too many /pol/ fucks waiting on any opportunity to shit on the evil feminist boogeyman, even when their own beliefs aren't under fire.
>>399303
Gams McGee had some nice legs.
>>399338
that's what I was trying to say
She's alright but she's only as famous as she is because she's a woman.
Her actions would not be as remembered if she was a man. She basically burned down Londinium and then killed herself.
>>399329
Why focus on a failure who got her whole tribe killed though? There are enough female rulers who were decently competent to pick from, why pick a shitty one?
>>398695
Based Suetonius Paulinus rekts 'em again.
>>399397
Nah she's still be famous even if she was a man.
Even if what she did was dumb it's enough for it to be historical, male or female.
>>399411
because history is not only about winners
>>399345
The only reason she's included is they needed another female leader for PC reasons.
>>398718
By this metric nobody should give a shit about Napoleon, Antony, or Hitler. They're all losers.
It's almost as if winning isn't the only thing that matters.
>>398718
>Spartacus doesn't really deserve any of the praise. His rebellion was a miserable failure in the end, and most of his fellow slaves ended up getting slaughtered by a massively outnumbered force.
>>399411
because she's adorable in Civ 5 with her clumsy sword swinging
>>399771
Pretty sure Siler River was fairly even in numbers. Appian also says the body counts of the Romans were also fairly high.
So not really an apt comparison.
>>398653
She is the REASON the iceni are gone.
She fucked up, hard, and accomplished nothing of note.
>>399345
>civ V didn't have motherfucking justinian or hannibal barca
She was retarded and never stood a chance
>>399763
>massively outnumbered
reading comprehension
>It's almost as if winning isn't the only thing that matters.
it is
all of those people are remembered as people who could have won but didn't
Why are women warriors held up to a higher standard than male ones?
>>398653
19th century nationalism had every non Italian nation sift through history to find a rebel figure that stood up to the Romans.
>>400626
Why are you making unsources and unsupported assumptions on the internet? Is it because you like cock?
>>399329
Nobody was fascinated by her for like 1000 years. She was literally forgotten by history until some retard discovered ancient Roman accounts of her and decided to make her into a heroine.
>Celtic warrior queen
>queen
So basically her only claim to fame was having a cunt, like I assumed.
Lol - Gaius Suetonius Paulinus
>>400626
I would say it is the opposite
if Boudicca was a man she would have been another run of the mill nobody chieftan who got stomped by a power that stomped on everyone
instead she gets glamorized
>>400593
Hannibal was a fucking moron.
Good at managing people, good at tactics...
And an absolute fucking moron at everything else.
He had no understanding of the roman republic off the battlefield, and approached them the way you would a Hellenic state.
His entire strategy was poorly thought out and impossible from the outset.
And that's the kindest thing I can say. Others are harsher on him.
>>400733
so, he was a tactician par excellence, and that was it.
No one expected the romans to use fabian tactics and cripple him over a long period of time
I've always found the fanboyism (fangirlism?) for Boudicca funny not only because of how easily she was stomped, but how it was done by a more-or-less insignificant commander.
>>400747
It doesn't matter. Even if they hadn't, the continual losses of engaaging large, angry armies in the field would have worn his armies into nothing.
By the time cannae even happened, he wasn't getting reinforcements.
Italian defectors either refused to send men, or found themselves sieged by Romans.
Cisapline Gaul got invaded. Spain was on its way to being semite free.
Meanwhile, the romans were willing to arm thousands of slaves with captured gear and put them in the field, hand a centurion a few thousand men, and STILL raise regular legions.
The manpower base in the city alone as too much for him. The manpower of the latins without rome-and most latins were loyal-would have been too much for him.
The infighting that would have inevitably sprung up resulted had the samnites, former greek cities, and other southern italians fielded armies would have swallowed him.
this isn't "germany actually thinks they can take russia and fight on two fronts"
This shit was "germany only sent one army group to russia, and thinks it will work, also the poles still have an army between it and the homeland."
So, serious question: How exactly did she attain leadership of her people instead of one of her male equivalents among the Iceni nobility?
