Boudicca - The Events of 60-61 AD

The Celts were an ancient group people who inhabited a vast area of Europe. The Celtic economy was based on a variety of activities; mixed farming, the mining of metals (iron, copper, and tin), the mining of minerals such as salt, as well as extensive trade throughout Europe. Most of their culture, technology, and history were wiped out when the Romans conquered Europe. The Celts were brave and fierce fighters but they were no match for the Roman troops with their sophisticated siege weapons. The Celts found themselves adopting and using Roman customs, language, and even worshipping some of the Roman gods, however in many places they continued to worship their Celtic deities as well. A fierce warrior civilisation they may have been, but the more artistic and cultural elements of their society have not been altogether lost.

The Celts have provided historians with figures of heroism and national symbolism, such as Boudicca. Boudicca was the queen of the Iceni tribe in Briton, who led an uprising Celtic army against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire. Roman scholars and historians Tacitus and Cassius Dio recorded the history of these events, and they are the only written sources of evidence of the events historians have. In more recent times, excavations have revealed a range of archaeological sources, which have corroborated with many aspects of the written accounts. It can be difficult to understand life at the time because of misinterpretation of archaeological and historical resources due to modern values. The following will recount the events of 60 – 61 AD, exploring the Romanisation of Briton, which lead to Celtic uprising, including the revolt lead by Boudicca, by referring to and analysing the archaeological and written evidence behind the events.

Briton was famous for amongst Europe for the exportation of goods, such as metals, corns, hides, slaves, and hunting dogs. This exportation and trade helped establish borders and helped Briton keep in contact with the rest of Europe. The wealth of Europe attracted the Roman’s. Other Roman motives to invade Briton included their desire to impress and the challenge. The Romans were interested in expanding their empire. Roman Emperor Claudius felt that the previous Emperor Gaius and his mad escapades had unworthily compromised the military prestige of Rome, and Claudius may have wanted to finish where Julius Caesar left off and stamp out Druidism at its source in Briton. Thus, by 43 AD Emperor Claudius had launched a full-scale invasion and the south East of England became a Roman province.

Julius Caesar’s brief campaign in Briton in 55 BC may not have achieved a great deal from a military point of view, but the treaty relations he established with the tribes had a lasting effect on the social and economic development of Briton. The established bonds of clientage between the native tribes and Rome were used to political effect. Towns were an essential element of Roman Briton; the city embodied the best life for Romans. Before Roman arrival there were no real towns in Briton, only settlements or hill forts. Romans imposed organised town life on Britons and persuaded them to adopt and develop this life for themselves. Romans encouraged the growth of towns and local self-government, and Agricola was one governor actively encouraging the policy of Roman civilisation. A self-governing town was called a municipium. In promoting urbanisation, the Romans provided training in the necessary skills of planning and construction. Urbanisation can be traced due to physical evidence of excavated buildings throughout Roman ruin sites in modern Britain.

The usual Roman practise in newly acquired territory was a process of reconciliation, both sides benefiting in some way from a deal and unnecessary costly fighting avoided. Rome could never have hoped to rule so vast an empire without cooperation from the rulers of the areas conquered, so the Romans set up the system of client kingdoms. The client leader continued to rule but under the government of the Romans, paying taxes and tribute to Rome. This system also allowed the Romans to concentrate on territory where rebellion was likely and other areas still to be conquered. Under their King, Prasutagus, the Iceni tribe in Briton maintained a status of allied kingdom to the Roman province. Maintaining a good relationship with the powerful Iceni would have been important for the Romans because of their close proximity to Camulodunum, a prominent Roman town. According to Tacitus “the Iceni [remained] a powerful tribe, which war had not weakened, as they had voluntarily joined our alliance” (Tacitus, Annals 12.31).

