Boudicca’s Rebellion: Re-Evaluating the Popular Narrative Word Count: 4,316 (including footnotes) Abstract: Boudicca’s apparently spontaneous rebellion against Roman rule in the 1st century AD established her as one of Britain’s greatest national heroes and cultural icons. Revered for her bravery, resolve and unwillingness to yield to tyranny, she is regarded as a paragon of fighting spirit, and to this day her name is invoked for a variety of political and ideological causes. When a figure is so central to modern national identity, an accurate understanding of history is crucial to properly evaluate the inevitable attempts to appropriate and politicise his or her legacy. An examination of the source materials in the works of Tacitus and Dio, however, shows that a sudden uprising, predicated on a few specific acts of Roman brutality, is highly unlikely. Rather, this paper presents an alternative hypothesis - that Boudicca had been fomenting insurrection for some time prior to the death of her husband Prasutagus and did so in response to a long pattern of Roman abuse and exploitation. Supporting this hypothesis is an examination of the client status of Prasutagus using parallels with another British client monarch in Queen Cartimandua. This highlights the paradoxical attitude of Rome towards its client rulers and the precarious positions of clients’ consorts and subjects. Additional evidence includes the Romans’ disproportionately violent treatment of Boudicca and her daughters, the timing of key events, and the logistics of such a large uprising. A fuller understanding of her narrative moves Boudicca beyond the gendered stereotype of a reactive, emotionally-motivated warrior queen. She was a planner, strategist, and alliance builder, and should be recognised as such. * 1 Boudicca’s Rebellion: Re-Evaluating the Popular Narrative In the 1st century AD, Boudicca revolted against the might of the Roman Empire. Leading a colossal army of her fellow Britons, she defeated the IX Legion, sacked three cities, and brought the Roman province to the brink of collapse. Renowned for her inspirational leadership, ferocity in battle and sheer strength of character, Boudicca established herself as an icon of fighting spirit in the face of oppression. From suffragists to Brexiteers, her name has been invoked for a panoply of political and ideological causes.1 That her rebellion ultimately failed is of little consequence to her champions – what counts is her indomitable spirit and resolute refusal to yield to tyranny.2 Boudicca’s story is told primarily by Tacitus in Agricola and Annales and Cassius Dio in Historia Romana, with further passing references by Suetonius in De Vita Caesarum and Tacitus again in Historiae. The narrative begins with the death of her husband, King Prasutagus of the Iceni, circa 60 AD.3 Having ruled his people as a client king of Rome, he bequeathed half his kingdom to his two daughters by Boudicca and half to Emperor Nero. The Romans, however, did not honour the will, and set about confiscating the lands of Icenian nobles. Most shockingly of all, Boudicca was flogged, and her daughters raped. Incensed by such abuse, the Iceni rose up under Boudicca’s leadership and attacked Camulodunum, defeating the IX Legion and destroying the city.4 As the rebellion gathered momentum, Legate Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, campaigning in Mona5 with the XIV Legion, marched his forces eastward to protect Londinium.6 Although he arrived ahead of Boudicca, he determined that the city was indefensible and abandoned it to the rebels, who razed it and Verulamium7 to the ground, slaughtering all who had not been able to evacuate in time. When the armies of Boudicca and Paulinus finally met, the rebels had built up a seemingly overwhelming numerical advantage. The Britons, however, were 1 For an example of such political appropriation, see The Fighting Spirit of Boudica, Warrior Queen, Lives On In Brexit Britain by the classicist Daisy Dunn (2020). 2 Several different spellings of Boudicca have been used over the centuries, including Boudica, Boudicca, Buduica and Boadicea. As Tacitus uses the spelling Boudicca in his original sources, this is the spelling that will be used here. 3 The Iceni were a British tribe centred near modern-day Norwich with a territory extending across what is now East Anglia. 4 Camulodunum is modern-day Colchester, Essex. At the time of the rebellion, it was a colony for retired Roman veterans, having been captured from the Catuvellauni during the invasion of Claudius. 5 Mona is modern-day Anglesey. 6 Londinium is modern-day London. 7 Verulamium is modern-day St Albans, Hertfordshire. 