MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Boromir's guess the famous game #223 [Bo...

Boromir's guess the famous game #223 [Boudica is the famous person, Carrot wins!]


1. I'm thinking of some famous person, it can be a film actor, a philosopher, a president, a prime minister, a singer, fictional character, mafia man etc.
2. You need to ask me a yes or no question about this person, for example, "Is the person still alive?," "Does the person work in the entertainment industry?," any question you can think of that helps you to reveal the answer. The host answers with yes or no only.
3. Maximum 1 question and 1 guess per player per answer.
4. The winner can either start a new game or say "pass." In case of a pass, the OP gets to start another.
5. Can't edit a question or guess once posted. Delete ONLY. With exception of spelling errors or something similar.

List of mystery persons
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/6185225d0146db6946359383/List-All-Boromirs-guess-the-famous-game-1-300


1: Male? No
2: Living? No
3: Born before Jesus? No
4: Born before 1600 AD? Yes
5: Black? No
6: Ruler? Yes
7: Born before 1500? Yes
8: Born before 1400? Yes
9: Born before 1300? Yes
10: Born before 1000 AD? Yes
11: Asia? No
12: Born in Europe? Yes
13: The first female ruler in her country/kingdom? Unknown
14: Born 500 AD - 999 AD? No
15: Boudica? Yes!

Carrot wins with Boudica, queen of the Celtic Iceni people in Britain who led a massive rebellion against Roman rule in response to injustices and atrocities committed upon herself, her daughters and her people by the Romans.

Scoreboard:
nyctc7 - 49
hownos - 43
LauraGrace - 31
Boromir - 29
Carrot - 24
Kawada_Kira - 23
tcrum - 8
capuchin - 7
sslssg - 3
lud - 2
Bloodshot77 - 2
StoneKeeper - 1
FredBurroughs - 1

reply

Born before 1300?

reply

born before 1000 AD?

reply

Asia?

reply

Born In Europe?

reply

[deleted]

The first female ruler in her country/kingdom?

reply

born 500 AD - 999 AD?

reply

Boudica?

reply

Correct!

reply

Well done Carrot.

So because of her 80,000 of her people died.
What she thought will happen? The Romans were at the height of their power at that time.

reply

Do you believe some things are worth dying for?

reply

but was she ever born??

reply

Real or not, my point is, that people do not revolt without reason.
And the idea that you should just lie down and take it, because your oppressor is stronger, is abhorrent to me.
It makes my blood feel like metal.
When you're at the point of rebellion, as a community or society, you're at the point were you would die for it. Whatever the number.

reply

Indeed. Oppression creates resistance. There comes a point where the oppressed are driven to where they have no choice but to rise up, even if rebellion seems futile.

reply

It was personal revenge that cost deaths of thousands from her tribe.

reply

It wasn't just personal. The whole tribe had suffered, and many other tribes had as well. The things the Romans did in Britain were considered abhorrent even by Romans themselves. Tens of thousands of people wouldn't have followed Boudica if it was just her personal experience. It was the experience of the whole people. Boudica just happened to be a capable leader who could rally these people to a revolt that they were going to start sooner or later anyway.

reply

They had several opportunities to stop the revolt when they were at the height of their success and reach new conditions with the Romans (even the Romans prefer future soldiers than kill potential soldiers) but they did not do that. Some political realism would have saved her tribe.

reply

It's difficult to stop a thing like this once it gets moving. Even if Boudica had been inclined to do so, many among her people didn't want to stop until complete victory was achieved, and she might not have been able to hold them back. What the rebels wanted, not just Boudica but the whole people, what they wanted was to throw Roman rule off entirely, not merely to reform it. Considering that the straw which broke the camel's back was the Romans violating terms, the Celts had no reason to trust the Romans to honor any agreement they might make with them. It was preferable in their minds to expel the Romans from the island entirely. Considering the Romans had left Britain after Julius Caesar invaded it a century before, this wouldn't have seemed out of the realm of possibility. This was also part of the motivation for exterminating the Roman citizen colonies, which were an anchor for Roman rule on the island (the entire reason they were established). The other reason being that the colonies were centers of systematic oppression and abuse against the native population.

