Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
The Bouciccan Revolt
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
What part of publicly flogging the new tribal Queen and raping her two virgin daughters did the Romans think would be acceptable to the Iceni ??
I realise they were very nearly Essex girls - BUT!!!
st
(just watched a superb history channel documentary on it - and it still beggars belief - ) -
Message 2
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
Well, they thought "If Howard Brenton can get away with it, why not us?"
-
Message 3
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 26th July 2010
It was part arrogance, part greed, executed in the usually brutish Roman fashion. The rapes and flogging deliberately designed by the Romans as a vicious, sacrilegious insult to her and the huge Iceni tribe and their gods.
Unimpressed with his half-share of Prasutagus' estate, and mistakenly convinced that the Icenian nation was far wealthier than was reported, Nero dissolved the Iceni's client status. Nero's tutor and close advisor Annaeus Seneca recalled all his loans made to British chiefs.
Unfortunately the Romans decided to interpret the will very much in their own favour. Client kingdoms were going out of fashion; direct rule was now more to the Romans' taste.
The loans forced upon the Iceni (coins were previously not the preferred means of trade for the Celts, despite having minted them) by Claudius, Nero and Seneca were suddenly called in, with interest.
On the emperor Nero's orders, the imperial procurator Decianus Catus seized all of Prasutagus's estate and declared that any resistance would be treated as an act of rebellion.
When Boudica took the matter to a higher Roman authority, she was, according to the Roman historian Tacitus, publicly stripped and flogged and her daughters raped (probably by Catus Decianus鈥 thugs in private- drawing lots?).
Possibly only Roman law forbade sex with Boudicca herself 鈥 Augustus鈥 law forbade sex with a widow, although this would probably not have been applied to enemies and slaves?
Whipping was designed to humiliate, and common for slaves, and metal pieces and leather knots were added to the whip to increase pain.
Regarding rape under Roman law. Under Constantine, the Codex Theodosianus differentiated between girls who were at first willing and those who were unwilling.
The former were publicly burned, the latter whipped because they should have screamed for help.
Acc. to some scholars, daughters of disgraced Consuls were habitually raped before being strangled or thrown to their deaths, and executioners deflowered virgins before they killed them in case they gave offence to the gods. It鈥檚 also speculated that deflowered virgins would be less attractive to would-be husbands who might be leaders of a revolt.
It's also possible that the Romans aimed to 'desecrate' the Iceni queen (and the fertility of her daughters- the future), seen as the embodiment of the goddess Andrastes by her people- the divination of fertility and feminine power? -
Message 4
Posted by eques_99 (U7027104) on Tuesday, 27th July 2010
The humiliation could have been intended to have the opposite effect - to break the spirit of the ruling class before they had a chance to put up a fight over the appropriations.
The Romans were also completely unaware of the military leadership qualities of the Queen and, having forbidden the Iceni to keep weapons a decade previously, underestimated the scale of the arsenal available to Boudicca in hidden caches around the territory.
Finally there was a lack of communication between the civilian official who carried out the appropriations and the military governor, who was in Wales at the time. Both reported to the Emperor rather than one to another and indeed it is likely they were at loggerheads. -
Message 5
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 28th July 2010
it shows the arrogance of the roman rulers
but surely they must have been a bit worried about the implications of it all
is there anywhere else in the empire they did the same sort of thing
st -
Message 6
Posted by Prof Muster (U14387921) on Friday, 30th July 2010
Sorry, I am not the person you thought would answer this question.
I only want to say that in belgium and France there currently is a series of historic-Comics, very well drawn dealing with the Iceni-war against Caesar just before he left England in 50 bc.
I read the comic-series over a year ago, but omitted to read the Scenario & Drawing-art studio name. -
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 30th July 2010
it shows the arrogance of the roman rulers
听
Indeed it did, but I think that was the point: a brutal demonstration of Roman power. "We can do this and you will lump it!"
is there anywhere else in the empire they did the same sort of thing听
According to Adrian Goldsworthy, this was the Roman way of warfare - no compromise until the enemy accepted whatever the Romans demanded. They famously demolsihed the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. -
Message 8
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 1st August 2010
Hi cloudyj
You are absoloutely correct.
With the Romans it was all about power and total dominance.
It was "My Way or No Way".
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 9
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 1st August 2010
Yes, the usual Roman philosophy regarding it's domains was that, once they rebel, it will be put down ruthlessly, but leaving enough civilisation in order to allow them to pay tribute etc.
If they rebelled twice, then massive punitive force was applied in order to wipe them out. This is true of Dacia and the Iceni tribe (revolts of 47 and 60/1 ad).
Carthage was an exception- not wiped out on the second occasion however (202bc after Zama during Punic War II) but after the 3rd war with Rome. -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 1st August 2010
Well, none of you are all that keen on the Romans that's fairly apparent. But please bear one or two things in mind before reaching a final judgement. Your criticism of the Romans pulls in evidence from 202 BC to the age of Constantine 500 years later. Perhaps it might be better to stick with the 1st century AD.
Tacitus was a great historian but his hatred of Domitian seems to have resulted in his painting glowing portraits of 'barbarians' with which the vices of his fellow Romans could be unfavourably compared. He may not be entirely accurate and impartial.
