This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Camulodunum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-24. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is historically nonsense. The entire historical record of this incident consists of the following:
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)
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)
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).
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))
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))
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)
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)
``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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Battle of Camulodunum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-24. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is historically nonsense. The entire historical record of this incident consists of the following:
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)
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)
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).
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))
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))
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)
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)
``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)