When Prasatugus died he left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and the Roman Emperor in his will in an attempt that the succession of leadership would not require Roman interference. His will was ignored. It was normal Roman practice to allow allied kingdoms their independence only for the lifetime of their client king, and Roman law also allowed inheritance only through the male line. So when Prasutagus died his attempts to preserve his line were ignored and his kingdom was annexed as if it had been conquered. This indicates that the wealth of the Iceni was so vast to be considered worth the risks involved in setting aside the central family to take its property and wealth in the name of Rome. Boudicca, Prasutagus’s wife and Queen of the Iceni, was flogged and her daughters raped. The Icenian chiefs were deprived of their hereditary estates and property was confiscated, nobles were treated like slaves and humiliated. Dio Cassius says that Roman financiers chose this time to call in their loans. Prasutagus it seems, had lived well on borrowed Roman money and his subjects had become liable for the debt. However Dio Cassius does note that this money was not asked for “Had lent to the islanders 40 000 000 sesterces that they did not want, and had afterwards called in this loan all at once and had resorted to severe measures in exacting it.” (Dio Cassius Roman History) Tacitus does not mention this in his account, and therefore it is seen a confliction in the two sources.

The response of the Iceni was outrage, and they united behind their queen, Boudicca. Another major element in the developing situation was the death of Emperor Claudius in 45 AD in suspicious circumstances. His nephew Nero succeeded him, and seems to have lacked insight into the complexities of politics controlling territories. Instead of maintaining the advantage over a divided people it seems the Romans by their actions encourage disaffection and the consequential formation of alliances. “Our homes are rifled, our children torn from us, conscription enforced…a legate to tyrannise over our lives, a procurator to tyrannise over our property” (according to Tacitus) There is no evidence that this speech was recorded word-for-word, however generally the Britons blamed the Romans and took up the idea that “the miserable have more fury and greater resolution.”(Tacitus) The Celts had, until this point, been seen as easy to suppress by the Romans because of their lack of inter-tribal unity or co-operation against invasion and oppression.

In 60 – 61 AD Boudicca led the Iceni, along with the Trinovantes and other neighbouring tribes, in open revolt "they flew to arms and stirred to revolt the Trinovantes and others who, not yet cowed by slavery, had agreed in secret conspiracy to reclaim their freedom"(Tacitus, Annals, 14.31). According to Tacitus, they drew inspiration from the events in Germany, where the Cherusci Prince Arminius in 9 AD drove out the Romans, and their own ancestors who had driven Julius Caesar from Britain. “But the person who was chiefly instrumental in rousing the natives and persuading them to fight the Romans, the person who was thought worthy to be their leader and who directed the conduct of the entire war, was Boudicca, a Briton woman of the royal family and possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women.” (Dio Cassius Roman History) Dio says that at the outset Boudicca employed a form of divination, releasing a hare from the folds of her dress and interpreting the direction in which it ran invoked a British goddess of victory. Perhaps it is significant that Boudicca's own name means ‘victory’. Gender bias is seen in Dio’s source, and it could be argued that the Local Roman administrators may have underestimated or failed to understand the position in society of Celtic woman as the equals of men in power, for in Rome, women did not qualify for citizenship.

During this time the Roman governor, Suetonius Paulinus, was leading a campaign on the island of Anglesey in north Wales, which was a refuge for British rebels and a stronghold of the druids. The Celts were polytheistic, and worshipped natural phenomena such as water, sky, mountains, trees and earth. Not only did Celts give offerings of weapons and jewellery to the deities, but also according to the ancient sources and accounts by Julius Caeser and Posidonius; they practised human sacrifice, and archaeological evidence in sites throughout Europe has confirmed this. The Druids were an important priestly caste in Celtic society. The Druids passed their knowledge from person to person, and therefore most of their secrets died with them. What is known of druids comes from sources such as Caesar and Tacitus “The Druids officiate at the worship of the gods, regulate public and private sacrifices, and give rulings on all religious questions” (Caesar, the Gallic War, 6.13 and 6.14) Romans were not always noted for crushing local beliefs in the empire so long as they were not seen as a direct threat to Roman control. It could be that the Romans saw the Druidic power over the Celts as just such a direct threat. An interesting theory by Anne Ross and Don Robins is that Lindow Man was an Irish prince, willingly sacrificed at the time of the events of the destruction of the druids, to appease the gods. It can also be noted that the Romans did not go to Ireland with serious intentions of conquest.

