Boudicca_-_Revolt

‘With reference to primary and secondary sources and archaeological evidence, explain the history of Boudicca’s revolt against the Romans. Assess the ancient and modern interpretations of Boudicca’ The Boudiccan revolt of 60 and 61 C.E. was initiated due to the oppressive treatment by the Romans as well as by the failure of the Romans to effectively govern British tribes. A mix of history and legend of the female hero Boudicca has been dramatised by Hollywood productions, enthused over by historians and is seen as a symbol of British freedom. Boudicca to Britain is still seen as an icon of national resistance remaining number four on the British ‘50 most influential women all time’ list. Victorian painters and sculptures have created many artworks displaying her strength, courage, and leadership qualities. One statue of her is located outside of London’s houses of Parliament, which has been symbolically placed to give ‘heart and courage’ to passing Euro-sceptic Members of Parliament. Boudicca herself is a mysterious character as the only written records of her existence are in the tales of two men; Tactitus, a roman senator and historian, and Dio Cassius a historical writer; we are also provided with an insight into lifestyle of the British and the Romans in that time period by Julius Caesar. (Image – Boudicca as seen in the ‘Boudicca (2003) Bill Anderson Production) Boudicca was referred to as Boadicea in the Roman annals, little is known of her past and where she came from but modern historians now believe that Boudicca was not her name at all. The unknown historians that presented the theory of her real name, have had their findings published on http://cillpiorra.homestead.com/Boudicca.html by O.Brighideach, but no reference has been made into who these historians were. The theory they have put forward is that Boudicca’s followers began to call her Boudiga meaning Celtic goddess of Victory. Latinized name given as 'Boadicea Victoria' given by Roman historians. As Boudicca’s name means ‘victory’ she has been associated with Brigantia the war goddess of the Brigantes, Morrigan known as the Great Queen in Ireland, as well as being associated with the triple war goddess. The triple war goddess has three personalities, these were Nemain (a Frenzy), Badb Catha (a Battle Raven), and Macha (a Crow whose sacred birds were fed allowed to feed on the stake impaled heads of those slaughtered in battle). So it has been suggested that Boudicca was not her personal name but a religious or official title and from the perspective of her followers she was the personification of a goddess. This assumption would help to explain the fanaticism of her followers who were drawn from many tribes with an unusual willingness to unite so completely and to pledge to follow a woman in battle. Primary sources on Boudicca and the revolt are limited as there are only three sources which mention her specifically and the uprising. Two of these accounts are written by Tacitus and the third is by Dio Cassius, a Roman historian who wrote of an account of the Iceni queen and the revolt she led. As the Celts lacked literacy skills and they did not write anything down, these are the only records available to us today to provide us with information of the revolt. As both writers are roman the accounts may be biased in the Romans favour not giving us accurate and complete information about the revolt. Accounts by Julius Caesar give us an insight into life in that time period and what it was like for the Celts which has helped historians to assess the causes and underlying factors which lead to the revolt. From the available primary and secondary sources an account of the Boudiccan revolt against the Romans can be established as well as through the use of archaeological evidence. In the first century C.E, Rome had the biggest empire and most civilized culture. Stretching from the Caspian Sea to the eastern coastline of Britain; the Roman Empire reigned over most of the existing world and had the most powerful political and military force. Julius Caesar conquered Gaul, modern day France, when he invaded in 55-54 C.E. After winning the battle and taking many hostages, he and his army then returned to Rome. For the next hundred years there was no conflict between Rome and the Island of Briton, until Emperor Caligula was assassinated in 41C.E. Caligula’s uncle Claudius rose to power becoming emperor of Rome. Like many new leaders Claudius wanted to start his reign by conducting great military campaign. He had heard stories from Roman traders about the riches of Briton and thought it would be easy to conquer. He prepared an army of 20,000 soldiers to invade Briton. Many soldiers were afraid to cross the English Channel because they had heard stories about how Briton was full of savages. Much to their surprise, when they arrived there was no-one to fight. The British had not been expecting them and when they learnt of the invasion they went into hiding. At the time of the Roman invasion Briton had been broken up into ethnic groups known as the Celts, each group ruling diverse regions of the nation. The Celts were not as developed as the Romans and were essentially hunters and farmers. They often came into conflict with each other and