From Tacitus:
"Prasutagus, king of the Iceni, famed for his long prosperity, had made the emperor his heir along with his two daughters, under the impression that this token of submission would put his kingdom and his house out of the reach of wrong. But the reverse was the result, so much so that his kingdom was plundered by centurions, his house by slaves, as if they were the spoils of war. First, his wife Boudicea was scourged, and his daughters outraged. All the chief men of the Iceni, as if Rome had received the whole country as a gift, were stript of their ancestral possessions, and the king's relatives were made slaves. Roused by these insults and the dread of worse, reduced as they now were into the condition of a province, they flew to arms and stirred to revolt the Trinobantes and others who, not yet cowed by slavery, had agreed in secret conspiracy to reclaim their freedom. It was against the veterans that their hatred was most intense. For these new settlers in the colony of Camulodunum drove people out of their houses, ejected them from their farms, called them captives and slaves, and the lawlessness of the veterans was encouraged by the soldiers, who lived a similar life and hoped for similar licence. A temple also erected to the Divine Claudius was ever before their eyes, a citadel, as it seemed, of perpetual tyranny. Men chosen as priests had to squander their whole fortunes under the pretence of a religious ceremonial. It appeared too no difficult matter to destroy the colony, undefended as it was by fortifications, a precaution neglected by our generals, while they thought more of what was agreeable than of what was expedient."

So it wasn't just Boudica; it was everybody that was suffering at the hands of the Romans on the island, who systematically robbed and abused the people of all classes with impunity. This is what provoked the rebellion.

reply

Not to go on, but just one more point. In reference to the earlier argument about Rome being at the height of its power and therefore rebellion against it to be futile. It didn't occur to me at that moment but Boudica would certainly have been aware of the fact that about 50 years before her revolt the Romans had been successfully defeated by the Germanic tribes in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, in which Arminius completely destroyed three legions, putting an end forever to Roman plans to conquer Germany beyond the Rhine. Indeed Tacitus claims that Boudica took inspiration from the Germans. He provides a speech he attributes to Boudica, although it should be noted that this would have been dramatic license on his part as there's no way he could have known what exactly Boudica said (and writing battle speeches for foreign leaders was a common thing for Roman historians, in order to convey the leaders' motivations), but in the speech he has Boudica saying that Germany shook off the yoke of Roman rule and that they were divided from Rome by only a river, not an ocean as the Britons had. Again these wouldn't have been her exact words, but Boudica would definitely have known about Teutoburg, which was infamous in the Roman world during her lifetime, and would have taken inspiration from it. Teutoburg showed that the Romans could be defeated and driven off for good.

reply

As I said and some historians agree with that, she made more than one tactical mistake, first, by let the roman lured her into battle with unexperienced army at a location that suited the Roman soldiers. Second they torch one town too much and didn't know when to stop to negotiate with the Romans or at least reduce the revolt with less deaths. Her relying on the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was huge mistake.

reply

It's easy to judge from 2,000 years in the future, but what if you had been there in her shoes? Not even necessarily in her shoes specifically, but in the shoes of any of the thousands of people who followed her, or any of her commanders. I don't see how torching fewer towns would have done anything for her. Torching the towns was militarily necessary because the towns were anchors of Roman rule on the island, and the whole idea was to make life on the island impossible for the Romans. It was certainly terrible for the innocents in the towns, for surely not all Romans on the island were evil, but the towns as a whole represented systematic oppression. Ancient warfare was harsh. But again you put all the onus on her and none on the fact that the towns were centers of oppression, exploitation and abuse even by Roman standards, as the Romans themselves admitted. How could the Britons have let that continue to stand? The rebellion was as much against those towns as it was against the Roman army and the Roman emperor. My point about Teutoburg was mainly that you said at the beginning that rebellion against Rome was inherently impossible and suicidal because the Romans were at the height of their power, but Boudica would have been aware of the fact that not long before she was born the Romans had suffered a massive defeat in Germany that haunted Rome to that day and which had stopped them from expanding beyond the Rhine forever. So she would have been aware that defeating Rome was not impossible. Extremely difficult, but not impossible. And she wanted to turn the Channel into a frontier that the Romans would no longer cross, just as the Rhine was. Being driven into a trap was certainly a tactical mistake, but as a woman she wouldn't have had military training like Arminius had, and even military experts have been driven into traps before.

reply

I didn't said that Britons need to let this continue but they clearly didn't prefer for the rebellion. She was unaware of the power of her own army and the power of the Rome. Her justified rage impaired her judgment as many historical figure males and females. The Romans were evil, no doubt, but the Britons made huge tactical mistake. One of them is to rely on the example of Romans defeat in Germany - You don't fight by the rules/example of yesterday's war.


reply

There's a good quote from Emiliano Zapata: "It is better to die standing than to live on your knees." These people were obviously willing to die because the conditions of life as things were was intolerable.

reply

I do not dismiss the rebellion per se but the way they did it.

reply

Where have I heard that before?

reply

Go on Laura, tell us where you heard that before, it is clear you have the answer to your own question.

reply

Yes, but sometimes you take one stage too far and endangers everyone.

reply

Not really because of her. The things the Romans were doing in Britain were going to provoke rebellion no matter what. If she didn't lead it, someone else would. Even some Romans thought she was admirable and that she had good cause for what she did. Tacitus for example was sympathetic to her.

reply

Even if it was provoke, the Romans do it more than once, from what I read it is clear they take things too far and this is why they lost so many people.

reply