Boudica

The British Revolt Against Rome AD 60

Graham Webster

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781138173637
• eBook ISBN: 9781134971602
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Roman Ancient History
• Index: History

Queen Boudica, leader of the Iceni, revolted against the Romans in AD60 only to have her efforts avenged by a humiliated Roman army. This lively and fascinating book examines in detail the evidence and theories which surround these events.

1

Sources

When Queen Victoria travelled on her exciting tour of northern Scotland in 1872, she found many roads decked with triumphal arches bearing messages in Gaelic AR BUIDHEACHAS DO’N BHUADHAICH – ‘To Victoria, our gratitude’.¹ Here the Gaelic shows the connection with the distant Celtic tongue, in the word for victory – bouda, which in modern Welsh is buddug.² The name of the famous queen of the Iceni was actually Boudica, which meant precisely ‘Victoria’. The word appears in similar forms on inscriptions, one of the most interesting of which was found in Bordeaux in 1921. It is an altar to the goddess Tutela Boudiga, the local deity called ‘the victorious’.³ Another example of Boudica as a personal name appears on a stone in Lusitania.⁴ But this is not the version which has come down to us from the Latin historian Tacitus. First of all Tacitus himself got it wrong by giving the lady two ‘c’s calling her Boudicca; then someone copied a manuscript in the Middle Ages inscribed an ‘a’ instead of a ‘u’ and an ‘e’ instead of the second ‘c’ – quite easy mistakes to make. Thus the romantic Victorian poets helped to perpetrate this error which still remains with us, since most people know her as Queen Boadicea. Her actual name is Boudica, and that is what we will continue to use in this study. The name is the only link between these two great women, both enshrined in British history but separated by almost two millennia. We know much about Queen Victoria, some of it in great detail, what she ate and what she thought, although the historians still complain about the loss of important personal papers.

ANCIENT HISTORIANS

Boudica will always remain in the grey shadow of history, since all we know of her is to be found in two classical writers who may have derived most of their material from the same original source. Tacitus, the Roman senator and consul was writing his Annals only fifty years after the event. He had access to the Imperial archives, but above all Gnaeus Iulius Agricola was his father-in-law. Agricola became Governor of Britain in AD 78 and we know of his campaigns against the tribes of Scotland from his biography by Tacitus. However, Agricola is unique among Roman military men in serving three terms in the same province on the ascending ladder in the career of a Roman senator. His first military appointment was as a tribune, the senior of five officers and known as tribunus laticlavius, i.e. of the broad strip (on the toga) signifying his senatorial status, the other tribunes being of the equestrian order; then as legionary commander, of Legio XX Valeria, and finally as Governor. It was during his three-year appointment as a tribune that the Revolt took place. Agricola would have known about it in detail, and he may even have taken part in the main military action. Unfortunately, of the four legions in Britain at that time, we do not know which was the one in which he served, but a case could be made for Ilnd Augusta, then at Exeter. It was customary for governors on important campaigns to appoint senior officers from legions, not actually engaged, as staff officers to his command HQ. This could have applied to Agricola and may account for the Ilnd Augusta being under the command of the third officer in the chain of legionary command, the praefectus castrorum, at a critical moment, but more of that later. The point to be made here is that Agricola could have given Tacitus an eyewitness account of the events, as well as a shrewd political commentary. But Tacitus was too good an historian to magnify single events in a remote province out of proportion in his vast sweep of Imperial history. So his account, although of undoubted accuracy, is over-concise and we could now wish he had indulged his knowledge, even to mentioning the part played by his father-in-law. But, to the stiff, unbending Roman, it would have been improper to introduce family matters into his great political tract (for the Annals is a piece of propaganda, and, although on a vast canvas, has a remarkable balance and was written with consummate craft). We have to make what we can of his account, which includes only the more significant details, omitting so much of interest and importance, as we attempt to piece together the fragments of this intricate jig saw.

Cassius Dio, our other source, was a Greek historian writing at the end of the second century. His History of Rome has many faults, since he accepted his sources uncritically and much of his lengthy work has only survived in the form of epitomies. These are not précis but careful selections. The choice of the material was not made so much for readers of history, but to provide suitable dramatic passages for readings. Public and private readings were a feature of life in high society in classical times, and there were highly skilled professionals who could be hired for these occasions. This practice can be linked with all the deep Roman interest in rhetoric, one of the chief subjects in the school curriculum. The motivation was not a political one but the necessity for it in the law courts, one of the chief means of advancement open to those of the right social background. Not only did it bring political rewards but great wealth to the skilled advocate, and the Roman passion for litigation seems boundless. It was not the pen which was mightier than the sword, but the golden tongue. Reading was regarded by most as a tiresome necessity, and those who indulged in it were the philosophers who were despised by the normal conservative Roman to whom tradition was a sacred element in the fabric of society. So the fashionable dinner parties included readings between the many courses, and this helps to explain the way in which the epitomators’ made their selections.