captured fellow citizens for slaves. Due to this motive, they had a need to protect themselves put up large hill-forts. These were erected on hilltops and had reservoirs, waterways and timber walls. The entrance into each hill-forts was powerfully built; designed to be so complex that assailants could not enter. After a long battle, the Romans defeated Caractacus and his brother Togodumnus, who were joint rulers of the south-eastern part of the island. The Romans now had control and power of the Celtic tribes. The native rulers that were allowed to keep their land were given “client kingdoms”, for example King Prasutagus had now become a client king of the Iceni under the Romans. Of course, the Roman rulers had ulterior motives other than merely being kind and not removing them from their land. They used these client kingdoms as “buffer zones” to protect Roman territory against foreign attack. In other words, the Britons would be defending the “more important people”, in this case the Romans. Through aerial photography, archaeologists have revealed building lines of circular structures suggesting that the royal residence and also the location of where Boudicca’s revolt was initiated was in a place called Gallows Hill at Thetford which we presently identify as Norfolk. It is known that Icenic ethnic groups had resided here for over 2500 years under the decree of their King. Boudicca was the spouse of the emperor Prasutagus who unexpectedly died in the year 60 C.E; the couple had two daughters who became heir to the leadership of the Iceni. When King Prasutagus passed away he left one part of his assets to his partner Boudicca and the other half to the Roman monarch in the anticipation that the Romans would let his spouse and the inhabitants exist in peace. However, Emperor Nero was not satisfied with this agreement. The Romans took the view than the whole Iceni territory now belonged to the Romans. The power of the Iceni was drastically reduced and they were treated as if they were a defeated people. The Iceni upper class were evicted from their homes and members of the Royal House were captured and treated as slaves. In many ways, the Romans instigated the Boudiccan rebellion through their own actions. There were many short term and long term causes into the rebellion. The first and foremost reason for the revolt evolved when the Romans first landed in Briton under the command of Julius Caesar in 55 C.E. They invaded the land and set up military control bases mistreating many of the people. They were then further mistreated by Emperor Nero who enforced new regulations and continuous suppression. They became powerless by the control that the Romans thrust upon them by stripping many of their titles and forcing the Celts to pay taxes, as well as stripping them of their weapons by Scapula. This caused resentment to the Roman rule and caused many small rebellions throughout the country, such as the rebellion led by Caratacus. Emperor Nero The Romans then made a critical error; not only did they fail to keep a close watch on developments in the British tribes, they also underestimated their enemy. C. Suetonius Paullinus was so heavily involved in the campaign in Wales and Anglesey, he failed to maintain a close watch on the rest of the country. Paullinus was more concerned with promoting his own career than governing Briton effectively. It is believed that he was so overwhelmed by his own ego and complacency, that he had forgotten the basic principle of occupation. With the Romans united and structured under one supreme power, and the British tribes at odds with each other, they did not appear to offer any great threat to the Romans. It can also be argued that Romans were biased towards women and underestimated the position of Boudicca as she became ‘client king’. There is archaeological evidence to support this with significant numbers of full term baby deaths at burial sites. It could be possible that Romans used infanticide as a method of controlling the population. It is also evident that there is a larger ratio of adult male burials to females. This continuing ratio of large numbers of male to small numbers female burials cannot be explained by the argument that the men could have been soldiers in battle. These two discoveries indicate a possibility that Romans valued male children more highly than female children and if there was a circumstance that meant choosing which child lives. This is consistent with practices elsewhere and throughout world history which was mostly common within Paleolithic and Neolithic societies. Roman historian, Tacitus was sympathetic to the treatment of the Britons, and wrote: “His [King Prasutagus’] dominions were ravaged by the centurions; the slaves pillaged his house, and his effects were seized as lawful plunder. His wife, Boudicca, was disgraced with cruel stripes; her daughters were ravished, and the most illustrious of the Icenians were, by force, deprived of the positions which had been transmitted to them by their ancestors. The whole country was considered as a legacy bequeathed to the plunderers. The relations of the deceased king were reduced to slavery.” * Tacitus, Trans. Arthur Murphy, 1794. “Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV, Chapters 