2 no match in open battle for Rome’s better equipped and trained legionaries, and were decisively beaten. Boudicca died, either through suicide or illness, and the rebellion was crushed. From defeat, however, rose the spirit of Boudicca, who has lived on ever since as the quintessential warrior queen, a proud and righteous resister of tyranny, and a British national legend.8 All too often, however, legends are forged at the expense of truth, and as a grand narrative crystallises in the national consciousness, objective evaluation can become muted. Traditional interpretations of the historical accounts often present Boudicca’s rebellion as sudden and spontaneous, with the brutal mistreatment of her and her daughters emphasised as key catalysing events. Undoubtedly, this narrative packs a heavy emotional punch, as Boudicca transcends from a mere Icenian separatist to a usurped queen, exploding with righteous fury to exact a bloody and brutal vengeance upon her daughters’ defilers. It is visceral, raw and intensely personal. We can share in Boudicca’s ire, feeling it ourselves and empathising with the lust for revenge, and her ultimate defeat only deepens the pathos. Crucially for those who would invoke Boudicca’s spirit for their own ideology, it is a narrative easily transposed. Boudicca can just as easily represent all women as she can the British public; the Romans can just as easily represent the patriarchy as they can the European Union. An examination of the primary sources, however, gives significant cause to doubt the narrative of a sudden rebellion predicated largely on the abuse suffered by Boudicca and her daughters. Rather, an alternative hypothesis will be presented that Boudicca had in fact been fomenting rebellion against Rome for some time prior to the death of Prasutagus, and that by the time the uprising had erupted in full, significant planning, preparation and alliance building had already been undertaken. Additionally, while Boudicca’s flogging and the rape of her daughters are horrific examples of wanton Roman cruelty, they are only a representative part of a much broader pattern of systematic abuse suffered by the Iceni since their first contact with Rome during the invasion of Claudius in 43 AD. Several lines of evidence support this hypothesis, including the timing of key events and the logistics of Boudicca’s rebellion. Furthermore, it is a hypothesis that provides potential answers to several key questions that are not satisfactorily resolved in the traditional narrative, including why Boudicca was excluded from Prasutagus’s will, why the Romans reacted with such disproportionate cruelty to her and her 8 Due to Boudicca’s heroic status, the reported violence of her rebellion is often omitted from popular narratives, but it would be remiss to ignore it here. ‘No form of the savagery common to barbarians was omitted,’ writes Tacitus. Dio goes further, recording how those taken captive by the rebels ‘were subjected to every known form of outrage’ and describing in detail the heinous gendered and sexualised violence exacted on the civilian populations overrun by Boudicca and her forces (Tacitus, Agri. 16; Dio, Hist. Rom. 62.7). 3 daughters, and how she was able to raise such a large army so quickly. Before examining these matters in full, however, it is important to contextualise the political climate of Britain in the 1st century AD. In particular, the client status of King Prasutagus is an important but neglected factor in assessing the circumstances of Boudicca’s rebellion. Another British client monarch and contemporary of Boudicca is Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes. Together with her consort Venutius, they are a revealing counterpoint to Prasutagus and Boudicca and provide further support for the hypothesis of a planned rebellion. The term client king was not used by the Romans. Rather, the official designation, approved by the Senate, was rex sociusque et amicus (king and ally and friend). Primarily a tool of territorial expansion, client status had been used since at least the 3rd century BC to reward cooperating monarchs of non-Roman peoples with both a degree of independence and material support: ‘Occasionally … by our armed forces,’ wrote Tacitus, ‘more often by money, which is equally effective.’9 In return, Rome was able to avoid unnecessary military conflict and establish buffer zones between itself and untamed frontiers. As equitable as the arrangement might seem, however, there was no equivalence between a client king and Rome in authority. Tacitus, famous for his deep antipathy towards all forms of monarchy, describes them as inservientes reges (slave kings).10 He is equally blunt regarding their purpose: ‘It is an ancient and now long-established practice of the Roman people to use even kings as instruments of enslavement.’11 Thus, the client king was in the precarious position of simultaneously being slave and master, of practical use, but regarded with disdain. As a point of comparison, Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes is another example of a British client monarch contemporary to Prasutagus and Boudicca.12 Her story is told solely by Tacitus in Annales and Historiae, and is fascinating as a study of a pro-Roman client monarch. In 51 AD, a chieftain of the Catuvellauni tribe named Caratacus sought refuge with her after a failed uprising against Roman rule in Wales.13 As a client queen of the Empire, however, she arrested Caratacus and handed him over to the imperial authorities, an act of loyalty for which 9 Tacitus, Germ.