super_girl
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2005
- Messages
- 11
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2006
can anyone help me? "account for the boudiccan revolt of AD 60- 61" ? thank, anyhelp is appreciated.
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Boudicca!!! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter super_girl
- Start date
angelduck
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,878
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
what exactly do u need to know??
Asy! U need to post a thread with info on how we cant actually do their work, and cant answer such broad questions!
Asy! U need to post a thread with info on how we cant actually do their work, and cant answer such broad questions!
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
Well said, Ducky!
Also, isn't this year 11 stuff?
Also, isn't this year 11 stuff?
white_spazzy
but why?
yeha it is yr 11 look at "super girls" date for hsc...2006.
super girl maybe you should ask for an answer to be corrected not for ppl to write your response?
super girl maybe you should ask for an answer to be corrected not for ppl to write your response?
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
Honestly, post-HSC, you realise that year 11 is a wank. I did so much better in year 11 than I did in the HSC.
white_spazzy
but why?
amen to that
X
xeuyrawp
Guest
amun, evenwhite_spazzy said:
shelley
trouble maker
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 618
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2003
hrmm i did bodica in year 12 somewhat cos its part of accountin for foriegn poilcy
ok simple answer would be that Boudica was reacting to the rape of herself and daughters and the annexation of her client kingdom. They felt they should have been able to remain somewhat indepent which had previosuly been the policy. Heaps written on it. Revolt had to be put down and caused alot of grief. She became a national hero somewhat.
haha i did better in year 12 than year 11!
ok simple answer would be that Boudica was reacting to the rape of herself and daughters and the annexation of her client kingdom. They felt they should have been able to remain somewhat indepent which had previosuly been the policy. Heaps written on it. Revolt had to be put down and caused alot of grief. She became a national hero somewhat.
haha i did better in year 12 than year 11!
Caratacus
Member
I refer to it a bit towards the end of this article:
http://caratacus.journalspace.com/?entryid=1050
To these points I'd add, in no particular order:
1. The main source is Tacitus, who was biased because he was a Roman but also because his father-in-law was a governor less than 20 years later. Agricola may have had (Gallic) Celtic origins, as did Classicianus, the Procurator (chief financial officer) of the province appointed after B's revolt. This probably reflects a conscious effort on the part of the imperial admin to "soften" the previously harsh Roman rule over Britannia.
2. The harsh governor at the time of B's revolt, Suetonius Paulinus, and the grasping Procurator also of that time, Decianus Catus, seem to have had contempt towards the Brits and treated them harshly. So the change noted in #1 may have been an attempt to make life easier and revolt less likely. When B's hubby Prasutagus died, Catus saw an opportunity to rip off the widow.
3. Roman money lenders (including the "noble" philosopher Seneca) had forced native British aristocrats to borrow money at high rates of interest, for such purposes as bulding the imperial cult-temple at Camulodunum. According to Cassius Dio, they suddenly recalled these loans and severely embarrassed the Brit aristos, pushing them into the revolt. The bronze head from the is temples statue of Claudius was ripped of by the rebels and flung in the River Alde - http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/boudica/claudius.html
4. Back to Tacitus's biases. He was pushing a line that Roman society (especially under Domitian) was decadent, so liked to contrast "noble savages" with the allegedly soft and over-civilised Romans. Hence "A contrast to the servile society of Rome is the Noble Savage type. This is embodied in figures such as Calgacus, Arminius, Boudicca and Caratacus" (Type Characters in Tacitus by B. Walker). So many of the fine sentiments put into Boudicca's mouth tell us more about Roman attitudes than about Celtic thinking.
5. The previous emperor Claudius had kept a close eye on the provinces, including his own pet project Britannia. But after his death in 54 Nero had been not at all interested in provincial affairs - apart from cultural contests in Greece - and so the provincial administration had run down and was at the mercy of bumptious types like Suetonius Paulinus. The veteran colonists in Camulodunum, in the territory of the Iceni's neighbours the Trinovantes, were, for example, arrogant and prone to thieve native land and money; so they were early targets of the rebels.
6. The revolt gave the Romans a terrible shock (rather as if the US army were severely mauled and nearly defeated in Iraq ) and I think the most important result was that the Romans seem to have made a big effort to appoint sympatico officials there, such as the procurator Classicianus and, later, Agricola.
There's some good sources here:
http://www.stephen.j.murray.btinternet.co.uk/boudicca.htm
http://caratacus.journalspace.com/?entryid=1050
To these points I'd add, in no particular order:
1. The main source is Tacitus, who was biased because he was a Roman but also because his father-in-law was a governor less than 20 years later. Agricola may have had (Gallic) Celtic origins, as did Classicianus, the Procurator (chief financial officer) of the province appointed after B's revolt. This probably reflects a conscious effort on the part of the imperial admin to "soften" the previously harsh Roman rule over Britannia.