The treatment meted out to Boudicca seems extremely, but also unreasonably, violent. I can't think of a parallel in the history of Roman Britain. Could these 'punishments' have had some ritual significance that now escapes us? Contrast this with the generosity with which Claudius treated the defeated Caractacus. The Romans did not always behave with brutality.
Dio Cassius records that Seneca made huge loans to Prasutagus. I have never understood what, if the account is true, the Iceni spent the money on. Can anyone make a suggestion?
I have no issue with the attack of the Iceni on legio IV Hispana, but does anyone else feel that the destruction of the civilian settlements at Cochester, London and St Albans were an excessively violent response to the situation. Even Tacitus records that the Iceni did not take prisoners but 'hanged, burned and crucified'. Dio's description of what the tribesmen did to captured woman is hardly suitable for a public site like this.
Admittedly one of the weaknesses of the imperial system was that an inadequate or paranoid leader could cause immense harm since there were no checks or balances on his behaviour, except assassination. This situation was not unique to Rome; think 20th century USSR and Germany. Perhaps the situation was indeed all Nero's fault, but in the aftermath of the rebellion it does seem to have been Nero who replaced Suetonius Paulinus with a gentler governor. Was this really the action of a crazed tyrant?
TP -
Message 11
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Hi TP
Surely the age itself and Roman Punishments themselves indicate that although Rome was a sophisticated society if you broke the law you could expect harsh treatment, even as a Roman Citizen let alone a conquered peoples, some example of this follow鈥.
For the Military, punishments included for Desertion - Stoned / Beaten to death,for Treason / Theft 鈥 Placed in a Sack of snakes and thrown into a river, for Cowardice in battle 鈥 Decimation (not very often).
Punishment for Slaves included for theft, Death by Public Execution and Crucifixion
Punishments for Private Individuals included for theft, Death by Private Execution
There was whipping by various types of implements and shockingly Rape of both sexes was also used as a punishment which seems fairly common place in many civilisations.
And then there was banishment which was regarded as punishment enough in some cases.
Roman society accepted these punishments they were normal and documented for all to understand on the insistence of the Romans themselves. Other races of course may not have seen it quite this way.
So it was a brutal age and the Romans brought their brutal punishments with them so perhaps they had already visited some of these punishments on the local populace who were taking their revenge as an 鈥渆ye for an eye鈥 retaliation.
I would agree with you that the depredations at Colchester, London and St Albans were horrendous and I do not condone it but as an observer it shows that this was a full blown rebellion 鈥 the Romans were hated at this time by the locals.
I think that you are very generous with Nero in the fact that Suetonius Paulinus was replaced by a gentler Governor. My understanding is that the military after defeating the Iceni went onto the rampage killing the locals to such an extent that they were turning Britain into a wasteland and destroying valuable labour.
Lets be generous and say that his actions post the Iceni defeat was counter productive to a successful solution for Britannia.
Remember that this again was a policy used by the Romans later in Scotland where the armies went in to destroy the people not to conquer and succeeded as their policy of genocide stopped attacks from the North for nearly a century.
There is much to admire about the Romans for their achievements, technologies, arts, logistical skills, military conquests etc. but I think we would all be deceiving ourselves if we said that the Romans did anything that was not to enrich Rome or themselves.
Equally they were pragmatic and as long as the conquered people stayed within the laws and paid their taxes they really didn't care an awful lot what the locals did.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Hi TA
The issue here is a very familiar one: do we judge earlier societies by contemporary standards or by our own? I would accept entirely that, if compared with a modern Scandinavian liberal democracy, life in the Roman empire seems almost unendurably violent. But I would ask you to reconsider some of the entries on your punishment list.
Stoning or decimation for military desertion seems harsh but as late as the Great War deserters were shot for the same offence by both the British and French armies. Like you I certainly regard public execution as a truly ghastly spectacle but it was still performed in Britain as recently as recently as the mid-19th century, and occurs today in Iran and China. Rape as an accepted practice in warfare is unthinkably brutal and horrible. It occurs widely in contemporary African conflicts. Even banishment seems excessive as you say. As recently as 1860 you could be transported for life to Tasmania for stealing a sheep. Finally you won't have forgotten the Amritsar massacre I am sure.
Well, I know you will understand my point. Every brutal act that rightly shocks you in the Roman world can also be identified in the modern world, and actions by the German and Soviet governments in the 20th century exceeded in murderous cruelty anything the Romans ever contemplated. If you are saying that you abhor brutality and unnecessary violence then I wholly agree with you. But Roman society was not exceptional in either respect by the standards of our species. And as for 'bringing their brutal punishments with them' Roman writers recorded that in Britain tribal enemies were burned in wicker idols and in Germany adulterers were smothered under hurdles. I think that you may be guilty of some special pleading here.
The Romans were most certainly not guilty of genocide in Scotland if you give this word its usual meaning of 'the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people on ethnic, racial, or religious grounds'. They were simply treating their military enemies with great harshness. Now the behaviour of the British government after Cullodon is a different matter altogether; there we might agree.
The rebellious Iceni do not automatically deserve a 'good press' because they were led by a charismatic woman and because they were British! Assuming that Roman historians were telling the unvarnished truth (and that really is quite an assumption) then the behaviour of the Roman military in the aftermath of the rebellion was as terrible as, but no worse than, the behaviour of the tribesmen during it.
