The Romans were never known for their kindness towards other countries. However, when they wrote the story of Boudicca’s revolt against them as a part of their history, they spoke highly of her. Both The Annals by Publius Cornelius Tacitus and Roman History by Cassius Dio tell the heroic tale of Boudicca’s rebellion. They mention Boudicca’s countless victories throughout the revolt until she was finally defeated by a Roman general. This defeat demonstrated how powerful the Romans were, something that the Romans were surely proud of and willing to express to other countries. Although Boudicca led a threatening revolt against the Romans in 60 AD, the Romans described her as a strong, noble character because they wanted to use her defeat as an …show more content…
example to demonstrate their strength to the other allies. Boudicca was the queen of the British Iceni tribe ruling alongside her husband, the official ruler of this Celtic tribe, Prasutagus. Cassius Dio described her as “in stature very tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce” (85). Dio’s description of Boudicca makes her appear as a strong, intimidating figure. This allows readers to understand that Boudicca is not someone to be messed with. When Prasutagus died in 60 A.D, he left half of his lands to Emperor Nero and the other half to his two beloved daughters “under the impression that this token of submission would put his kingdom and his house out of the reach of wrong” as described in The Annals. However, the opposite effect occurred when the Roman procurator Decianus, decided that Prasutagus’ will was invalid. Decianus then decided to take matters into his own hands and took all of Prasutagus’ lands by force, claiming them as Emperor Nero’s lands. This destruction included being “plundered by centurions [and] his house by slaves, as if they were the spoils of war” (Tacitus). After watching Deacianus claim ownership of all the buildings and goods in what was rightfully her tribe, Boudicca furiously objected Decianus’ actions. Decianus then had Boudicca “flogged and her two daughters raped” (Howatson 1). As if they had not done enough, the Romans caused more chaos by selling the Iceni people, both poor and wealthy, into slavery. Outraged, Boudicca decided she wanted to take revenge. She planned a revolt against the Romans with the help of other dissatisfied Iceni leaders and the leaders of a neighboring kingdom, Trinovantes. Boudicca was “the person who was chiefly instrumental in rousing the natives and persuading them to fight the Romans” but most importantly, she was the one “who was thought worthy to be their leader and who directed the conduct of the entire war” (Dio 85). Again, Boudicca is described as someone with power as a result of her ability to sway people to stand by her side even if it is against the mighty Romans. Their first target was the vulnerable Camulodunum which housed many retired Roman military personnel.
Boudicca’s Army mercilessly killed everyone in town, sparing no one. She and her army practiced “indescribable slaughter” as “they hung up naked the noblest and most distinguished women and then cut off their breasts and sewed them to their mouths” (Dio 95). These horrid methods of killing are described to demonstrate Boudicca’s passionate wrath against the Romans despite their innocence. The triumphant army then charged towards the unsuspecting ninth legion and claimed victory with them as well by “rout[ing] [Cerialis’] troops, and destroy[ing] all his infantry” (Tacitus). Boudicca and her rebels wasted no time in hitting their next target, Londinium. They effectively slaughtered all of Londinium’s people and set the town on fire, burning it to complete ashes. Boudicca’s army only wanted “slaughter, on the gibbet, the fire, and the cross” (Tacitus). She was not interested in the money she could make from prisoners of war, she only wanted death for her enemies. The citizens of Verulamium, Boudicca’s last victimized town, met the same fate as those in Londinium. With Boudicca causing the exact same destruction time after time in her enraged endeavors, it demonstrates Boudicca’s strong detest towards the …show more content…
Romans. In 61 A.D., Boudicca and her rebels began to see themselves as an invincible army and marched toward their last battle against Suetonius’ Army. Boudicca’s Army was so confident that they were going to win the battle that they brought their wives and children to watch the spectacle. However, unlike all the other armies that Boudicca had confronted, Suetonius’ Army was prepared. Not only that, but Seutonius’ army also consisted of “veteran soldiery, with their long experience of battles” (Tacitus). That was the Roman’s main advantage over Boudicca and her rebels. Strength and anger were the only possessions of Boudicca’s Army and that was not enough to fight the Romans. Thus, the Romans strategically defeated Boudicca’s Army, massacring every Briton in sight including the innocent women and children that had tagged along. Boudicca and her daughters then poisoned themselves before the Romans could capture them. This act truly demonstrates an act of nobility because to the Romans, suicide was seen as a brave action. The Romans described Boudicca’s fierce battles as noble because in the end, they were able to defeat her and her rebels. The fact that the Romans could defeat such a strong, overpowering person proved their invincibility and came off as a warning to other countries. Luckily for the Romans, this threat worked. Boudicca’s revolt was “the last British rebellion to threaten Roman occupation in the first century” (Raia 1). Some may believe that the Romans described Boudicca as a noble person because they were simply retelling the actual tale that occurred.