2. The harsh governor at the time of B's revolt, Suetonius Paulinus, and the grasping Procurator also of that time, Decianus Catus, seem to have had contempt towards the Brits and treated them harshly. So the change noted in #1 may have been an attempt to make life easier and revolt less likely. When B's hubby Prasutagus died, Catus saw an opportunity to rip off the widow.
3. Roman money lenders (including the "noble" philosopher Seneca) had forced native British aristocrats to borrow money at high rates of interest, for such purposes as bulding the imperial cult-temple at Camulodunum. According to Cassius Dio, they suddenly recalled these loans and severely embarrassed the Brit aristos, pushing them into the revolt. The bronze head from the is temples statue of Claudius was ripped of by the rebels and flung in the River Alde - http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/boudica/claudius.html
4. Back to Tacitus's biases. He was pushing a line that Roman society (especially under Domitian) was decadent, so liked to contrast "noble savages" with the allegedly soft and over-civilised Romans. Hence "A contrast to the servile society of Rome is the Noble Savage type. This is embodied in figures such as Calgacus, Arminius, Boudicca and Caratacus" (Type Characters in Tacitus by B. Walker). So many of the fine sentiments put into Boudicca's mouth tell us more about Roman attitudes than about Celtic thinking.
5. The previous emperor Claudius had kept a close eye on the provinces, including his own pet project Britannia. But after his death in 54 Nero had been not at all interested in provincial affairs - apart from cultural contests in Greece - and so the provincial administration had run down and was at the mercy of bumptious types like Suetonius Paulinus. The veteran colonists in Camulodunum, in the territory of the Iceni's neighbours the Trinovantes, were, for example, arrogant and prone to thieve native land and money; so they were early targets of the rebels.
6. The revolt gave the Romans a terrible shock (rather as if the US army were severely mauled and nearly defeated in Iraq ) and I think the most important result was that the Romans seem to have made a big effort to appoint sympatico officials there, such as the procurator Classicianus and, later, Agricola.
There's some good sources here:
http://www.stephen.j.murray.btinternet.co.uk/boudicca.htm
yeh, i just got a similar question on evaluating the significance of Boudicca's revolt too. i wanted to mention the aftermath of it - like the roman's reation (not just like the next couple of years with the new roman govenors etc. but further on, or like deeper insight into their reaction) however it is very hard finding sources that discuss the aspect of its significance and expand on afterwards than the actual event itself, which i already know all about.
would anyone be able to broaden my thinking in evaluating significant things occurred? (besides the obvious) or good sources to back this up - as i have to include 5 footnoted sources anyway.
thanks if you can help....
would anyone be able to broaden my thinking in evaluating significant things occurred? (besides the obvious) or good sources to back this up - as i have to include 5 footnoted sources anyway.
thanks if you can help....
Caratacus
Member
Well, beyond Classicianus and Turpilianus I'd be thinking of the 68 revolt in Gaul inspired by uncontrolled Roman financial administrators & led by Julius Vindex, legatus of Aquitania, but himself of Celtic background. And I'd be thinking of Vespasian, who finally took the principate after the Year of 4 Emperors, but who had special interest and expertise in Britannia, having commanded Legio II during Claudius' invasion. Agricola (again of Celtic background) was promoted to the patrician order an appointed governor of Britannia by Vespasian, and reflected V's determination to run the empire in an orderly way. Under V the Romans aimed to conquer all of Britain, but needed peace in the south to free up military for northern expeditions.
"When he had instilled sufficient fear, her returned to forbearance, and displayed the inducements of peace. Consequently many tribes that had hitherto asserted independence put aside their hostility" (Vit Agr XX)
This was similar to Classicianus' approach, and reflective of Flavian policy generally thoughout the empire. Agricola strongly encouraged "romanisation". including urbanisation, the use of Latin and the practice of bathing: these were general policies during the Flavian era and on into the Antonines in the empire's "Wild West". Hadrian's imperial tours reflect a desire to improve the government of the provinces that contrasts with Nero's negligence and might in part be traceable back to the experience of Boudicca's revolt. Tacitus' writings articulated much of this in literary form to help establish general principles for the Roman elite.
John Morris has a good discussion in his Londinium, 1982 (of course Londinium itself could be rebuilt after the Boudiccan revolt as a much more substantial city). Scullard, Frere, Salway & other standard texts treat most of these matters and refer to written and archaeological sources. Richard Hingley's Globalizing Roman Culture (2005), a post-colonialist discussion of romanisation, is fascinating if you can get hold of it.