I don't feel especially generous towards Nero but if he deserves the blame for precipitating the Boudiccan rebellion he also deserves praise for seeing that the Roman backlash had gone too far. Naturally I accept that in reality both decisions may well have been taken by subordinates.
I don't think I would necessarily disagree with your view that 'the Romans never did anything that was not to enrich Rome or themselves'. Now you tell me an imperial administration that ever behaved any differently.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 13
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Hi TP
I can only agree and perhaps the saddest part of all is that civilisation over the past 2000 years has not changed that much in the ability we retain to be so cruel to each other.
Your point about Empire's greed from any civilisation is so true and that the way that the Administration acts in this manner is something we can all understand.
We have talked about the huge loss of life in the Iceni incident but this pales in insignificance to the loss of life of the Battle of the Somme where 20,000 died in the first morning and the final count after 4 months was 1,000,000 men lost, and this was only a century ago.
We could look at the bombing of Dresden where up to 135,000 died in a couple of days in the "firestorm" - 60 years ago.
We could review the dropping of one bomb on Hiroshima where 70,000 were killed instantly and 140,000 injured.....I could go on..
So as you infer "civilisation" is only skin deep. It is only a recent development where soldiers lives have been held in the high regard and worth that they should be.
So I don't believe that we as human beings have changed that much so I feel that we can learn from this in the application of how situations are today and apply them to our history.
This is partly why I am referring to this on the other thread regarding Afghanistan and the triblism etc.
I have noticed however that we do agree that the Roman rules had to be obeyed or there would be grim repercusions.
This was true aross the whole Empire and I believe was the case whilst the Romans were based in Britannia until they left.
That our laws are hugely influenced on Roman Law with ammendments by the Saxons(German), Vikings and Normans shows that their legacy may have been more profound than we recognise.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Hi TA
I can't disagree with any of that.
TP -
Message 15
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 2nd August 2010
Perhaps the "preventative squadron" could be seen as an activity not necessary to the British empire at the time?
-
Message 16
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
If anyone has access to the journal British Archaeology the current edition (Sept/Oct) has an article about Boudica's final battle. The author argues (very plausibly) that after visiting London Suetonius retreated not up Watling Street but towards the south-west.
This ties in the burning at Silchester (mentioned in another thread) to this rebellion. Suetonius's idea was perhaps to retreat towards legio II Augusta at Exeter but the British moved too quickly and consequently Suetonius was forced to give battle before being able to concentrate his forces.
TP -
Message 17
Posted by Eliza (U14650257) on Monday, 18th October 2010
I'm a bit late into this debate, but I've always assumed that the Romans whipped and raped B and her daughters because Romans had a 'thing' about queens. They really, really, didn't like the idea of a woman with regnal power. Think Cleopatra only a few generations earlier.
-
Message 18
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 5th November 2010
Eliza, the Romans did indeed have 'a thing' about Queens (European, eastern or British), and not in a very positive way.
Being routed by Boudicca was seen as a deep humiliation by Rome, and even if she had succeeded and kicked Rome out of Brittania, they would definately have returned to avenge the 'woman' who led a huge revolt against them (and their taxation!)
The way that Dio and Tacitus describe both Boudicca and Cartimandua is striking in it's difference. The former -wife of a client king- is never described as "queen" (though they accept that she was Celtic nobility) whereas the latter -a client queen- IS termed by her regal title. -
Message 19
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 8th November 2010
I'm not sure to what extent Dio can be relied on concerning the Boudican Rebellion. He seems to draw quite heavily on Tacitus, but whether he had another source, or just fleshed out things of his own accord, isn't clear. Tacitus at least was closer to events and may well have had inside information - it's possible his father in law, Julius Agricola, was serving with the British garrison at the time, probably as a Tribune in one of the legions.
I've yet to encounter a satisfactory explanation as to why Legio II Augusta failed to make the rendezvous with the rest of Paulinus's forces. Their Camp Prefect, Poenius Postumus, committed suicide as a result, so it was evidently his fault (or so he felt). This would suggest that the legion's Legate and Senior Tribune were elsewhere - most likely serving on Paulinus's staff on the Anglesey campaign.
I've read one theory that the legion were engaged in their own operations. It's also possible that II Augusta simply didn't find the rest of the Army in time. Neither of these satisfactorily explain (to my mind) why Postumus killed himself, especially the former. As Camp Prefect, Postumus would have been an experienced and distinguished soldier, probably a former senior centurion. Was it really just shame at failing in the Empire's hour of need? Or did he deliberately avoid battle for some reason? It's a very curious blot on the record of this most elite of units. -
Message 20
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 14th November 2010
This might be of interest, I'm looking forward to see what people think of it.
-
Message 21
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 15th November 2010
Hmm. Very clever, but there are an awful lot of ifs and buts and assumptions in then (not least that Tacitus's description of the battlefield is reliable).
-
Message 22
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 15th November 2010
Hi Ferval
As AN says it is a lovely suggestion but it does depend on an awful lot of of Ifs and Buts and Maybes...and yet鈥︹︹
If Gaius Suetonius Paulinus reached London before Boudicca with only his cavalry and then evacuated the city with a load of civilians that would have slowed him down considerably and taking the evacuees back up Watling Street he would have been a sitting target with all those civilians and not many troops to defend them.