It could be argued that his driving ambition, his need for victory over his rival, temporary blinded Suetonius Paulinus to the dangers that were building behind him in Britain. Boudicca led her army to Camulodunum (Colchester). Tacitus and Dio both mention omen warnings. “At this juncture for no visible reason, the statue of Victory and Camulodunum fell down – with its back turned as though it were fleeing the enemy. Delirious women chanted of destruction at hand. A blood red colour in the sea, too, and shapes like human corpses left by the ebb tide, were interpreted hopefully by the Britons – and with terror by the settlers.”(Tacitus, Annals) Camulodunum was formerly the capital of the Trinovantes, but now a colonia (a settlement for discharged Roman soldiers) and the site of a temple to the former emperor Claudius, built and maintained at local expense. The Roman inhabitants of the city sought reinforcements but only two hundred auxiliary troops were sent. Boudicca's army fell on the poorly defended city and destroyed it, besieging the last defenders in the temple for two days before it fell. "Plundered or fired in the onslaught; the temple where the soldiers had assembled, was stormed after a two days' siege. 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" (Tacitus, Annals, 14.32)

Several excavations of the modern city of Colchester have revealed a large town with many Roman-style buildings, including remains of a fortress. The houses, made of timber-framed walls filled with daub and covered with plaster, were destroyed in the attack. The intensity of the fire baked the daub and carbonised some of the wood. Shops stocked with glassware and pottery was excavated in 1927. Remains of buildings and food excavated in the 1970s revealed further destruction by intense heat. Burnt seeds of wheat, corn, burnt olives and dates were found during the excavation. It is not clear from the current evidence whether the temple of Claudius referred to in the written sources was finished at the time of Boudicca’s revolt, however the bronze head of Emperor Claudius was found in the River Alde. The head had received a severe blow at the back and had been hacked from the body off a life size statue. The placing of the head in a river may be a connection to the Celtic religion and importance of waterways.

The next town in Boudicca’s path was Londinium (London). It was the location of the Roman encampment established by the invading forces, linking the route from Camulodunum to Verulamium, and it had grown to be a thriving commercial centre with a population of travellers, traders, and probably, Roman officials. “Londinium...though undistinguished by the name of a colony was much frequented by a number of merchants and trading vessels”(Tacitus, Annals, 14.33). On hearing the news of the revolt, Suetonius Paulinus hurried to Londinium but concluding he did not have the numbers to defend it, evacuated and abandoned it. Londinium was abandoned to the rebels, who burnt it down, slaughtering anyone who had not evacuated with Suetonius. Archaeology shows a thick red layer of burnt debris covering coins and pottery dating before 60 AD within the boundaries of the Roman city. No skeletal material has been found in association with the burnt layer.

The last city to be destroyed by Boudicca and her army in the revolt was Verulamium (St Albans). It too was burnt to the ground. Archaeologists have found a red layer of burnt daub and ash similar to that in London. Compared to the London excavations however, there are far fewer remains of valuable personal property. This could be interpreted in two ways – either the people had time to get away, taking their possessions with them, or the Britons thoroughly looted the town before they burnt it down. Houses of wealthy citizens built on estates outside the town show evidence of destruction by fire.

Tacitus says the Britons had no interest in taking or selling prisoners, only in slaughter by gibbet, fire, or cross. Dio's account gives more prurient detail, that the noblest women were impaled on spikes and had their breasts cut off and sewn to their mouths, “to the accompaniment of sacrifices, banquets, and wanton behaviour”. An estimated 70,000-80,000 people were killed in the three cities. In an excavation by Felix Oswald at Nottinghamshire, three skeletons were found; a man, woman, and a 16 year old boy. The man’s body was disfigured badly, the legs were double up underneath him and his vertebrae were twisted. The boy’s skeleton appeared to be dismembered. The burial pits were filled with earthy clay, charcoal, and burnt daub. Oswald suggests that the bodies were a family; a Roman soldier, a British woman, and their son.

