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 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 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 . 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 , 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 . 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 , defeating the IX Legion and destroying the city.4 As the rebellion gathered momentum, Legate , campaigning in Mona5 with the XIV Legion, marched his forces eastward to protect .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 , 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 during the invasion of . 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 . Together with her consort , 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 sought refuge with her after a failed uprising against Roman rule in .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. 42. 10 Tacitus. Hist. 2.81. 11 Tacitus, Agri. 14. 12 The Brigantes were a British people whose territory was centred in modern-day and encompassed a large range across . 13 The Catuvellauni were formerly a powerful tribe in the south of Britain, with their territory occupying parts of Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. They were defeated by Julius Caesar in 54 BC, and again during the invasion of Claudius in 43 AD.

4 she was generously rewarded.14 Subsequently, a rift developed between Cartimandua and her husband Venutius, they divorced, and he initiated a rebellion against her. Rome responded by sending several cohorts to her aid and, after a fierce battle, there was an unspecified ‘happy conclusion’. Seventeen years passed, during which time Cartimandua and Venutius reconciled. In 68 AD, however, the Empire fell into crisis upon the death of Nero. Venutius, possibly sensing opportunity in instability, became a vocal instigator of rebellion. Internal strife among the Brigantes erupted when Cartimandua ‘[gave] her hand and kingdom’ to Vellocatus, Venutius’s man-at-arms. Outraged, and motivated by his ‘hatred for the name of Rome,’ Venutius revolted a second time, now with popular support. Cartimandua again petitioned Rome for help, and again they responded. This time, however, the best they could do was rescue her, and the kingdom fell to Venutius.15,16

Several elements of Cartimandua’s story are worthy of consideration in relation to Prasutagus and Boudicca. It is interesting, for example, that Tacitus explicitly refers to Cartimandua as a queen, which stands in contrast to his depiction of Boudicca, whom he only refers to as generis regii femina (a woman from royal stock).17 His use of queen, however, does not imply reverence. On the contrary, Tacitus makes clear his profound disdain for Cartimandua. He maligns her morality, for example, by linking her wealth to decadence, and dismisses her relationship with Vellocatus as a symptom of ‘brutal lusts.’18 Most tellingly, he styles her arrest of Caratacus as capto per dolum (treacherous capture).19 By construing this act of pro-Roman loyalty as an act of betrayal, Tacitus belies the conventional Roman prejudice of generalising all so-called barbarians into one homogeneous entity. It is quite possible that Cartimandua saw absolutely nothing in common between herself and Caratacus, or the Brigantes and Catuvellauni. To

14 Caratacus is a key figure in Romano-British history, as it was his attacks on other British tribes that Claudius used as a pretext for invading Britain. After he was arrested by Cartimandua and handed to the Romans, he was surprisingly granted a peaceful retirement to Rome itself. 15 Tacitus Hist. 3.45; Annal. 12.36, 12.40. 16 The exact sequence of events relating to Cartimandua, reconstructed from Tacitus’s two accounts, has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. Specifically, there is uncertainty over whether Cartimandua and Venutius went to war, reconciled, and went to war again, or Venutius rebelled just once when Cartimandua divorced him in favour of Vellocatus. The settling of this matter is beyond the scope of this paper, which for the purpose of expediency will assume that the first scenario is true, as argued in Observations on Cartimandua by David Braund (1984). 17 Tacitus. Agri. 16. 18 Tacitus, Hist. 3.45. 19 Tacitus, Hist. 3.45.

5

Tacitus, though, they were essentially all the same, and Cartimandua was little more than a subject barbarian queen willing to betray her own kind.20

Despite the institutionalised disdain and paradoxical double standards, it is remarkable how much the Romans clearly valued Cartimandua as an ally, rewarding her handsomely for the arrest of Caratacus and coming to her aid twice militarily. Roman foreign policy tended to be short-term, and alliances were usually established to address immediate and specific problems. In Cartimandua’s case, her large territory likely provided an important buffer zone between Roman settlements in the south of Britain and the unconquered lands in the north.21 An interesting quirk of Roman client relationships, however, is that they were extremely personal, between the Roman state and the specific monarch only. Thus, such alliances did not extend to a client king’s subjects, nobles or heirs. This point is crucial in understanding both the nature of client relationships and the narrative of Boudicca’s rebellion as a whole – upon the death of a client ruler, the Romans considered the alliance dead, and all previous agreements void.22 This made Prasutagus’s will a moot gesture, its power ex auctoritate Romana. When the Romans chose to ignore it, there was by their own standards nothing illegal about doing so, and neither Tacitus nor Dio criticise them for it. With the client king dead, the Iceni could be treated just as any other barbarian tribe. ‘[Prasutagus’s] kingdom was pillaged by centurions,’ writes Tacitus, ‘his household by slaves, as though they had been prizes of war.’23 His household, of course, included Boudicca and their daughters, now complete nonentities to the Romans and entitled to nothing. Any notion that this was a client or ally had evaporated the moment Prasutagus died.