So it is unlikely that was the turn of events and it makes sense that his whole army was with him and that they set off to the West away from Colchester.
So there is a certain amount of logic for him to have gone to Silchester the quickest way from the huge army that was bent on destroying Roman Cities, Colchester, London, St Albans then Silchester perhaps?
Yet if you take the idea on board that Seutonius retreated from Silchester towards the strengths of the military area to the West (Cirencester) it would also seem logical that Silchester itself would have been abandoned so he possibly would now have an army not only of 10,000 soldiers but also a considerable number of civilians so progress would have been slow.
Then of course Boudicca and her people destroyed London and then went up to St Albans and destroyed that prior to moving on (perhaps pursuing the Roman Army) via Silchester.
So Seutonius made good the time that the Britons had given him and retreated to a place where he had a chance of survival, to be caught in the open with the refugees would have been a slaughter.
So perhaps he already knew of a place where he could make a stand and make the most of his highly trained and disciplined force.
If you go up the Ermine Street and then follow the road towards Bath (A4) from outside Speen (Newbury) along the River Kennet you come to Marlborough where a natural narrowing valley with steep sides and the Savernake Forest seem to resemble a possible battle site鈥︹
But it鈥檚 all conjecture as has been said鈥
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 23
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 15th November 2010
Thank you, gentlemen, for your comments. I know virtually nothing about the Roman military nor the geographical area and frankly, it's not my bag, but a mystery is always intriguing and I knew I'd get some interesting and insightful responses from you.
-
Message 24
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 17th November 2010
the iceni were a "client tribe" ie had allied themselves with the romans who were their "friends" - had been for years
their queen is whpped and her daughters raped
no wonder colchester london and st albans were bloodbaths
postumus as his suicide suggests was too scared to link up with paulinus - there was no way he (paulinius) could survive the britons attack - better to sit tight and defend and hope for reinforcements
st -
Message 25
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 18th November 2010
postumus as his suicide suggests was too scared to link up with paulinus 听
Possibly. It just doesn't seem to ring true for a Camp Prefect, though. -
Message 26
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 18th November 2010
anglo norman
very true
but his suicide was AFTER Paulinus had defeated the Britons
hard to explain why u kept a legion from battle i think
one minute he had done the wise thing in keeping his legion away from the inevitable massacre - next he had lost the chance of glory
he then had to fall on his sword
st -
Message 27
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
We are indebted to Tacitus for what we know about the Boudiccan Revolt, but by the same score our almost complete dependence on his account raises some intractable puzzles - the actual background to Postumus's suicide being one of them.
Another one which has prompted speculation is the time scale involved. It is commonly assumed, based on Tacitus's cross references to Consular and other high-ranking Roman occupancies, that the revolt began in one year and ended in another (though ironically Tacitus himself states the wrong years based on his own cross references). We are also assured that it lasted less than a year. This would make this revolt very much a "winter of discontent" at a time when convention and necessity made winter campaigning an oddity, and in Roman eyes an oddity worthy of mention when it occurred - as with Caesar earlier in Gaul. Yet this aspect to the event is not mentioned by Tacitus. Furthermore the author highlights the turning point of the Roman campaign as being Suetonius's hurried return from his ongoing Mona campaign, one which we must also assume was an extensive and prolonged one in its own right, given the percentage of British-based troops committed to it and that it afforded Boudica the time, in Suetonius's absence, to marshall her own resources, strike a political treaty with other tribes, and then launch her own campaign which, despite traditional descriptions of it as a rabble running amok, most certainly followed a strategy which involved formidable logistics and the establishment of clear and effective lines of command within her army of allies.
Tacitus's account however allows for no winter hiatus in which either Suetonius could take a breather and await more propitious campaigning weather or indeed where Boudica could, after her first few decisive and victorious military actions, also pause to regroup and await spring while planning the strategy's next developments. Instead we are given the picture of Boudica's army becoming over confident from these first successes and, in short, losing the plot in terms of strategy, rushing into direct conflict against a Roman machinery which had reacted swiftly and unstintingly once the scale of the revolt was made obvious to its leader.
It seems to me that one can't have it both ways. Either Tacitus (or his later transcriber on whose account we actually rely) is wrong and the whole episode took place within one campaigning season, or Tacitus has contrived to leave out an awful lot of important detail in order to conflate the incidents into one shorter version in which the Romans appear to act more decisively and more quickly than maybe, in fact, they did.
If the latter is true then it is not difficult to imagine a long and enforced winter lull in which the Romans were forced to gloomily contemplate the unthinkable - being ejected from this relatively new provincial acquisition, and one also in which some very important politicians "back home" had invested much in terms of wealth and personal prestige (even more valuable a commodity in Roman terms than material riches). In that scenario one can also therefore imagine tremendous pressures being brought to bear on the Roman protagonists involved, which could well have resulted in division, rancour, proliferation of rumour, insidious defeatism, and much else which might lie behind Postumus's later action. -
Message 28
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
Hi Nordmann
That is a very interesting post and has much to recommend it.
There are so many holes in the Tacitus account but even from his account you cannot say that the Roman reaction was decisive or even measured.
They completely underestimated the Britons and thought that were totally subjugated and consequently treated them with utter disdain not even defending their cities.