Suetonius Paulinus regrouped his forces in an unidentified location, probably in the West Midlands. To have a chance of victory he needed to control when and where the battle would take place. The place he chose was high ground, with forest around and behind him so he did not need to worry about ambush. In a theory by Anne Ross and Don Robins, it seems that Boudicca was lured to the place of the final battle by the desecration of the sacred sites in the area. This may have been done to control or suppress beliefs or more likely to associate local gods and customs with Roman gods and customs. “Romans had a dangerous propensity for making this sort of mistake, which caused them to fight unnecessary wars out of insensitivity for the emotions of the people” (Roman Britain 1993)

Dio says that, even if they were lined up one deep, they would not have extended the length of Boudicca's line. Confident of victory, the Celtic warriors had their wives and families in wagons at the edge of the plain to watch the defeat of the Romans. Battle tactics for the Celts involved attempting to terrify and confuse the opposition. They used wild cries and gesticulations, leaping around clashing their weapons and blowing trumpets to create noise and give demonstrations of enthusiasm and bravado. However, the lack of manoeuvrability of the British forces, combined with lack of open-field tactics to command these numbers, put them at a disadvantage to the Romans, who were skilled at open combat due to their superior equipment and discipline, and the narrowness of the field meant that Boudicca could only put forth as many troops as the Romans could take at a given time.

Boudicca exhorted her troops from her chariot, her daughters beside her. Tacitus gives her a short speech in which she presents herself not as an aristocrat avenging her lost wealth, but as an ordinary person, avenging her lost freedom, her battered body, and the abused chastity of her daughters. Their cause was just, and the deities were on their side; the one legion that had dared to face them had been destroyed. “This is what I, a woman, plan to do! – let the men live in slavery if they will.” (Tacitus Annals) Once again, there is no evidence to suggest that this speech was recorded word-for-word or that the speech was even said. Such speeches were a literary device and an important component of Roman histories of which were written to be read out loud. They provided a dramatic touch but were also an integral part of the history. Historians created speeches, which they thought, were appropriate to the character and the situation.

First, the Romans stood their ground and used heavy javelins to kill thousands of Britons who were rushing toward the Roman lines. The Roman soldiers were then able to engage Boudicca’s second wave in the open. As the Romans advanced in a wedge formation, the Britons attempted to flee, but were impeded by the presence of their own families, whom they had stationed in a ring of wagons at the edge of the battlefield, and were slaughtered. “Then, in wedge formation, they burst forward. So did the auxiliary infantry. The cavalry too, with lances extended, demolished all serious resistance. The remaining Britons fled with difficulty since their ring of wagons blocked the outlets.” (Tacitus Annals) The outcome against the experienced Roman military was defeat, and according to Tacitus, Boudicca poisoned herself; Dio says she fell sick and died, and was given a lavish burial. The consequence of defeat for the Celts was famine; those who joined the rebel army had not planted their crops, gambling on capturing Roman grain stores. Seutonius Paulinus’ harsh measures must have also cost the local Roman administration greatly in lost taxes and revenues resulting from the continued devastation of the land. Dio ends with “So much for the affairs of Britain.” (Dio Cassius Roman History)

Tacitus’s Agricola and Annals, and Dio Cassius’s Roman History are the only written sources of the events of 60 – 61 AD. Historians have to consider carefully these sources due to Roman bias and literary devices. Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian, who would have consulted a large range of documents and military reports held in the imperial archives for his research. Tacitus wrote a monograph on his father in law Agricola in 98 AD. Agricola was a soldier in Britain at the time of Boudicca’s revolt, and later became a governor. There is no firm evidence that Agricola actually fought against Boudicca, but he was in the country at the time of her revolt. He may have interviewed eyewitnesses, and if he did, he did not acknowledge them. Historians should consider Tacitus accounts bias, for he would of wanted to make his family sound more heroic to politicians in Rome. His accounts a written somewhat 50 years after the events in Briton, but they seem to be more factual then Dio Cassius’s accounts. In Tacitus writing, he shows gender bias towards women and Boudicca. He downplays her leadership qualities and suggests that the Romans were unprepared. This bias is accounted for the Roman values of the time. Her barbarity, also, is in connection with her gender, projecting paranoia about the idea of female rule, which were concerns that were evident in Roman sources.