29-37” [Online] Available: http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm'site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannia.com%2Fhistory%2Fdocs%2Ftacitus.html , page 123-124 Legend: A depiction of Boudicca and with her daughters The vile act of rape and flogging was the catalyst which led Boudicca to lead her tribe to revolt against the Romans. Seeking revenge for her people, her family and all oppressed Briton. Queen Boudicca called upon the Celt’s of many states to aid her in the revolt against Rome. Her immense power and leadership is supported by the evidence of the large number of Celts who willingly went into battle and followed her. According to modern expert Allason-Jones, the rapes were also injustices by Roman law. The punishment of rape by Roman soldiers was cutting off the suspect’s nose and granting one third of his wealth to the victim. Jones says the fallibility lies greatly with the negligent Nero, who was so disinterested in the British Provinces that laws became guidelines, no longer enforced or punished if broken. Roman soldiers in Briton knew the consequences will not be justly carried out so their actions were a major catalyst in not only Boudicca’s rage but the entire Celtic tribes, which eventually led to the revolt. Within months Boudicca had united the Iceni with another tribe, the Trinovantes, and other smaller groups in rebellion against the Roman regime. The Trinovantes' capital, Colchester, had been overrun by the Romans and was increasingly being used as a Colonia for veterans. The veterans had treated them badly, taking land, destroying housing, enslaving and exploiting them. This amalgamation and their combined rage created a powerful force of warriors consisting of men, women and children. We can see the intensity and cruelty of the battle in these words ‘The British did not take or sell prisoners, or practise any wartime exchanges. They could not wait to cut throats, hang, burn, and crucify –as though avenging, in advance, the retribution that was on its way.’ Account taken from classical Roman writer Cornelius Tacitus also believed that the Temple of Claudius was one of the causes that the Trinovante’s assisted in the revolt, stating “The temple built in honour of Claudius was another cause of discontent. In the eye of the Britons it seemed the citadel of eternal slavery.”, suggesting the ill feeling toward the control of the Romans. Primary evidence of the remaining foundations of this temple also suggests the imposing power and wealth of the Romans on the Trinovantes. The launch of the rebellion was hasty and horrifying. The Celtic ethnic groups followed Boudicca with the aim to overpower and conquer the Roman settlement of Camulodunum (modern day Colchester in Essex and then the capital of the Roman province of Britannia) and almost burnt it to the ground. Her next stop was Londinium (modern day London), which was also founded by the Romans but was not a great capital city as it is today. The angry British hung up the city's most distinguished women naked, cut their breasts cut off and sewed them into their mouths, before impaling them on stakes. When the Thames was running red with blood, the rebels torched London. (Picture to right, sketch of Boudicca, by A.Jacobs, and above picture a depiction of ‘Boudicca the Hero’ by DB.Vaine) Within a short period of time the rebellion had broadened. Chelmsford, along with St. Albans was destroyed by fire. All Roman soldiers were ordered into battle to stop the Britons. The Roman superintendent, Paulinus, was with the chief Roman defence force far-off in Anglesey combating the Druids. Druids were authoritative Celtic clerics who the Romans thought were the cause of problems in Wales. As part of their beliefs, the Druids carried out human sacrifice, which the Romans would not tolerate. As soon as Paulinus received the information that Briton was in rebellion, he marched towards London. London was a Roman establishment – a trading core of immense prosperity and thousands of citizens. When Paulinus turned up, he realised he could not protect it from Boudicca’s defence force. Therefore, he neglected it, much to the revulsion and fright of the London natives. Boudicca’s defence force tumbled down on London and razed it to the ground where the casualties were predicted at 70,000. It was apparent that in due course, Boudicca and Paulinus would congregate for an ultimate combat. Archeologists cannot tell accurately where this encounter occurred; just that it was anywhere along the length of Watling Street, a road connecting Wroxeter to London. It is estimated that the Romans had 10000 soldiers, whereas the Celts had many times that figure. But the Roman forces triumphed the day alongside a murderous gang. The Celts were unable to utilize their artillery as they were closely crowded together. They were simply victims for the Romans’ tiny blades and shields. Tacitus claims 80,000 British dead and 400 Roman dead. It is claimed Boudicca escaped from the battlefield, and according to Tacitus took poison to end her own life. However Dio claims she died of sickness. It is more likely that she would have taken her own life because as a battle commander and Celtic hero, victory or death would be her only options. Poenius