As you say the political alliances that would have had to be built up must have taken some time but it is an indication that this poor treatment of the Britons must have been widespread perhaps across the whole country including the West.
So the Eastern tribes rose up and destroyed Colchester (which didn鈥檛 have many soldiers) but it should be remembered they also destroyed the ninth legion which only a small portion managed to escape to the local fort
It is interesting that the Britons did not try to destroy the forts and according to Tacitus did not bother to attack other forts only the undefended cities.
Does this mean that they didn鈥檛 see the forts as a problem as they were manned by too few soldiers or that the forts were impregnable and weren鈥檛 worth the loss of life for the attackers?
Tacitus bemoans that Boudicca鈥檚 army only attacks the cities and not the forts.
.
Boudicca鈥檚 army must have been effective as they actually destroyed the ninth legion鈥檚 infantry. There are not many records of legions being destroyed in Britannia. So this was a major blow, a city destroyed and a legion defeated.
News must have flashed around the country and perhaps led to local uprisings (Tacitus remarks that Seutonius marched 鈥渁mmidst a hostile population鈥)
Poenius Postumius was commanding the IInd Augusta based at Exeter in the West. Perhaps he had his own problems in trying to keep the West Country under control.
The only problem that I see with a protracted campaign is why weren鈥檛 troops dispatched from Gaul to support Seutonius?
kind Regards - TA -
Message 29
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
It is interesting that the Britons did not try to destroy the forts and according to Tacitus did not bother to attack other forts only the undefended cities.
Does this mean that they didn鈥檛 see the forts as a problem as they were manned by too few soldiers or that the forts were impregnable and weren鈥檛 worth the loss of life for the attackers?听
Somewhere between the two, I'd guess. For his Anglesey campaign Suetonius would no doubt have taken a substantial auxiliary force in support of his legions, which would suggest that many of the forts (and, of course, the relevant legionary fortresses) would have had a skeleton garrison. However, even then they would have been a pretty formidable obstacle. Legio II Augusta's base at Exeter, though only an earth-and-timber structure, had a rampart roughly 18ft thick at the base, and perhaps 16ft high. It was reinforced with 44 towers (possibly artillery platforms) and a ditch 16ft wide and nearly 7ft deep. Whilst their circumference may have been smaller, auxiliary forts would have had similar defences. Lacking siege equipment (so far as we know) this would have been a formidable obstacle, even with an undermanned garrison. They would not have been impregnable (indeed, if memory serves just a few years later a fortress in Germany fell during the Civilis Revolt) but it would have taken time. Possibly Boudica simply felt she didn't have the time; the forts could have been mopped up once the main Roman force had been dealt with. -
Message 30
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
Perhaps, like many other rebellions, only the prospect of plunder held the rebels together.
-
Message 31
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 21st November 2010
Hi Nordmann
The staggering size of these forts is amazing鈥︹..
The more you look at the turn of events the more it seems that Seutonius was actually starved of information.
It wasn鈥檛 until he reaches London that he realises that probably the ninth legion has been defeated and that the army he is facing is massive.
He abandons London to its fate and leaves to the West with a load of refugees 鈥 he has to escape but it is bound to be slow 鈥 which could be why he left London as a prize with its riches for Boudicca鈥檚 Army.
From Boudicca鈥檚 point of view if she was chasing the Roman Army she failed.
Her army took London apart which again would have taken some time.
Then there was St Albans, another city that was ripe for the taking, so possibly the Britons were after the wealth and not really up for the fight anyway 鈥 or perhaps they were a more mobile force than has been realised?
Possibly they moved onto Silchester next taking another city鈥︹︹︹
If your idea is correct about leaving the forts alone were they off to Bath next to raze another city to the ground or had Seutonius enticed them to a place of his choosing?
Are there are clues to your idea about a prolonged campaign? Well perhaps鈥..
After the Britons are defeated Seutonius wreaks terrible revenge which is made worse by famine as the crops were not harvested (or perhaps not sown) which would make sense if everyone had gone on the march or has been said so many were killed.
Again there is support for that as the women and children were with the Britonic Army in the wagons whose encirclement finally proved the undoing of Boudicca鈥檚 army.
I think that it was in Seutonius interest to bring them to battle and possibly the Roman鈥檚 enticed the Britons to a place which suited a smaller force against a larger one. A place the Legio II Augusta could join them if possible. I doubt if Seutonius would have relied on them joining him.
There is no reason to think that the II Augusta were not being held in reserve, we just don鈥檛 know.
So why did Poenius Postumius commit suicide?
Was he just a scapegoat for the whole debacle 鈥 possibly.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 32
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 23rd November 2010
Of course, we still don't know why Legio II Augusta's Legate and Senior Tribune were apparently absent. That they were both absent does lend weight to the idea that they were serving on Suetonius's staff, but we can't say for sure.
-
Message 33
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 23rd November 2010
Hi AN
Could it be that they also had part of the legion with them?
Knd Regards - TA -
Message 34
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 25th November 2010
Perhaps.