Dio Cassius was born almost 100 hundred years after Boudicca’s revolt. He was a Roman senator and historian who would have had a similar range of access to sources that were available to Tacitus. Dio Cassius is generally agreed to have based his account on that of Tacitus, but he simplifies the sequence of events and adds details, such as the calling in of loans, that Tacitus does not mention. Dio Cassius also display similar gender bias towards Boudicca i.e “Displays great intelligence then often belongs to woman”, however he makes Boudicca sound more heroic. This is due to the fact that Dio Cassius, tends to use more emotive language and leans towards a dramatic storytelling rather then a factual historical account. However, together, as previously mentioned, the written sources are backed up by archaeological evidence found at sites throughout Europe.

“She was huge of frame, terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice. A great mass of bright red hair fell to her knees: she wore a twisted torc, and tunic of many colours, over which was a thick mantle fastened by a brooch. Now she grasped a spear, to strike fear into all who watched her.” (Dio Cassius Rome History) In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries Boudicca’s story inspired several writers to produce imaginative works about her, but it was not until the reign of Queen Victoria in the nineteenth century that Boudicca became a popular heroine. Poets, painters and sculptors from that period represented Boudicca as a legendary figure, a patriotic queen who courageously resisted a powerful and alien enemy.

Geoffrey Barraclough states “Man is an historical animal, with a deep sense of his own past” (1955), and the events of 60 – 61 AD are historically rich. Historians have learnt from the events of 60 -61 AD firstly how historical stories have merged themselves with today’s popular culture, and therefore the importance of original sources and perspectives in creating themes and moods in relation to these events. For example, if Tacitus and Dio Cassius had slanted their sources with a complete Roman bias, Boudicca would not have been portrayed in the slightest as a heroic figure and therefore would not have impacted throughout the ages leading to today’s society as a heroic figure. Tacitus and Dio Cassius perhaps up played Boudicca as a heroic figure to make the Roman victory over her and the Celtics as even more glorious. “They possess a trait of barbarous savagery which is especially peculiar to the northern peoples” (Strabo, Geography) Tacitus’s and Dio Cassius’s accounts provide great insight into battle techniques and barbarian warfare.

Historians also learn important facts about the history of Roman occupation in Briton, and the effect such occupation had on the Celtics custom and culture. Howard Brenton has developed his own critical account of the initial actions of Romans in Briton, and he writes that they are often “considered to have been a positive force because they built straight roads and ‘brought law’, so the Roman invasion is represented as a good thing” (The Romans in Britain 1980s) This same view is seen in The Life of Brian where the character Reg is forced to admit, grudgingly, the better sanitation, medicine, education, irrigation, public health, roads, fresh water, baths and public order, but he still demands to know “What have the Romans ever done for us?” The inference in the Python’s account is that the Roman Empire was a vital element in the development of society within the Mediterranean lands, Europe, and Britain.

Boudicca's uprising against the Romans showed the different tribes in Briton could unite and fight for a common cause. The events are a striking example that Celtic tribes would not bow peacefully to Roman rule and would rather die defying the Might of Rome, reminding Rome that they were mere mortals; Rome might triumph by shedding blood but blood begets blood and without support from the heart of the Roman Empire efforts at subduing the British Isles were foredoomed. Boudicca fueled future English efforts to forge their own identity to establish their mastery not only over England but also, in time, the world. While over time she has been viewed in many different lights, she is most commonly seen as not a queen, but; a mother, wife, and warrior defending her country. Throughout history all powerful men have been seen as threatening, but all powerful women, such as Boudicca, are awe-inspiring.