Primary Sources; Truth Lies in the Pudding
We know she existed, but when it comes to getting insight into the life and historical significance of Boudicca and early Britain, all of the information we have is gathered from two ancient sources that were rediscovered in 1360 (Jone Johnson Lewis, 2013). The accounts of Tacitus and Dio Cassius were both written shortly after Boudicca’s life and are possibly based on the same original source. However this unknown source is yet to be uncovered.
Tacitus wrote 50 years after the events of 60CE played out, is considered the most connected to Boudicca’s story because his father-in-law, Julius Agricola, could give an eyewitness account of the rebellion since he experienced it first hand as a staff member of the British Governor (Ancient and Medieval History: Power, 2005). Tacitus himself was a Roman senator and council, he gives reference to Queen Boudicca in his written material ‘Agricola’ (98CE) and the ‘Annals’ (written 15-20 years later). Tacitus is the most extensive primary source that we have on Boudicca, and therefore the most valued. This is despite some of the inconsistencies in his reported events, such as the rebellion taking place in 60CE instead of 61CE.
Dio Cassius, on the other hand, was born 100 years after the rebellion in 163CE and his writing was clearly influenced by Tacitus’ work. It is likely that Cassius had exposure to other ancient writing about Boudicca that has since been lost. Many historians have trust issues with Cassius’ writing however, as they see him as an untrustworthy source by the way he uncritically accepts material in his work. Majority of his writing is based on pieces of speech material made to be read out loud at Roman events, otherwise known as epigrams.
When analyzing the two sources it is important to note that they are both Roman, so there is a high chance they contain bias information as suggested by how the native Britons are sometimes referred to as “barbarians.” It was the norm for Roman military writing to show the enemy as being uncivilized and animal like just because they didn’t follow the same law, order and way of living as Roman civilization. If the sources were written by the Brits the outlook on Boudicca was likely to be a lot more positive. As it stands we have very little personal information on Boudicca, rather just how she caused trouble for the Romans who were trying to invade. For a real balanced account of Boudicca we would need writing from both sides; the Brits and the Romans.
While both sources are tainted and of questionable credibility, they do portray Boudicca as possessing a high level of intelligence, being worthy to lead an entire army and as a woman filled with rage (Jane Walker, 2000). They leave no doubt that Boudicca was a vengeful queen and are certainly two accounts to take into consideration, perhaps just not word for word. Reality of the matter is that without these two sources our knowledge of Boudicca would go from limited to non-existent.
We know she existed, but when it comes to getting insight into the life and historical significance of Boudicca and early Britain, all of the information we have is gathered from two ancient sources that were rediscovered in 1360 (Jone Johnson Lewis, 2013). The accounts of Tacitus and Dio Cassius were both written shortly after Boudicca’s life and are possibly based on the same original source. However this unknown source is yet to be uncovered.
Tacitus wrote 50 years after the events of 60CE played out, is considered the most connected to Boudicca’s story because his father-in-law, Julius Agricola, could give an eyewitness account of the rebellion since he experienced it first hand as a staff member of the British Governor (Ancient and Medieval History: Power, 2005). Tacitus himself was a Roman senator and council, he gives reference to Queen Boudicca in his written material ‘Agricola’ (98CE) and the ‘Annals’ (written 15-20 years later). Tacitus is the most extensive primary source that we have on Boudicca, and therefore the most valued. This is despite some of the inconsistencies in his reported events, such as the rebellion taking place in 60CE instead of 61CE.
Dio Cassius, on the other hand, was born 100 years after the rebellion in 163CE and his writing was clearly influenced by Tacitus’ work. It is likely that Cassius had exposure to other ancient writing about Boudicca that has since been lost. Many historians have trust issues with Cassius’ writing however, as they see him as an untrustworthy source by the way he uncritically accepts material in his work. Majority of his writing is based on pieces of speech material made to be read out loud at Roman events, otherwise known as epigrams.
When analyzing the two sources it is important to note that they are both Roman, so there is a high chance they contain bias information as suggested by how the native Britons are sometimes referred to as “barbarians.” It was the norm for Roman military writing to show the enemy as being uncivilized and animal like just because they didn’t follow the same law, order and way of living as Roman civilization. If the sources were written by the Brits the outlook on Boudicca was likely to be a lot more positive. As it stands we have very little personal information on Boudicca, rather just how she caused trouble for the Romans who were trying to invade. For a real balanced account of Boudicca we would need writing from both sides; the Brits and the Romans.
While both sources are tainted and of questionable credibility, they do portray Boudicca as possessing a high level of intelligence, being worthy to lead an entire army and as a woman filled with rage (Jane Walker, 2000). They leave no doubt that Boudicca was a vengeful queen and are certainly two accounts to take into consideration, perhaps just not word for word. Reality of the matter is that without these two sources our knowledge of Boudicca would go from limited to non-existent.