"When he had instilled sufficient fear, her returned to forbearance, and displayed the inducements of peace. Consequently many tribes that had hitherto asserted independence put aside their hostility" (Vit Agr XX)
This was similar to Classicianus' approach, and reflective of Flavian policy generally thoughout the empire. Agricola strongly encouraged "romanisation". including urbanisation, the use of Latin and the practice of bathing: these were general policies during the Flavian era and on into the Antonines in the empire's "Wild West". Hadrian's imperial tours reflect a desire to improve the government of the provinces that contrasts with Nero's negligence and might in part be traceable back to the experience of Boudicca's revolt. Tacitus' writings articulated much of this in literary form to help establish general principles for the Roman elite.
John Morris has a good discussion in his Londinium, 1982 (of course Londinium itself could be rebuilt after the Boudiccan revolt as a much more substantial city). Scullard, Frere, Salway & other standard texts treat most of these matters and refer to written and archaeological sources. Richard Hingley's Globalizing Roman Culture (2005), a post-colonialist discussion of romanisation, is fascinating if you can get hold of it.
Some things to think about (i did this as my research topic in year 11)
1) Why were Boudicca's tribe upset with the Romans (besides the defiling of her daughters)
2) What did the Romans want to do in Britain
3) Are there any other events prior to this that caused the Celts of Britain trouble against the Romans
Look at historians like Tacitus (yes this may mean reading through boring amounts of info!) who give roughly neutral views to the Iceni and the Romans.
1) Why were Boudicca's tribe upset with the Romans (besides the defiling of her daughters)
2) What did the Romans want to do in Britain
3) Are there any other events prior to this that caused the Celts of Britain trouble against the Romans
Look at historians like Tacitus (yes this may mean reading through boring amounts of info!) who give roughly neutral views to the Iceni and the Romans.
Caratacus
Member
I riffed on this topic here:
http://caratacus.journalspace.com/?entryid=1313
LynH1326, I think your suggestions are excellent, though I don't totally agree with your take on Tacitus that he is a) boring (personal preference here I suppose) or b) roughly neutral to the Romans and Iceni. Tacitus had an agenda which included critiqueing the Rome of the principate. I think he tends to show the Romans as grasping, greedy, materialistic, soft and over-civilised, having squandered their republican Libertas; and the Britons by contrast as free from the vices of civilisation - Liberty-loving, tough (though capable of terrible atrocities), unmaterialistic. But for the negative regarding the Britons, he plays on the Roman horror of women having political power (cf. Augustus' literary propagandists' treatment of Cleopatra) - let alone women being war-leaders, like Boudicca.
http://caratacus.journalspace.com/?entryid=1313
LynH1326, I think your suggestions are excellent, though I don't totally agree with your take on Tacitus that he is a) boring (personal preference here I suppose) or b) roughly neutral to the Romans and Iceni. Tacitus had an agenda which included critiqueing the Rome of the principate. I think he tends to show the Romans as grasping, greedy, materialistic, soft and over-civilised, having squandered their republican Libertas; and the Britons by contrast as free from the vices of civilisation - Liberty-loving, tough (though capable of terrible atrocities), unmaterialistic. But for the negative regarding the Britons, he plays on the Roman horror of women having political power (cf. Augustus' literary propagandists' treatment of Cleopatra) - let alone women being war-leaders, like Boudicca.
yeah there was one historian who was neutral from what i remember, so it obviously wasn't Tacitus as i first said. yes he is boring, but essential for an opposing view of the Iceni (which is also essential when studying a personality in history)
im sure its probably too late to help you, super_girl, but others stumbling across for answers may like this help. i had to do the exact same essay question earlier in the year. i cant find my essay, and it was too long ago to remember so sorry but i cant give any reccomended points of argument, but i had to do a source analysis, so you might like to look at some of these sources:
THE ENEMIES OF ROME. FROM HANNIBAL TO ATTILA THE HUN.
Written By Philip Matyszak, Published by Thames & Hudson, London 2004
This book proved to be very helpful for me in understanding more about Boudicca. Although it mainly just mentioned the actual event, it provided some insights I hadn’t previously thought about; thus opening my mind to a broader perspective of the revolt. It had good content and supported its information with sources from Dio Cassius and Tacitus. The chapter in the book that I read called “The terrible revenge of Boudicca” was very useful, even including a picture and map relating to its information. Matyszak dwelled on some information about Rome and the Britons before the death of Prasutagus, unlike most other sources, which would start straight into the revolt following the death of the King of the Iceni.
NOTE TO PEOPLE READING THIS - I HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK, I HAVE USED IT FOR TWO MAJOR ASSESSMENTS NOW. IT HAS ABOUT 10 OR MORE DIFFERENT HISTORICAL PEOPLE IN IT.