In reality, of course, Boudicca was anything but a nonentity, and the Romans knew this – Tacitus is quite clear that she and her daughters were singled out for especially brutal treatment. Although she is often referred to as Queen Boudicca in both popular and scholarly writing, however, this title is questionable. As mentioned previously, she is never referred to as a queen in the primary sources, and Prasutagus’s will suggests she was not automatically the next in line, even without a male heir. That being said, the exclusion of Boudicca from the will is curious. As

20 Modern scholars are not above reflecting and promulgating this dichotomous Roman mindset. De La Bedoyere, for example, refers to Cartimandua as a quisling, as if she and Caratacus had no distinct ethnic identities beyond that of British barbarians (De La Bedoyere, 2015, p. 25). 21 Cartimandua is rather eclipsed in the historical record by Boudicca, perhaps in part because of her reputation as a quisling queen. However, her impact on Britain is perhaps bigger. Had she not been such a steadfast ally of Rome, Suetonius Paulinus might not have been able to defeat Boudicca. As he and the XIV Legion marched eastward from Mona to tackle the rebellion, they would have been threatened by a southward advance from the Brigantes, perhaps led by the avowed anti-Roman Venutius, leading to a war on two fronts which would have been considerably more difficult. 22 Braund, 1983. 23 Tacitus, Annal. 31.

6 evidenced by Cartimandua, and markedly pointed out by Tacitus, Britons in general had no qualms about female leaders.24 It is also clear that Boudicca possessed strong leadership skills. It is possible, of course, that Prasutagus wanted to keep his family bloodline in power through his daughters. Another intriguing possibility, however, and one that is central to the hypothesis presented here, is that Prasutagus passed over Boudicca because he saw qualities in her that he judged dangerous. In this scenario, Prasutagus is akin to Cartimandua, and Boudicca to Venutius. If Boudicca was displaying the same sort of anti-Roman sentiment as Venutius, this could well explain why Prasutagus ignored her in his will and intended to pass his kingdom on to his daughters.

Is there any reason to believe that Boudicca would have harboured anti-Roman feelings? They were, after all, allies. A brief examination of the history between the Iceni and the Romans is revealing. Although Tacitus first introduces Prasutagus as a king ‘celebrated for his long prosperity,’25 interactions between Rome and the Iceni had not always been peaceable. Although the Iceni had not resisted when Claudius invaded Britain in 43 AD, conflict had erupted in 47 AD when Roman governor Publius Ostorius Scapula had attempted to disarm them. As they would under Boudicca, the Iceni led a revolt but were defeated. To punish them, ‘lands were plundered, and booty carried off in all areas.’26 On account of her having adult daughters, Boudicca was likely between twenty-five and thirty-five years old when Prasutagus died in 60 AD. Therefore, she would have been anywhere between fifteen and twenty-five during the original conflict – certainly old enough to have experienced and understood the realities of Roman oppression. Furthermore, while the death of Prasutagus might have led to a sudden escalation of mistreatment, this was only part of a much longer pattern of Roman exploitation which had put Britons in that area under intense economic strain. So-called gifts from Claudius to cooperating tribes on his arrival in Britain were being recalled as loans. Seneca the Younger, according to Dio, had made a loan of forty million sesterces to the British that they neither wanted nor needed, and had been aggressively calling it in with interest.27 Furthermore, Britons had been forced to pay for and maintain an enormous temple to Claudius in Camulodunum, an

24 According to Tacitus, Boudicca’s speech to her forces before her final battle against Suetonius Paulinus opened with a reminder to the British of their custom to fight ‘under female captaincy.’ This is an interesting reminder that such pre-battle orations are the words of the writers themselves rather than those to whom they are attributed. Discounting the logistics of recording such a speech, which would hardly have been in Greek or Latin, and given to tens of thousands of soldiers without amplification equipment, why would Boudicca begin such an important moment by reminding her army of a familiar custom? (Tacitus, Annal. 35; Adler, 2008) 25 Tacitus, Annal. 14.31. 26 Tacitus, Annal. 12.36. 27 Dio, Hist. Rom. 62.2.