They provided passages suitable for such occasions, and where the historical events demanded speeches, these were the high points in the performance. Great pains were taken in the arrangement and wording of these pieces of rhetoric put into the mouths of the chief protagonists. Very often the occasion was a battle before which the commanders addressed their forces. It would have been impossible in most circumstances for these men to have delivered the bombastic pieces of rhetoric found in the histories. Orders of the day, before an engagement, had to be curt and to the point. Tacitus appreciated this and apart from Caesar, one of the few such speeches that he records is the one attributed to Suetonius Paullinius before the decisive battle against Boudica.

Ignore the din made by these barbarians and their empty threats, there are more women than men in their ranks. They are not soldiers, nor are they properly equipped, we have beaten them before and when they see our weapons and valour they’ll crack – what glory awaits you, our small fame will win the renown of the whole army, stick together, throw the javelins, strike forward with your shield bosses, finish them off with your swords, forget about booty, go in and win and you’ll have the lot.

This is blunt soldier talk probably heard by Agricola who passed it on to Tacitus. Quite different is the account by Dio, which includes three speeches delivered to different bodies of troops. They are neat pieces of rhetoric, not the sensible practical words which have a touch of reality. Apart from these two accounts, the whole event is treated in a single sentence by Suetonius Tranquillus in his Biographies of the Twelve Caesars. There is also an important comment attributed to Nero – the idea of withdrawing his forces from Britain. Unfortunately, this is not placed in any context and will have to be considered in the more detailed discussion below.

If one had only the historical account, one could speculate endlessly on the campaigns and this is precisely what the antiquaries of the past did and continue to do. The siting of the last great battle has created in elderly gentlemen that furious obstinacy which only comes from the certain feeling of being absolutely right. With much waving of umbrellas and walking sticks, have come some strange ideas, the oddest perhaps that the battle was fought under platform 10 at King’s Cross Station.⁶

THE CONTRIBUTION OF ARCHAEOLOGY

The growth of knowledge and the development of archaeology as a more precise study enable us now to take a more objective and sober view. The new evidence comes from three main sources. There is the find made casually by the plough or in cutting a drainage trench, which, when identified by a discerning eye, might give a hint of something worth examining on the ground. If this kind of discovery is fully recorded and placed in a local museum, identification and study can follow and with that its possible significance. We know much more than we did some years ago about the kind of military equipment used by different units of the Roman army, and the finding of even small fragments which could be recognised might well lead towards the discovery of a fort. These small and often heavily corroded pieces of metal have belonged to a legionary or an auxiliary or infantry or cavalry, or perhaps a specialist unit. Many fragments exist already in our museums which are wonderful storehouses of knowledge, often untapped, since so many of these collections have never been fully studied or published. It is here that one might begin a study of the distribution of specific types of archaeological artefacts. I well remember my excitement on a casual visit to the Scunthorpe Museum, noticing on display a tiny scrap of bronze from Owmby Cliffe, a well-known Roman site half-way on the road north from Lincoln to the Humber. It had a peculiar shape which made it instantly identifiable to me as a hinge of Roman infantry armour and could indicate a military presence at this place. Some finds are published, many in old reports, where they may be both badly drawn and wrongly described. It was a group of bronzes, rather poorly illustrated in an annual report of the Thoroton Society,⁷ that first drew my attention to the possibility of an early fort at Broxstow near Nottingham. But, alas, by that time most of the site was covered by a council housing estate.

While there is still much to be discovered in museums and old reports in the journals of national and county archaeological societies, the main source of new information now comes from excavations. It is difficult for the layman to appreciate the great change which has taken place in British archaeological attitudes and practice over the last few decades, since the reporting of such matters in the media is still ridden with antiquated and romantic ideas, more often linked with treasure hunting. During the last war the Government recognised the need to examine sites being destroyed by the building of airfields, army camps and new factories, and a small amount of money was put aside for this. It kept several archaeologists busy for some years, the chief among them was that superb excavator Professor W.F. Grimes, who was later to become Director of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London. With his high standard of excavation and publication,⁸ he could claim to be the father of modern rescue archaeology. The department responsible for this rescue work was the Ancient Monuments Division of what was at that time the Office of Works, the chief responsibility of which was the maintenance of royal castles and the implementation of the ancient monuments acts.

With hindsight it could be argued that this was not an appropriate department to develop a policy of large-scale rescue excavations and, at first, its inspectors accepted this ever-widening responsibility with some reluctance. It was some time before specialist staff were appointed, much of the work being placed in the hands of outside directors who were appointed as the need arose. The absence of a permanent team, and the total lack of continuity or an effective publication policy, created a serious situation which brought a pressure group called ‘Rescue’ into being.⁹ The result has been a large increase in the rescue budget, the appointment of full-time staff and the establishment of rescue excavation on a more satisfactory basis thoughout the country.