Something else to consider. Apparently there is strong evidence that in addition to Legion II Augusta, Isca Dumnoniorum fortress housed one or possibly even two auxiliary units. That begs the question of what they were doing during the Revolt. Did Suetonius summon them as well, and if so, did they obey? Were they already with him for the Anglesey campaign? Did they refuse to go, or were they ordered to stay behind to protect the fortress and/or keep the locals quiet? Somany questions, so few answers. -
Message 35
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 25th November 2010
Came across this while idly wandering around the web. There's links to a few articles on the page which might interest you guys, principally the one related to this thread but there's others as well including immigrants in York.
-
Message 36
Posted by tanimbar (U14702406) on Friday, 26th November 2010
Hello,
The British Archaeology magazine article, "Can Computerised Terrain Analysis Find Boudica's Last Battlefield?", , has a larger (2.8mb) parent at . Note the URL is case-sensitive. -
Message 37
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Friday, 26th November 2010
There are so many plots and sub-plots to be inferred from Boudicca's rising that I would not be surprised if the Amercians don't get the blame in the end.
My view is that the violation of Boudicca and her daughters was a deliberate act of colonial politics which was interpreted by the Iceni as an act of violent blasphemy. It was this more than anything else that triggered the rising. There is plenty to suggest that the Romans got this bit of behaviour badly wrong, turning a previous ally into a violent enemy.
The involvement of the Trinovantes is most interesting as Colchester had been their capital until they had been subsumed by the Cattuvelauni prior to the original Roman invasion. It was probably the Trinovantes who chewed up the Ninth Legion or a vexillation of the same causing it to retreat to Lincoln. There is archaeological evidence which suggests the road was barricaded.
The destruction of Verulamium is very significant in that it was a Cattuvelaunian capital with clear indications that it was very happy to adopt Roman ways. Was the destruction of this town at one level a blow at collaborators but at another a quid pro quo for an earlier defeat of the Trinovantian nation at the hands of the Cattuvellauni?
The politics of Britain after the Roman invasion are quite fascinating. There are those who argue that Roman dominion never really caught on with most of the population and there are those who still hold to the concept of a fully Roman Britannia. I am agnostic on both counts but I do consider that local rivalries prior to the invasion did persist. -
Message 38
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 26th November 2010
... but I do consider that local rivalries prior to the invasion did persist. 听
Caesar had remarked on this too. His description of Cassivellaunus's career prior to his becoming effectively the head of resistance to Caesar's invasion was of a man who had been profiting from such divisions, and even causing a few of them into the bargain. Caesar himself exploited Trinovantean disgruntlement with Cassivellaunus and forged Rome's first significant alliance with a British tribe on that basis.
With regard to the paper in ferval's link above, it seems extraordinary to be expected to believe that the entire Boudiccan revolt, from inception to the end, took place inside a 16 day period. I don't remember anyone ever having made such a claim before and if it was indeed true, then Gaius Suetonius Paulinus was militarily capable to an extent that even Caesar daren't claim, despite his frequent recourse to "spin" and exaggerating his own prowess. -
Message 39
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 26th November 2010
Regarding II Augusta Legion that wasn't with Paulinus in 60-61ad, I always thought that Poenius Postumius had refused to join Paulinus, hence his shame and 'forced' suicide?
Maybe he wasn't sure of Boudica's hoardes' whereabouts, reported as being a colossal force? Maybe he'd heard of the fate of the IX Legion (slain by the rebellious tribes)? Maybe he was simply an incompetent or cowardly leader?
Maybe, as his II Leg commanders were absent, he thought he'd wait to see what Paulinus did against such hopelessly overwhelming odds, then skip the Channel, as did Cerialis of the IXth?
Boudica, as M.J.Trow says in his book about her, that, despite the Iceni fury engendered by the rapes/flogging, the rebellion must have escalated calmly and very covertly over many carefully-planned months;- hiding arms, planning campaigns/targets and covertly amassing troops etc- all via the Druids, capable of smoothing tribal rivalries and persuading Kings and Queens to make alliances. -
Message 40
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
Hi All
ferval and tanimbar many thanks for the links鈥︹︹..very interesting
Stanilac鈥檚 point that tribal rivalries still persisted is very interesting and fits in well with the regard that the actual social influence of the Romans only linked into the underlying population at an elite level.
From the descriptions of Tacitus it is pretty obvious how the Romans treated the locals at this time 鈥 with complete contempt 鈥 they were second class citizens 鈥 not Roman citizens.
The Romans were in effect pillaging the locals as part of a general policy (this included the veterans who were taking people鈥檚 lands).
I have to agree with Nordmann鈥檚 point that 16 days is far too short for this campaign but it is important to try and work out a timeline.
So when would be the best time for Seutonius Paulinus to invade Anglesey. Probably the summer but there would have had to have been a tremendous amount of planning including support of the navy.
Man Upstairs mentions the involvement needed by the Druids to get the tribes to ally themselves together, which sparks a thought鈥.could this whole rebellion have been part of a Druid counter attack intentionally designed to smash the Romans and eject them from Brittania?
Had it been noticed that the Romans tended to concentrate a majority of their forces into campaigning and often left themselves thinly spread?
Were the ninth and the 2nd Augusta under strength by having to send some troops in support of Seutonius Paulinus? It would seem logical that if the top commanders of the 2nd were not in Exeter that they were commanding troops under Seutonius Paulinus in Anglesey.
The ninth loses its infantry and the cavalry that are left retreat to a fort yet the replacements for the ninth later only amount to some two thousand men so were there in fact a number of the ninth with Seutonius Paulinus as well?