BATTLEFEILD BRITAIN – BBC VIDEO
This video helped me understand Boudicca’s revolt if 60AD as I learn particularly well visually. The presenters took their audience around significant sites in Britain related to the revolt and in some cases provided a reenactment, helping me to visualize what happened nearly 2000 years ago. Its images have stayed with me, improving my understanding and putting everything that I may have heard of read into a better light. I am to a further extent able make my own inferences about unclear aspects in the revolt. During the video I was able to write down many notes, writing down many interesting facts that I may not pick up in a book or article on the internet increasing my knowledge of the revolt.
THE STATUE OF CLAUDIUS’ HEAD/BODY, THE TEMPLE OF CLAUDIUS, AND THE RED LAYER OF ASH
These primary pieces of material which date straight back from the days of the revolt are great sources in understanding the ruthlessness and anger that the Iceni felt and used against the Romans. The decapitated head of the statue of Claudius, found in a river, and evidence of a completely flattened Temple of Claudius give me a better insight into the feelings of the Iceni towards the Romans. The red layer of ash, which is still present in some parts of Britain today, reinforces the ideas of how the Iceni felt about the Romans. It provides evidence that the revolt for the Celts, was a serious rebellion against the Roman Empire.
TACITUS’ WRITINGS FROM THE ANNALS
The writings of Tacitus are insightful because he was the closest historian to the time of Boudicca's revolt of 60AD. He provides great details into what happened involving Boudicca, the Iceni and the Romans at the time and gives speeches of what he supposes Boudicca and Suetonius Paulinus may have said before battle which really helps me understand the context of the battle to a higher degree. Being closer to that era gives me confidence on his knowledge of Boudicca and Rome than we could today without his writings. He has provided a great source of information about the revolt.
hope someone finds this helpful. but please dont plagarise (more for your sake than mine) .
THE ENEMIES OF ROME. FROM HANNIBAL TO ATTILA THE HUN.
Written By Philip Matyszak, Published by Thames & Hudson, London 2004
This book proved to be very helpful for me in understanding more about Boudicca. Although it mainly just mentioned the actual event, it provided some insights I hadn’t previously thought about; thus opening my mind to a broader perspective of the revolt. It had good content and supported its information with sources from Dio Cassius and Tacitus. The chapter in the book that I read called “The terrible revenge of Boudicca” was very useful, even including a picture and map relating to its information. Matyszak dwelled on some information about Rome and the Britons before the death of Prasutagus, unlike most other sources, which would start straight into the revolt following the death of the King of the Iceni.
NOTE TO PEOPLE READING THIS - I HIGHLY HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS BOOK, I HAVE USED IT FOR TWO MAJOR ASSESSMENTS NOW. IT HAS ABOUT 10 OR MORE DIFFERENT HISTORICAL PEOPLE IN IT.
BATTLEFEILD BRITAIN – BBC VIDEO
This video helped me understand Boudicca’s revolt if 60AD as I learn particularly well visually. The presenters took their audience around significant sites in Britain related to the revolt and in some cases provided a reenactment, helping me to visualize what happened nearly 2000 years ago. Its images have stayed with me, improving my understanding and putting everything that I may have heard of read into a better light. I am to a further extent able make my own inferences about unclear aspects in the revolt. During the video I was able to write down many notes, writing down many interesting facts that I may not pick up in a book or article on the internet increasing my knowledge of the revolt.
THE STATUE OF CLAUDIUS’ HEAD/BODY, THE TEMPLE OF CLAUDIUS, AND THE RED LAYER OF ASH
These primary pieces of material which date straight back from the days of the revolt are great sources in understanding the ruthlessness and anger that the Iceni felt and used against the Romans. The decapitated head of the statue of Claudius, found in a river, and evidence of a completely flattened Temple of Claudius give me a better insight into the feelings of the Iceni towards the Romans. The red layer of ash, which is still present in some parts of Britain today, reinforces the ideas of how the Iceni felt about the Romans. It provides evidence that the revolt for the Celts, was a serious rebellion against the Roman Empire.
TACITUS’ WRITINGS FROM THE ANNALS
The writings of Tacitus are insightful because he was the closest historian to the time of Boudicca's revolt of 60AD. He provides great details into what happened involving Boudicca, the Iceni and the Romans at the time and gives speeches of what he supposes Boudicca and Suetonius Paulinus may have said before battle which really helps me understand the context of the battle to a higher degree. Being closer to that era gives me confidence on his knowledge of Boudicca and Rome than we could today without his writings. He has provided a great source of information about the revolt.
hope someone finds this helpful. but please dont plagarise (more for your sake than mine) .