After all, annals are literally historical records so it would make sense if the Romans were to put aside their bias for once and just write down history. There is only one issue. The Romans are not known for setting aside their problems. In fact, the Romans have absolutely no respect for anyone who goes against them. Take The Carthage War, for example. “Carthage” by H.H. Scullard describes the fall of Carthage due to the lack of Rome’s mercy. The Romans had essentially defeated the Carthaginians by the end of the Third Punic War and were vulnerable. The Romans could have simply chosen to make Carthage an ally under several restrictions. However, they chose to completely demolish the land and all its people who were “virtually defenceless [sic] and unoffending” (Scullard 106). Rome basically had Carthage “wiped off the map” even if years before it had “dominated the western Mediterranean for centuries” (Scullard 98). Even after they had destroyed Carthage, it was not until several years later that Rome rebuilt the city to claim as their own. Never again did the Romans say any one good thing about the Carthaginians. So why did the Romans choose to speak so well-mannered about Boudicca? Also, if the reason for the Romans to write about Boudicca’s rebellion so nobly was to keep records of history, then why are there so many pieces of
information missing? In “Tacitus and Dio on Boudicca’s Rebellion,” John C. Overbeck points out all the vague information within Boudicca’s story. Throughout Boudicca’s tale, “Dio tells us that two towns are sacked” but “he does not name the towns” (Overbeck 130). The names of towns are essential to keep a historical record but that does not seem to be the case here. Another important piece of information that is missing from Boudicca’s rebellion is where the last battle took place. Neither Dio nor Tacitus informs the reader where the important battle took place. Tacitus merely states that “Suetonius left Londinium and after a short period of delaying tactics he prepared to fight, and chose the place for battle. But what place?” (Overbeck 134). If Tacitus and Dio were meant to write about Boudicca’s rebellion for sake of historical records, they did not do such an accurate job. The Romans did not speak nobly of Boudicca to keep the sanctity of history, they spoke well of her to use her defeat as a warning to other countries. Boudicca led an honorable battle against the Romans according to their records because they wanted to use her failure as a warning to other countries to think twice about revolting. Tacitus and Dio described her victorious attempts to battles against some Roman armies but in the end, she was still no match for the powerful Romans. They then used this defeat as a threat to any other ally or country that dared go against them. They did not speak so well of her to maintain historical records of revolts because they have never been kind to anyone for no explicit reason and because there is too much missing information to be claimed as an accurate record. Whether exaggerated or not, Boudicca was truly noble because she did what few others had the courage to do, fight for her justice against the powerful Romans.
“A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” –Marcus Garvey. The U.S. is a combination of many cultures and influences over the centuries and because of this we are alike to many of them. We could name many of these influences: the Greeks, the Chinese Dynasties but the Romans were particularly like us. We might see them as barbaric is some ways but the reality is that the U.S. takes pages from many areas of the Romans, and comparisons could be drawn between both of us. Examples include government, our religions, and in some ways entertainment. The U.S. is much like the old Roman Empire was more than a millennium ago
Rome was once one of the world's greatest empire until around 200 BCE when Rome started to crumble. The Fall of Rome did not happen suddenly, it took about 1100 years to take place. The first two centuries as an empire were named the "Pax Romana", which meant the time of Roman peace. The Romans were living the life, without a worry in the world. So how and why did Rome start to collapse, if the empire was was doing so grand and magnificent? To answer that question, the primary reasons that Rome started to decline were that the Romans had difficulty with their government which caused social problems/decay, their military was falling behind on their duties and became indolent, and natural disasters.
Boudicca was and still is in the eyes of many a national hero. Boudicca is an extremely important part of English and Roman history as she led the only revolt that actually threatened the Roman rule in Britain. Boudicca’s attitude was a true reflection of the way all Celtic people felt about the Roman rule. It is because of this that she was able to unit many Celts on a common cause, during a time of a great cultural and national change. Yet, like all humans Boudicca had her flaws, and though rare on occasions she made irrational choices.
When writing the Annals Tacitus was attempting to be as objective as possible. He even said that "[his] plan [was] to report a few final things about Augustus, then Tiberius ' principate and the rest, without anger or favor, from whose causes I consider myself distant." However he also seems to have an agenda. He asserts that "the affairs of Tiberius and Gaius, Claudius and Nero, in their prosperity, were falsified through fear and after their fall were written with hatreds still fresh." Was this a conclusion he came to after his research or did he determine this beforehand and seek any information to support it? Tacitus in his work focuses on the big picture and doesn 't spend any time on the lives of ordinary people. "He is interested in military power, political ties between centre and periphery, laws and revenue. A big problem with his work on Tiberius is that Tacitus is very interested in the military campaigns of the Roman empire. This is a problem because Tiberius didn 't lead the Roman army while he was emperor and so Tacitus often focuses more on generals like Germanicus and Drusus rather than Tiberius. Another problem is that throughout the book Tacitus quotes speeches. However although he is referencin...