Even under the difficult and often frustrating conditions of the last few years, rescue archaeology has developed at an amazing pace and in terms of manpower and production has far surpassed the old-fashioned small-scale rescue excavations, made inadequate by the pitifully meagre resources then available. These earlier efforts are now seen as a very limited kind of exercise, useful only in defining the area of a site or testing its potentialities. Excavation has become, quite suddenly, a large-scale highly organised operation, requiring large sums of money, involving the stripping and careful examination of large areas at a time. It is a highly professional job, employing specialist surveyors, technicians and conservation staff, with elaborate recording systems often designed for computer analysis and data retrieval.

The scientific aspects alone have become of great importance with the growth of environmental archaeology, which deals with the reconstruction of the landscapes and ecologies of the past through a study of buried soils, plant and insect remains, animal bones and so on. The result of all this work has been a vastly accelerating rate of discovery, bringing with it a torrent of new information about our past. Much of this has challenged some of the basic concepts of the periods we thought safe from any major reconsideration. It will, however, be some years before the new evidence can be fully assimilated and the results appear in popular accounts for the general public.

In the historical events with which we are here concerned, the basic chronological framework laid down by the ancient historians, Tacitus and Cassius Dio, can hardly be challenged. What rescue archaeology has done is to add greatly to the disposition and movement of Roman forces. This gives a greater clarity to the whole and adds that essential dimension of reality.

Most of our historic towns and cities are being ruthlessly ‘developed’ to provide future generations with massive blocks of unlovely concrete and glass structures which look the same the world over. The loss in the style and variation of local material and architecture which made our old towns so interesting and attractive is sad, but the people of the future, looking at pictures of those forgotten street scenes, will only think how small and inconvenient they must have been. This feeling of the past is more acute with those of us who knew and loved the atmosphere of these ancient lanes and buildings. The work of destruction has been rapid and widespread, and there has been little time or money for the slow process of excavations necessary in those places where the early remains are so deep and complicated. Nevertheless, a little has been salvaged and out of this comes evidence bearing on the events of AD 60. Our ancient authors tell us that three Roman cities were destroyed – at London, Colchester and St Albans, known as Londinium, Camulodunum and Verulamium. Thick destruction layers, covering burnt timber buildings, have been found in all three places.

Excavation policy is now almost entirely dictated by the pressures of development, and much of the information retrieved is often sporadic and unconnected, since there is money only for work on the sites where new buildings are planned and rarely on sites which one would choose for gaining the maximum amount of information. To a certain extent this is fortunate since new knowledge can turn up in the most unexpected places, confounding ideas which can easily conform to patterns some archaeologists may be reluctant to change. It makes those who are humble enough realise just how little is really known. Occasionally, even now some excavations are carried out as research projects unimpeded by development which is so limiting in time and space. It so happens that one of the most important pieces of research work has been on a military site established as a result of the Revolt. The work at The Lunt at Baginton, near Coventry, was directed by Brian Hobley on behalf of Coventry Corporation where he was then Field Officer. The results are so important and fascinating that a separate section has been devoted to them.

AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE

The third of our major sources of information comes from aerial reconnaissance. A position a thousand feet or so above the earth gives a wonderful sense of landscape and prompts questions about the natural and human activities which have created such a diverse pattern. Above all, it is an excellent place from which to appraise the military factors, provided one fully understands the limitations of movement and fire power at each period. Many a retired army officer has applied himself to the campaigns of the Roman army without a full appreciation of the tactics and logistics involved. The appearance of the landscape too has drastically changed through the ages, especially that of the rivers which had not in those times been made captive between their banks, but were free to spread and move about within their wide valley bottoms. This is why crossing places were so important and this was the reason for the ancient trackways, which led to the places where there was firm ground on both sides of the river, rather than attempting to cross a mile or more of marsh and mud. It is only with recent years that ecologists have begun to study the details of the ancient landscapes from the scraps of evidence which survive as buried soils and old river courses. Man’s taming of the natural landscape has been a lengthy process, varying from time to time and including periods of recession, during which the woods and rivers have spread ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Maps and Diagrams
• Acknowledgements
• Preface
• Introduction
• 1 Sources
• 2 The Opposing Forces and the State of Britain 54 BC
• 3 Britain between the Invasions 54 BC–AD 43
• 4 The Conquest of AD 43
• 5 The Storm Breaks AD 60
• 6 The Evidence from the Ground
• 7 The Trail of Destruction
• Epilogue
• References
• Bibliography
• Glossary of Latin Terms and Words
• Index