Talk:Battle of Camulodunum

Factual accuracy disputed, proposed for deletion

This article is historically nonsense. The entire historical record of this incident consists of the following:

"The victorious enemy met Petilius Cerialis, commander of the ninth legion, as he was coming to the rescue, routed his troops, and destroyed all his infantry. Cerialis escaped with some cavalry into the camp, and was saved by its fortifications." Tacitus, Annals 14.32.

The stuff about the troops marching for days, being "tired, hungry and on edge", marching through woods, being attacked from both sides by war chariots, and being easy to break up when marching as a column, is fiction, invented for the sake of a bit of action on a sensationalist TV programme. The incident does not merit it's own article, merely a line in the articles on Boudica and Quintus Petilius Cerialis. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where the hell is your evidence to disprove me? - Trip —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trip Johnson (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the ancient source, I quoted from it, I gave you a link to it so you could read it in context. You, apparently, are too lazy even to read what I gave you, and then accuse me of not giving you any evidence? I don't care how many TV documentaries you've seen, if you're not prepared to read the sources, which are nearly all online in reliable translations, you have no business editing articles on ancient history, much less creating them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Listen to me buddy, all that thing says is "The victorious enemy met Petilius Cerialis, commander of the ninth legion, as he was coming to the rescue, routed his troops, and destroyed all his infantry". What gives you the right to go around placing deletion tags on things when a documentary, all information and the people presenting it were historians is far more accurate and detailed than a website that anybody can edit? YOU, apparently, are too thick to see what I am getting at, you have no solid historical background evidence to disprove what I got from a historian presented program. Nowhere in that source does it say the Romans were met in pitched battle, if they were the rebels would have most likely have been defeated. Let me repeat again, that the source you gave me is on an editable website, and editable websites are not reliable. If you are supposed to be an admin, then start acting like one, instead of bashing every article you come across just because it doesn't suit your reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trip Johnson (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tacitus's Annals contain all the genuine information that exists on this incident. Anything in your TV show that isn't in Tacitus was made up by the writers of the TV show and is not historically accurate. If you cannot grasp this, you have no business editing articles on ancient history. I am not an admin, just an editor who knows what he's talking about and doesn't get everything he knows from the TV. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Im not going to waste my time trying to put fact through to someone blinded by what they believe to be fact. Do you honestly believe a Roman historian would admit that 5,000 of Rome's best troops were faced in pitched battle and beaten by a rabble? I hardly think so, its like trying to get a pro-patriotic American to admit that the War of 1812 was a draw (no offence to any other Americans).

History is based on sources. In this case Tacitus is the only source. Everything else is wishful thinking and fiction. Oh, and sign your comments. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There is more than just one Roman historian. And Battlefield Britain is presented by HISTORIANS, who used Roman military history records. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

There are two ancient historians who wrote of Boudica's revolt, the Roman Tacitus (in his Agricola and Annals) and the Greco-Roman Cassius Dio (in his Roman History). These sources are helpfully linked to from Boudica, so you can read them yourself and see what they say and what they don't say. The defeat of the 9th legion is only covered in Tacitus' Annals. Battlefield Britain is presented by Peter and Dan Snow, who are not historians, but even if they were, they could only use the same sources as the rest of us. The writers of the show used Tacitus and Cassius Dio, plus a hefty dose of dramatic license for the reconstructions. Those reconstructions are not historical sources. Just because it says something on TV, that doesn't make it true. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not in the mood to argue with a teenager. Delete the goddamn article if it makes you feel better and powerful. (Trip Johnson (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

Rewrite, suggested move

It's been decided to keep the article, so I've rewritten it more factually. It occurs to me that a better article could be made if we move it to "Siege of Camulodunum" or something similar. The defeat of the 9th could then be treated as the final engagement of of a larger event, and more could be made of the archaeology - the temple, the broken tombstones, the destruction layers and so on. Any thoughts? --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it needs more work. It presents speculation as fact. There are contrary records from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. I think it should be moved and should be acknowledged that there are differing accounts as to whether or not it happened. Just my two cents. 152.131.9.132 (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be a redirect to Legio IX Hispana with the useful bits moved into a new section there. This doesn't mean we shouldn't have a separate article on the Siege, however. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on Legio IX discusses other possible fates including its demise in the Middle East. Boudica's revolt was in 61AD yet there are references to its continued existence in 108AD and 117AD. The essence of this whole article is at best speculative, if not wholly fictional.----Streona (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it would be re-formed after its annihilation so existing in 108AD does not make it impossible that it was wiped out in earlier years by Budica or the Caledonians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.21.242 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly possible, if you take a look at the fate of the three legions of the Teutoburg forest battle or of the ones involved into the batavian revolt, they were never re-formed after, so why on earth would have Rome made an exception with this one ? Anyway that's at least strange to have a wikipedian article pompously intitulated "Massacre of the Ninth Legion" with as first sentence "(...) refers to the defeat of a large vexillation of the Legio IX Hispana (...)". As far as I know, a large vexillation never been a whole Legion... 82.122.165.191 (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So a redirect, moving perhaps some material into the Legio IX article? Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A change is long overdue. To the extent that there was a battle of Camulodunum, it was the assault by Boudica's forces on the temple. The defeat of Cerialis, and deaths of all the infantry with him, took place in an undetermined location somewhere between Camulodunum and Ratae. Given the very limited original source material, the defeat of Cerialis should be a redirect to Boudica#Boudica's_uprising, and this page should be about the history and the archaeology of the battle in Camulodunum itself. Also, given the confusion demonstrated above, we should probably say "defeat of Cerialis" rather than anything that might imply the annihilation of the whole legion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Not encyclopaedic

``The Battle of Camulodunum was a major military victory of the Iceni and their allies over an organised Roman army during the revolt of Boudica against the Roman occupation of Britain. A large vexillation of the Legio IX Hispana was destroyed by the rebels.``

This is the first sentence. It should state ``The Battle of Camulodunum was a battle that took place at such at date in such a location, including the country, between these people and those people.`` This is the most basic and required explanation. Following that , you give details of the cause, if known, the victorious party, and other relevant details, in however man sentences are required, and without semi-colons, unless you know exactly how they function.

The body of the text begins ``In AD 60 or 61, the southeastern area of the island rose in revolt under Boudica``. I have no idea what island you are referring to. Mersea Island, perhaps?

Who, exactly is revolting against who, and in what context? I am looking upt the online encyclopedia because I need to know, not because I know already. It' my school assignment.... and I'm in Kalgoolie, OK? Amandajm (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)