7 insult that towered over them ‘like the citadel of an eternal tyranny.’28 The Roman presence, therefore, was never benevolent or even neutral to the Iceni, but had long exhibited a pattern of abuse and exploitation. There is every reason to believe, then, that even before the outrages following her husband’s death, Boudicca had direct experience of Roman brutality and harboured deep resentment, if not outright hatred, of the Empire.

Is there, though, any evidence of rebel planning prior to Prasutagus’s death? The timing of central events is key, and specifically that Prasutagus died while the Roman legate Suetonius Paulinus was away campaigning with the XIV Legion in Mona. The importance of this concurrence is often overlooked. One historian even criticises Tacitus for ‘devot[ing] a good deal of space to … [Paulinus’s] expedition [as] the event is not intrinsic to the narrative of the result proper.’29 This is a mistake. Paulinus’s absence is crucial. As Tacitus himself acknowledges, it emboldened Britons ‘to discuss the evils of their slavery, to compare their wrongs and inflame their feelings.’ Then, speaking as if a Briton: ‘We have undertaken the most difficult step – we have begun to plan.’30 Furthermore, it is a detail that suggests Prasutagus died suddenly, as Paulinus is unlikely to have been deliberately absent during an anticipated transition of power. Although the rebels would always have had to face him eventually, it was Paulinus’s absence that allowed the rebellion to build momentum and make such significant early gains.

If Prasutagus died suddenly, though, how would Boudicca have been able to factor this in to any plans? There are two possibilities. The first is that Prasutagus’s death was as much a surprise to the Iceni as it was to the Romans, and had the effect of accelerating their plans due to its fortunate concurrence with Paulinus’s campaign. The second and darker possibility is that Prasutagus was murdered. We know nothing of his origins - he may have been king when the Iceni submitted to Claudius during the original invasion of 43 AD, or he may have been a direct Roman appointee after the rebellion of 47 AD. There are no hints of regicide in any of the sources, but Roman history is full of such intrigue. Furthermore, the example of the fallout between Cartimandua and Venutius - one a loyal ally of the Empire, the other a vocal dissident - shows that such a split, even within a royal marriage, was not unprecedented. A rift such as this would also explain the infamous Roman response to the death of Prasutagus. One scholar suggests two possible explanations, the first being that it represents a shameful lapse in military discipline, and the second being that it was a deliberate tactical decision to subjugate the Icenian

28 Tacitus, Annal. 31. 29 Roberts, 1988. 30 Tacitus, Agri. 15.

8 people through humiliation and terror.31 If plans for rebellion were already afoot, encouraged by the temporary absence of Paulinus, and Rome had become aware of them, it seems that deliberate action is more likely. Perhaps panicked by the sudden death of Prasutagus, they responded with brute force. Rather than terrify the Britons into submission, however, their violence and savagery only added impetus to the rebels, perhaps galvanising support among previously wavering groups.

The final strand of evidence that must be considered is the course of the rebellion itself. None of the sources tell us precisely how much time elapsed between key events, but the impression given is that things moved quickly. By the time Boudicca’s forces faced Paulinus, Dio says she commanded an army some 230,000 strong.32 This is a staggeringly large number. To put it into perspective, the total manpower of the entire Roman imperial army during this time was somewhere in the order of 400,000.33 Dio’s figure is almost certainly an exaggeration, but nonetheless both Tacitus and Dio agree that the British rebels enjoyed an overwhelming numerical superiority over the XIV Legion which only fielded some 10,000 troops.34 It is difficult to overstate Boudicca’s achievement here. The Britons had never been a united people, something the Romans had long exploited. ‘There is nothing that helps us more against such very powerful peoples than their lack of unanimity,’ noted Tacitus. ‘It is seldom that two or three states unite to repel a common threat.’35 Despite this historic handicap, Boudicca had succeeded in amassing a truly titanic force made up of a number of different British tribes and peoples.36 This, however, is the crucial point: if her force was even one third the size of what Dio claims, it is simply not plausible that she could have achieved this in such a short space of time without advanced planning and network building prior to the death of Prasutagus.

This paper has presented evidence to challenge the traditional narrative that Boudicca’s rebellion was a spontaneous reaction predicated largely on specific acts of abuse perpetrated on her and her daughters in the aftermath of Prasutagus’s death. Rather, it is proposed that an insurrection was already being planned by Boudicca in response to historic and systematic abuse of the Iceni people by the Romans. This alternative scenario offers logical explanations to several intricacies of the historical narrative, including why Boudicca was excluded from Prasutagus’s will, how key events such as Paulinus’s absence coincided with the uprising, why the Roman

31 Aldhouse-Green, 2016, p. 179. 32 Dio, Hist. Rom. 62.8. 33 Speidel, 2014, p. 319. 34 Tacitus, Annal. 14.34. 35 Tacitus, Agri. 12. 36 Tacitus, Annal. 14.31.