The way that the document is written accomplishes this if the person reading it doesn’t know anything else about the history of Augustus as the first emperor of Rome. Augustus only includes his achievements and he leaves out any of his failures and shortcomings as emperor. He also frames every event in a way that makes him look good. Due to this, the document seems more like propaganda than a sincere reflection of his life to someone who knows about the history of his life as emperor. It doesn’t seem like Augustus’s intentions were for it to be a sincere reflection on his life, it seems more like propaganda to make him look good because it leaves out events that may reflect negatively on him. If Augustus had sincerely reflected on his life, I would have expected him to include his failures as well as his achievements. He might have mentioned things that he regrets and wishes he had done differently in his life. However, Augustus chose to only include events that make him look good. Therefore, the document seems more like propaganda to
money given by Cladius to the Iceni was only a loan and had to be
Boudica, having been treated and indeed flogged as a slave, decided to rebel. She joined forces with the Trinovantes, who had their own reasons to hate the Romans. Some of their land had been taken from them to form part of Camulodunum (now Colchester). One of buildings in it was the Temple Of Claudius, it was hated by the oppressed masses and became the first target of Boudica’s attack. The colonists appealed for help and troops were sent from Londinium, but these amounted to just 200 and were ill equipped for the task. The veterans and the troops took cover in the Temple but were soundly beaten after two days, the temple was destroyed and the town sacked. Petillius Cerialis, camped with Legio IX eight miles away at Longthorpe heard of the revolt and set off for the town, but he was ambushed and at length defeated. Boudica heartened by this success now marched on Londinium.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
Herodotus and Livy are arguably the earliest true historians in that they recorded occurrences with the goal accurately remembering them for educational purposes, rather than of entertaining the people. Although they do appear to attempt to provide an accurate account of the events of the time, there are some sections of the book where a clear bias is portrayed. Even though both Herodotus and Livy impart some of their personal opinion into their histories, they do so in different ways which ultimately leads to a divergence in their styles of writing.
What is known of Rome’s early history today is relatively restricted. This is because a majority of documents from that era of time have been destroyed or lost. The only reliable source of information on Rome’s early history was Titus Livius Patavium, otherwise known as Livy, with his piece, The Early History of Rome. He writes on the history of Rome in order to preserve her older glory, and provide a warning to be aware of the repetition of past mistakes.
Edith Hamilton does a great job in translating the works of many different authors of Roman literature, discussing each author's stance on literature as well as their similarities with other Roman authors. Edith Hamilton starts the book in the preface by saying: “I have considered them alone in writing this book. It is in no sense a history of Rome, but an attempt to show what the Romans were as they appear in their great authors, to set forth the combination of qualities they themselves prove are peculiarly Roman, distinguishing them from the rest of antiquity.” (9) I interpret that to mean that you cannot get an accurate reconstruction of history without the personal letters and writings of the day to show us the quality of people of whom we are learning about. The book shows us how the Romans felt about being Roman.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
“He is said to have been tall of stature… except that towards the end.” What was it that really led to the fall of the Roman Republic? There are a lot of different factors to consider when trying to determine what caused the collapse. By examining The Rubicon, The Life of Julius Caesar, and some accompanying handouts from class, this paper will discuss how the Roman Republic did not collapse because of one factor. The collapse of the Roman Republic was like that of a game of Jenga. Factors were pulled out of the Republican system just like a game of Jenga until the Republic could not stand anymore.
The interpretations of Boudicca’s final speech made by historian Cassius Dio and Tacitus state that she would rather “fall fighting bravely than be captured and impaled.” suggesting that Boudicca was powerful and heroic as she refused to live under Roman rule as a slave. As women were seen as insignificant and powerless during this time, Boudicca’s leadership skills were able to influence her people to follow her in her revolt. She targeted Camulodunum, one of the largest settlements in Britain, Londinium and Verulamium where citizens were attacked, tortured and murdered. Boudicca killed up to 70,000 people within the three cities. Additionally, Boudicca had made a significant impact on British history as the revolt itself was led by a female. Cassius Dio consistently emphasises that Boudicca “possessed greater intelligence than often belongs to women” which contributes to her importance in the history of
There were many reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire. Each one interweaved with the other. Many even blame the initiation of Christianity in 337 AD by Constantine the Great as the definitive cause while others blame it on increases in unemployment, inflation, military expenditure and slave labour while others blame it on the ethical issues such the decline in morals, the lack of discipline of the armies and the political corruption within the Empire. Three major contributions that led to the collapse of the once great empire were: the heavy military spending in order to expand the Empire, the over-reliance on slave labour which led to an increase in unemployment, and the political corruption and abuse of power by the Praetorian Guard leading to the unfair selection of many disreputable emperors and the assassination of those not favoured by the Guard.