Postumus, humiliated by his lack of action, killed himself when he heard of the victory. This was the final battle and the rebellion was finally ended. Boudicca's final speech to her army has been verbally passed down as such: "But now, it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged, and marked body, and the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very person, nor even age or virginity, are left unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves, and captive." The consequence of defeat was famine; the people who had joined the army had not planted their crops, gambling on capturing Roman grain stores. Suentonius celebrated his victory by taking revenge on the survivors and using his control greatly over them, taking land, killing survivors and isolating the Celts from any help. He was eventually stopped, because if he continued to let this occur as punishment it would have also cost the local Roman administration greatly. This would mean a loss of taxes and revenues resulting from the continued devastation of land. The Celts were still deeply harmed and many went hungry and became ill but the devastating consequences of whipping out the area would affect their own society too greatly so that eventually Suetonius handed over control of Briton. In due course, the Celt fighters could not overcome the Roman soldiers. Initially, the skilled, proficient Roman army was superior to wild tribesmen, however brave. Secondly, the Celts were by no means unified: one clan could deem its fellow clan a more hazardous adversary and consequently unite with the Romans in opposition to them. The Romans were the leaders of the Roman kingdom, which by the 1st century AD had absolutely subjugated the Mediterranean humanity and afar. They assaulted Briton in 43 C.E with hundreds under the headship of the monarch Claudius and by the instance of Boudicca's revolution in 61 C.E; a great deal of England and Wales was under their command. The Romans instituted cities like London, St. Albans, and Colchester. Following the revolt of Boudicca, the Romans carried on their extension in Briton and put up extra municipalities for instance Eburacum, Deva, and Isca. Their authority on Celtic ethnicity in Briton can be distinguished at the citadel of emperor Cogidubnus in Fishbourne, who put together this palace utilizing the finest attributes of Roman structural design and engineering. His bastion incorporated mosaics and hypocaust (underfloor) warm up. In Kent, a Roman cottage has been exhumed which discloses Roman aspects like confidential baths intricate. By 84 C.E, the Romans dwelt in the entire Briton apart from for the Scottish moorland. The Celtic structure of self-governing hill-fort towns and oppida presided by tribal chiefs came to an end. The Romans altered the British scenery through their development of settlements and metropoli through their premeditated highways, which connected their municipalities with further townships and metropoli. In the countryside they created roads and channels as well as using the burnt out remains to create homes and farms which lead to a profitable and well developed township. Their guiding principle was to put up such an excellent infrastructure including the indispensable constructions in a civilization including dwellings, roads and community edifices .The Roman assault of Briton began the procedure of altering British civilization from a rural-founded humanity to an urban-based civilization. The Romans as well initiated their spiritual viewpoints and their idiom into Briton, maintaining that the head of clans be trained how to articulate in Latin. As Briton turned to be a Roman protectorate, Celtic ethnicity started to diminish. A number of regions kept hold of their Celtic distinctiveness like Cornwal and the north of Scotland. In the book ‘The Life and Death of a Druid Prince’ by Anne Ross and Don Robins, they link the death of Lindow Man in part to the fall of Boudicca. They connect three major disasters that had occurred to the Celts around the time of his death. The Druids had been defeated and the sacred groves on Anglesey destroyed, the rebellion that had seemed unstoppable resulted in defeat for the Celts and the death of Boudicca. Due to the war and the large number of civilians that had perished, the lack of farming and with Suetonius on a rampage of getting revenge by killing any surviving rebel, as well as taking their land and causing the Celts to face malnutrition and many dying from starvation. The many religious and superstitious Celts may have believed that the Gods no longer looked on them favourably. The Romans, despite their lack of numbers seemed to be unbeatable. The vengeful Gods would have needed to be placated and an important sacrifice was needed. That sacrifice was the man they identified as Lovernois; high ranking and willing, his selection made the sacrifice all the more powerful. The book progresses to argue that Boudicca was queen and priestess, and possibly a druidess. This may have been the reason she was able to raise and control such a huge army. They note that in Tacitus’s writing he states that Boudicca released a hare between the two armies before the battle; this is an indication of a priestess seeking augury. They also note that