9 response was so illogically brutal, and how Boudicca was able to rally such a large fighting force so quickly. Using this hypothesis, an alternative narrative can be constructed. Boudicca, having for decades witnessed the Roman abuse of the Iceni, began to plan an uprising. As a natural leader, she built a tenuous network of support among the Iceni and neighbouring tribes. Her husband Prasutagus, however, wary of direct confrontation with Rome, planned to bypass Boudicca and placate Rome by leaving his kingdom jointly to their daughters and Nero. An opportunity arose for Boudicca, however, when Legate Paulinus took the XIV Legion to campaign in Mona. Suddenly, Prasutagus died, and the local Roman officials panicked, aware of rebellious murmurings and the popular power of Boudicca. Rashly, they cracked down on the Iceni, ignoring the will that Prasutagus had attempted to leave. Due to her prominence, Boudicca and her family were specifically targeted for retribution. The brutality backfired, however, and Boudicca was able to use it to galvanise support from any remaining vacillators. Using the networks established between the British tribes during the planning stages, she was able to rally an enormous army, overwhelming local detachments of troops and descending upon Camulodunum. The rebellion that would be retold for generations was underway.

There is, of course, a fine line between serious historical study and empty speculation, and any study of Boudicca is of course handicapped by both the limited sources and the biases of their Roman authors. As has been demonstrated, however, there is a wealth of logical and circumstantial evidence to warrant considering the hypothesis presented herein not just as a viable alternative but the preferred alternative. Why is this important? Boudicca is one of the greatest and most recognisable icons of British history. As mentioned at the outset, this makes her a popular mascot for a variety of political and ideological causes. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but an accurate understanding of Boudicca’s history is crucial if such appropriations are to be accurately appraised. This applies to our understanding of Roman history too. The traditional narrative, with its limited focus on specific acts of abuse on Boudicca and her family, belies a much broader pattern of mistreatment and exploitation. As Roman history is part of British history, and a part which many generations of Britons have taken pride in, it would be wrong to minimise, excuse or whitewash the systematic abuse inflicted over generations upon the native population of Britain by the Roman Empire. Finally, an accurate understanding of Boudicca is important in honouring the legacy of the woman herself. The Romans, for all their flaws and prejudices, recognised not just her fearsome strength of character but also her leadership and intelligence. In the traditional narrative, these qualities are obscured, with Boudicca reduced to the gendered stereotype of a reactive, emotional, furious, frenzied warrior queen. This is not accurate. Boudicca was a strategist, planner, alliance builder, and uniter of the British peoples.

10

She challenged the Roman Empire, and almost brought its domination of Britain to an end. Her methods may have been questionable. Her rebellion ultimately failed. There is, however, no reason to misrepresent her significant abilities. If she deserves nothing else from us, she deserves accuracy.

*

11

Bibliography

Primary Sources Dio, C. Translated by Cary, E. (1968). Dio's Roman history. 4th ed. London: W. Heinemann Ltd. Tacitus, C. Translated by Birley, A. (2009). Agricola and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tacitus, C. Translated by Levene, D. (1999). The histories. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Tacitus, C. Translated by Yardley, J. and Barrett, A. (2008). Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero. New York: Oxford University Press.

Secondary Sources Adler, E. (2008). Boudica's Speeches in Tacitus and Dio. Classical World, 101(2), pp.173-195. Aldhouse-Green, M. (2016). Boudica Britannia. London: Routledge. Braund, D. (1983). Royal Wills and Rome. Papers of the British School at Rome, 51, pp.16- 57. Braund, D. (1984). Observations on Cartimandua. Britannia, 15, pp.1-6. De la Bedoý ere,̀ G. (2015). The real lives of . Llandysul, Wales: Yale University Press. Dunn, D., 2020. The Fighting Spirit of Boudica, Warrior Queen, Lives on in Brexit Britain. The Telegraph. Gowing, A. (1990). Tacitus and the Client Kings. Transactions of the American Philological Association, 120, pp.315-331. Reeder, C. (2017). Wartime Rape, the Romans, and the First Jewish Revolt. Journal for the Study of Judaism, 48(3), pp.363-385. Roberts, M. (1988). The Revolt of Boudicca and the Assertion of Libertas in Neronian Rome. The American Journal of Philology, 109(1), p.118. Richmond, I. (1954). Queen Cartimandua. Journal of Roman Studies, 44(1-2), pp.43-52. Speidel, M. A. (2014). The Roman Army. The Oxford Handbook Of Roman Epigraphy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12