General Discussions
This is the place to discuss general issues related to the U-boat war or the war at sea in WWII.
RE: Brutality/Atrocity Theory/Reality.
Posted by:
John Griffiths
()
Date: March 12, 2001 08:05PM
<HTML>
Tony, I would suggest - with respect - that you read, regarding the Second World War, as widely as possible. The only way you can ever understand is to read the history and look at the viewpoints of both sides. However, remember that their national hatred goes back further than 1939!
To the others regarding atrocity / brutality. I don\'t think it was soley for morale. Again, I look to military history for the main theory in this. The Romans - a group of brilliant fighters and tacticians - were also brutal, but could justify their actions. An example? I come from Anglesey, known to the Romans as Mona Insulis, which is an island off the north west coast of Wales. Anglesey was the \'grain store\' of the Celtic tribes that peopled this area - the Ordovices. This tribe of people has been harrassing the mighty legions of Rome for many a year and - using guerilla warfare tactics - were successful in slowing down the advance of Rome. They had become an embaressment.
In AD59 - 60, Suetonius Paulinus - Roman military govenor of Britain - decided enough was enough. He knew that Anglesey was considered to be a source of food for the Celts as well as being the centre of their religion, which was Druidism. He led two legions into the area. They fought their way to the Menai Straits - the stretch of tidal water that divides Anglesey from mainland Wales - and he mounted what is reputed to be the first amphibious operation in history. Swimming his cavalry over and using small boats to bring his foot infantry to shore, using ballistae from the areas on the mainland to support the operation, he landed his army.
The fighting was bloody and embittered. Evidence of atrocities is still being dug up on the seashore (known, even today, as The Bloody Foreshore). The Romans, once they had established themselves ashore, rounded up druidic clerics and warriors and forced them into large wicker cages which they then set light to. They also massacred every man, woman and child they came across until they had wiped out what Suetonius Paulinus percieved to be the mainstay of the Celtic race in North Wales. Wholesale, savage slaughter.
Why? Because the image of Rome as a mighty Army was not about to be ruined by half naked savages! By striking at Anglesey - the Druidic centre, the heartland ( or as we say in Welsh: Mon Mam Cymru - Anglesey Mother of Wales ), he sent a message to the tribes more powerful than a cohort of legionary: Its psychological impact ensured that the area remained \'quiet\' for many years afterwards. Whilst Wales was subdued, another Chieftain decided to stand up to Rome - Boudicca.
When Boudicca of the Iceni revolted, it was Suetonius Paulinus who again marched to put down her rebellion. At the last major battle of the Boudicca campaign - near Lichfield in Staffordshire - Boudicca\'s Britons met with the XIVth Legion, parts of IInd and 1X Legion and some 4,500 Auxilliaries. The Britons - their familes and all - faced the Romans and fought. The Romans drove the Briton foot soldiery back, forcing their familes - who were to the rear of the British line - into a narrow defile where they were slaughtered and butchered, cut to pieces by the carefully planned battle plan of Paulinus. The action won the XIVth Legion the title \'Martia Victrix\' - and for Boudicca and the Britons the knowledge that Rome was both a provider - and a powerful, vengeful and merciless enemy to have. When Paulinus was replaced by Petronius Turpilanus in AD61, Britain was conquered and moved from tribal anarchy to capitalist oligarchy - which was what Rome wanted all along.
The slaughter of the enemy achieved two purposes. It allowed the Roman legionairres to vent their frustration and fury for the many defeats they had encountered whilst on that campaign. For the Celts, it strengthened the mystique and fear of the Romans, thus ensuring their foothold in Britain was established and proven.
Psychology, I believe. Beat thine enemy - earn his respect.
It\'s my theory!
Aye,
John</HTML>
Tony, I would suggest - with respect - that you read, regarding the Second World War, as widely as possible. The only way you can ever understand is to read the history and look at the viewpoints of both sides. However, remember that their national hatred goes back further than 1939!
To the others regarding atrocity / brutality. I don\'t think it was soley for morale. Again, I look to military history for the main theory in this. The Romans - a group of brilliant fighters and tacticians - were also brutal, but could justify their actions. An example? I come from Anglesey, known to the Romans as Mona Insulis, which is an island off the north west coast of Wales. Anglesey was the \'grain store\' of the Celtic tribes that peopled this area - the Ordovices. This tribe of people has been harrassing the mighty legions of Rome for many a year and - using guerilla warfare tactics - were successful in slowing down the advance of Rome. They had become an embaressment.
In AD59 - 60, Suetonius Paulinus - Roman military govenor of Britain - decided enough was enough. He knew that Anglesey was considered to be a source of food for the Celts as well as being the centre of their religion, which was Druidism. He led two legions into the area. They fought their way to the Menai Straits - the stretch of tidal water that divides Anglesey from mainland Wales - and he mounted what is reputed to be the first amphibious operation in history. Swimming his cavalry over and using small boats to bring his foot infantry to shore, using ballistae from the areas on the mainland to support the operation, he landed his army.
The fighting was bloody and embittered. Evidence of atrocities is still being dug up on the seashore (known, even today, as The Bloody Foreshore). The Romans, once they had established themselves ashore, rounded up druidic clerics and warriors and forced them into large wicker cages which they then set light to. They also massacred every man, woman and child they came across until they had wiped out what Suetonius Paulinus percieved to be the mainstay of the Celtic race in North Wales. Wholesale, savage slaughter.
Why? Because the image of Rome as a mighty Army was not about to be ruined by half naked savages! By striking at Anglesey - the Druidic centre, the heartland ( or as we say in Welsh: Mon Mam Cymru - Anglesey Mother of Wales ), he sent a message to the tribes more powerful than a cohort of legionary: Its psychological impact ensured that the area remained \'quiet\' for many years afterwards. Whilst Wales was subdued, another Chieftain decided to stand up to Rome - Boudicca.
When Boudicca of the Iceni revolted, it was Suetonius Paulinus who again marched to put down her rebellion. At the last major battle of the Boudicca campaign - near Lichfield in Staffordshire - Boudicca\'s Britons met with the XIVth Legion, parts of IInd and 1X Legion and some 4,500 Auxilliaries. The Britons - their familes and all - faced the Romans and fought. The Romans drove the Briton foot soldiery back, forcing their familes - who were to the rear of the British line - into a narrow defile where they were slaughtered and butchered, cut to pieces by the carefully planned battle plan of Paulinus. The action won the XIVth Legion the title \'Martia Victrix\' - and for Boudicca and the Britons the knowledge that Rome was both a provider - and a powerful, vengeful and merciless enemy to have. When Paulinus was replaced by Petronius Turpilanus in AD61, Britain was conquered and moved from tribal anarchy to capitalist oligarchy - which was what Rome wanted all along.
The slaughter of the enemy achieved two purposes. It allowed the Roman legionairres to vent their frustration and fury for the many defeats they had encountered whilst on that campaign. For the Celts, it strengthened the mystique and fear of the Romans, thus ensuring their foothold in Britain was established and proven.
Psychology, I believe. Beat thine enemy - earn his respect.
It\'s my theory!
Aye,
John</HTML>