Obviously the Britons did not feel that they needed to worry about troops in the South East after they ninth had been defeated. Was it the case that Seutonius Paulinus had gravely under estimated the need to ensure that enough troops were there to keep control of the natives?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 41
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 27th November 2010
the worse thing people can do when deliberating boudiccas revolt is to think that she had some contol over it and try to work out tactical decisions
she and her daughters were violated - the icenis revolt and kill romans
the trinovantes who have been waiting for years join in and kill the nearest romans - cochester
next place is london
after that - st albans - on the way to fight the main roman force - at that time paulinus in wales
anything on the way will do - just kill romans - she at this point has no control of her troops - no one wants to attack strongpoints - the real enemy is paulinus and the main roman army
postumus in a defensible fort - does the sensible thing - husbands his resources - waiting for the later reinforcements from rome as he knows paulinus has no chance against boudicca - why sacrifice his troops
after paulinius has done the impossible - against the odds - he now looks like a coward - which he isnt - he did the sensible thing
what else could he do apart from falling on his sword - how would he have been received in rome after the result?? -
Message 42
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 28th November 2010
An excellent summarisation, stalti, of both Tacitus's and Dio Cassius's version. What you aver is exactly what they also wished their readership, a Roman one, also to infer from their accounts of the Boudiccan revolt. The essential ingredients are a) Boudicca is no strategical planner and lacked martial control of her army (very Roman view of female leadership), b) Postumus is an honourable man who made a tactical error and did the stoic thing afterwards (very Roman idealism), and c) Suetonius through patience, strategic brlliance and good fortune won the day for the Romans (another great Roman ideal, this time of good generalship).
The problem with this analysis is that it is too patently pat to ring true. Avoiding attacking Roman forts, for example, is not necessarily "proof" of the "rabble's rabbledom". In fact it could well have been proof of the opposite. The Roman forts in the south of England had been strategically placed. Avoiding them on the part of Boudicca's army smacks of a counter-strategy in operation, and a very clever one indeed had it ultimately worked. Destroy that which the forts were designed to protect and the forts themselves, however well constructed and manned they might be, become islands in enemy territory. One would be inclined to believe that a "rabble", and especially one fired up by initial success as they were (including routing a legion), would find it hard put not to have a go at any forts in the vicinity, and that it would take a well respected authority to ensure that they didn't and that the overall counter-strategy was thus adhered to.
The other thing which escapes invitation for scrutiny from the Roman authors is the mobility of the rebelling forces. It was not getting bogged down en route, something which would have been eminently expectable had it really been a "rabble" intent on massacre and the destruction of Roman social fabric alone. History has umpteen examples of such rabbles when, once satiated with a huge initial success in achieving this ambition, become almost immediately uncontrollable, not least by their own commanders. The focus and chain of command required to prolong such a campaign therefore dissipates very quickly, and the notion that such a resulting rabble could be persuaded to do anything cohesively afterwards, let alone forced marches through dangerous territories in pursuit of a greater goal, is almost laughable.
Yet this seems to be exactly what Boudicca achieved. She persuaded those under her that the job was not finished until the main legionary forces were also destroyed, the town-destruction being therefore not an end in itself but a method of "flushing out" this force so that it could be met head-on, preferably on her own terms. Hindsight proves this a miscalculation, but then it was a calculation she was also trying to weight in her favour by using the interim period to crush Roman morale (and, I assume, supply of provisions). Getting a few hundred thousand people to all share this same strategy is not the talent of a mere figurehead, and nor is their compliance the behaviour of a rabble.
Tacitus's subtext is that the whole episode was vey much "a near thing", and i suspect the Postumus bit was added to the narrative to emphasise this point. Suetonius Paulinus averted disaster (in Roman eyes) even without the full assistance of his remaining forces. In a society which still saw the Gaul as the bogeyman and Brennus still a name used to put manners on those who complacently regarded Rome as undefeatable, it would have been remiss of an historian of Tacitus's stature, especially in the age and place in which he lived, not to have made the point too. -
Message 43
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 4th December 2010
Hi All
It probably is important that we look at Tacitus and Dio鈥檚 descriptions in the light of protection of Roman ideals and indeed the Roman Army and its leaders in Britain as Nordmann indicates.
This whole episode was a disaster that didn鈥檛 reflect very well on either the Roman Administration or the Army and was extremely expensive in terms of loss of life for Roman Veterans, Property and Britons and any associated Roman Investments.
So a positive gloss had to be put on the record to protect the political lives of many of the combatants including perhaps the officers with Seutonius Paulinus including Agricola.
The more you analyse it and apply timescales of movements of the various troops the more you realise that Boudicca鈥檚 rebellion was well planned.
Someone observed how the Roman鈥檚 operated and perhaps realised that the Romans were taking most of their forces to Anglesey including troops from both the ninth and second legions.
We know that the ninth were ambushed, probably during the march where they were vulnerable and the infantry were destroyed with some cavalry and the commander retreating to a local fort.
Yet after Boudicca was beaten and fresh troops were brought in to the ninth only two thousand were required which indicates that the original force was perhaps light.
An indicator that troops from the second legion were taken to Anglesey was that two commanders were not in attendance at Exeter. Could this have been because they were leading some of their troops from their legion in Anglesey.
Nordmann raises the point that the sacking of Colchester was designed to bring out the legions so they could be attacked. It took planning to ambush the ninth.
Someone knew that the Roman reaction would be to rush to protect Colchester and planned and destroyed accordingly. This wasn鈥檛 done by a rabble.
If you take the timelines into account and the distances it becomes obvious that Boudicca鈥檚 army did not leave Colchester and advance on London until they realised that the Romans were going there and not going to attack them on their home turf.
It is unlikely that Seutonius Paulinus would have split his force as he would have been aware that one of his legions, even a reduced force, had been ambushed on the march. If he had marched down from Anglesy it would have taken at least 10 days and he would have needed to re-provision. Where better than London?
If he was still fighting in Anglesey when he heard the news it would have taken him a few days to finish the job, get his army together and set off. It would therefore be unlikely that he was in London for at least 15 days after Colchester was attacked.
Yet Boudicca did not advance on London until she realised that the Roman Army was there and when she gets there the Romans have gone. There is evidence that Boudicca crosses the Thames looking for the Romans.
I wonder who actually burnt London? Was it Boudicca and her army or was it Seutonius Paulinus after taking the provisions and also the populace of London with him.
Did he set fire to the city to ensure that there was nothing left for Boudicca so that she could not profit either financially or indeed provision her Army. It is interesting that shortly after this her army goes to St Albans and raids the granaries.
Is it the wagons that prove to be their eventual undoing, that were needed for the food for her Army that was chasing a what appeared to be a retreating army laden with refugees?
Kind Regards TA -
Message 44
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
hi all again
the thing about the whole rebellion is that it wasnt started by the britons - it wasnt a cold calculated decision by boudicca to get flogged when the roman main force was out of the way
the romans started it when the governor was away - the tax collectors would never have been able to do what they did if paulinus had been at home
paulinus would have been aghast if he had been told "we are going to flog boudicca and rape her daughters - is that ok" lol
st -
Message 45
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 15th December 2010
Hi stalti
In the absence of an accurate timescale of events, and in the further absence of information pertaining to what political negotiation and developments occurred prior to Boudicca's assumption of power in a manner deemed so obviously obnoxious by the Roman administration, we cannot then know whether Suetonius Paulinus was in the area or not when the punishment was meted out to the Iceni ruler, or whether he disapproved of, endorsed or even ordered it prior to his military campaign in Wales.
Flogging and rape might appear gratuitously barbaric behaviour, but it should also be recognised that such punitive action would have been deemed apposite by subscribers to a culture for whom female leadership and unilateral reneging of client-state status were both extremely repugnant concepts laced in their minds with all kinds of political danger.
It should also be noted that the people you describe as "tax collectors" were in essence a politico-military outfit whose brief extended way beyond simply raising and collecting taxes. They were, in effect, charged with guaranteeing that the agreed economic terms attached to the succession of authority from Iceni noble to Roman rule were honoured. The Roman expectation would have been that all Iceni revenues switch immediately to their own coffers and this, to a Roman, would have been an eminently reasonable expectation given the prior investment and loans they had extended in the Iceni direction. When Boudicca effectively defaulted on these payments they, like their counterparts throughout the Roman empire's other provinces, were authorised to take whatever action was required to guarantee the money started flowing again. In fact, when the treatment of the Iceni is compared to how such "tax collectors" behaved in other parts of the empire it appears almost benign in comparison. (viz. Dacia). -
Message 46
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 16th December 2010
hi nordmann
it doesnt matter about a timeline of events - from what we know of paulinus life - there -( as governor of britain) IS no way he would have allowed a roman ally to be subjected to the humiliation boudicca was subjected to
her husband had given half the state to the romans and the other half he would receive taxes from - this from a province that was costing probably more than it delivered
i still think that the only reason he moved against the druids was that they surpassed their religious bent and had moved into a resistance role
when paulinus was away the cockroaches that had lent prastugas money came out of the woodwork and demanded their pieces of eight - and the civil servants bowed to their will - golden handshakes maybe
paulinus in place would have sorted the inheritance disputes out without the rebellion
st -
Message 47
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 17th December 2010
Hi stalti
it would seem that Seutonius Paulinus may have been a great general but from the events subsequent to the defeat of the Iceni he certainly was not an avuncular figure.
His treatment of the Brythons after defeating Boudicca was horrendous with a vast amount of men, women and children being slaughtered as a matter of vengeance.
He was so brutal that he was recalled as soon as politically possible and another brought in to replace him.
This wasn't because the Romans were worried about the numbers of people being killed but that the Province was becoming uneconomic and it was a waste to kill people rather to sell them off as slaves or use them to create wealth.
The Romans were a brutal occupying force where the Roman citizen was paramount but the occupied countries were seen as places to be used for generating revenue.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 48
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 17th December 2010
\theo
i think that is a very good call -but i think he is reacting to things that were beyond his control
he was sent to britain to try and get it turning a profit
the druids had surpassed their position as a religious group - no problem there the romans were secular
as soon as they started to influence resistance - they had to go
and he did it
after the rebellion that although he didnt start it he finished it
what could he do next - he had to show the brits that they were unwise to join in - unfortuately that meant revenus were down
less money means you are on the edge - as he found out
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.