the mutilation of the dead indicates they many were not just killed but sacrificed to the Celtic Goddess Andrasta, they maintain that Boudicca was her priestess. The book continues on to say that the Romans grudgingly admired the strategy and marshalling of Celtic forces. The Celtic army was marked by a competent, skilful strategist. So it could be concluded that Boudicca’s control in the last battle was slipping causing them to be such a disorganised army. The theory offered in the book by Ross and Robins is that Suetonius chose his battle site strategically; choosing one of the greatest sacred sites possible. They suggest the site may have been desecrated and burned to lure the Celts. This would have enraged the army which would have led them to act irrationally and charge in so disorganised and wildly that it lead to their destruction. Their theory revolves around the idea that Lindow man was an Irish prince. If this was true and he had seen the destruction of the Druids, the defeat of Boudicca, and the waste of so much land that now nothing stood between Ireland and Roman invasion. They found evidence that Lindow man was a willing sacrifice and outline how much more powerfully this would that placate the Gods; a prince would be a supreme sacrifice. The strategy behind the sacrifice of Lindow man was to shock and scare Briton so that they would not invade such a strong and brutal country. As science improves archaeologists have been able to discover even more about Boudicca and the Revolt. Evidence from the digging of the Jubilee line in 1998-1999 has provided evidence Boudicca and her armies crossed the River Thames which is contradictory to previous beliefs. It had been thought that they travelled against London and ended north of the river. Evidence of burned buildings corresponds to similar evidence from other places destroyed in the revolt by Boudicca and her army. This indicates that whatever stood south of the river was important enough to also have been attacked as well as indicating that the attacking armies of Celts had ample time to make the crossing and gives some further indications of the low level of opposition they encountered. This evidence also shows us that when Suetonius made his decision to sacrifice London to the Celts, he in fact sacrificed a far larger area of settlement than has been previously thought. An article in the Sunday Times issued on December 29th in 1999 indicates that Prasutagus may not be the name of Boudicca's husband and that we may not know his name. There is a single mention of Prasutagus in Tacitus’ accounts. Prasutagus may be a name coming from silver iron age coins found in East Anglia indicating an important person of that name. The coins show a classical Romanised head in the style of Nero, with the inscription SVP RI [CON] PRASCO originally translated by the numismatist Henry Mossop to read 'under King Prasutagus'. However historian Dr. Jonathan Williams of the British Museum uncovered evidence from a recent find in Norfolk of a flaw in the coin die revealing an 'E' and that the letters RI should read ESV. Therefore the person who issued the coins was named Esuprastus. Further evidence to suggest that the man on the coins may not be her husband is contained in a coin hoard discovered in Silsden Yorkshire. A collection of mid-first century coins including 6 gold staters of the Corieltauvi tribe with the inscription ISVPRASV. Dr. Willaism believes that these can be identified with Esuprastus. This is far away from the Iceni, so it is possible our notion of tribal boundaries are inaccurate or that tribes were trading. The variation in names and the spelling of these indicate the lack of literary skills within the Celts. From this evidence and the thoughts of Dr. Willaism that we can no longer accurately say that Boudicca’s husband, and the king of the Iceni was Prasutagus. The latest evidence we have was published in The Observer, on Sunday 3 December 2000 by Jason Burke. The article revealed that new archaeological evidence found by Philip Crummy and his team have showed that, when Boudicca's troops seized the city in the first year revolt they went to enormous lengths to destroy anything touched by the Romans. Testing of materials used from previous places of occupation showed houses were built of hardened clay and timber – making it very difficult to burn. According to Archaeologist Philip Crummy, 'These were not flammable buildings, but they were leveled. It was a murderous, determined, intensive and deliberate attack.’ In ancient times for the Celts, they worshipped their gods and goddesses right up to the adoption of the Romans of the Christian faith. To many cultures a female leader was unthinkable; women were revered for their ability to give life and to be caregivers and homemakers. In Celtic society, women were largely admired and had an important role within society. They number of goddesses evident within Celtic myths proves that women were regarded to have an equal role to men within their society. Celtic women had legal rights that included the right to inherit property, which to other societies was a novel concept at that point in time. Celtic acceptance of women in society meant that when Boudicca became heir to the leadership of the Iceni they did not doubt her power and ability to rule a kingdom. The Roman’s however were not of the same opinion this is evident this extraction taken from Dio Cassius, Dio's Roman History VIII . "Cities were diminished; thousands brutally murdered moreover, all this ruin was brought upon the Romans by a woman, a fact which in itself caused them the greatest shame.” Romans did not believe a woman was of great enough power or knowledge to run a kingdom, or to be able to lead a revolt like she did. As discussed previously there is evidence, although not conclusive that the Romans practiced infanticide which could prove their discrimination of women within their society. It is evident throughout that the Romans did not believe a woman was of such strength and determination that they could take advantage of the Celtic tribes. Their undermining of Boudicca as Queen that led to their downfall. For the past 150 years Boudicca has been hailed a hero and viewed as an icon of national resistance. She is still mentioned in literature published in Briton, an article published in The Sun, in March 2008 she was described as ‘as 'inspiring' and a reason 'to be proud to be British'. Early feminists often referred to her as a hero and featured her regularly in their speeches. Journals of the uprising of Briton, say that the Boudiccan revolt is still the the most significant event ever to happen to the British Isles, which shaped language, culture, geography and architecture. This excerpt shows that the Romans failure to govern the tribes effectively as well as their oppressive treatment, there underestimation of the power of a women in society, and with the lack of rules imposed against the soldiers enraged the Britain’s and provoked a major revolt and lead to the destruction of three areas. The Roman army, though less in numbers, was very structured and was a unified force. Whereas the Boudiccan army formed no regular line of battle, they were disorganised, they did not fight as a unified force, and there was no battle plan. Instead the Britons relied on sheer force of numbers to overwhelm the Romans. This was the main reason for Boudicca’s downfall. Although the immediate retribution for the rebellion was swift and cruel, the British would not give in. They continued to make war for another year, after which Suetonius was succeeded by Publius Petronius Turpilianus. The new governor perceived that the British would not be intimidated by force, so he changed the policy to one of appeasement, improving the conditions for Britons under Roman rule and laying a foundation for three hundred years of Roman occupation. The consequence of defeat for the Britons resulted in extreme loss of life. The Iceni were persecuted by the Romans. Those who joined the rebel army had not planted their crops, gambling on capturing Roman grain stores; resulting in starvation. Seutonius laid waste to the countryside, desecrated sanctuaries and forced the Briton tribe into slavery. Boudicca fought for her country, for her daughters and for her husband although she was eventually defeated, her story has been retold to generations as story as inspiration and courage. Boudicca is celebrated in English history and legend today. . Bibliography Primary Sources * Tacitus, Trans. Arthur Murphy, 1794. “Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV, Chapters 29-37” [Online] Available: http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm'site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannia.com%2Fhistory%2Fdocs%2Ftacitus.html * Dio Cassius, Dio's Roman History VIII . Trans. Earnest Cary (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), 83. * Tacitus, Cornelius: Germania, trans. by Alfred John Church, William Jackson Brodribb, and Thomas Gordon (HTML at Fordham) [Online Available] : http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html Secondary Sources * Cook, Bernard. Women and war: a historical encyclopaedia from antiquity to the present. London: ABC-CLIO, 2006. * Grant, Neil. Everyday Life of the Celts. London: Black Rabbit Books, 2004. * Pauw, Linda. Battle Cries and Lullabies: Women in War from Prehistory to the Present. New York: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000. * Potter, Timothy., Johns, Catherine. Roman Britain. USA: University of California Press, 1992. * Redmond, Marian. Literacy and history: The Celts. USA: R.I.C. Publications, 2007. * Stimpson, Bea. Quest the Roman World. New York: Nelson Thornes, 2002. * Triggs, Tony. Invaders. New York: Folens Limited, 2005. * http://cillpiorra.homestead.com/Boudicca.html * Ibid pg 319 * PBS, The Roman Empire: In First Century A.D.: http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/ * http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/81096-walking-boudicca-part-two-history.html * Richard Hingley, Freedom Fighter- or Tale for Romans' Pg 1 * Athena Review, Vol. 1, No. 1," http://www.athenapub.com/tacitus1.htm * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article'eu=120040&tocid=44735#44735.toc * Natalie Kohout, Classical Mediterranean and Europe: Historical Figures, What Do We Really Know About Boudicca' 2005; Revised- Available online at www.allempires.com * Burke, Jason. "Dig Uncovers Boudicca's Brutal Streak." Observer Dec. 3, 2000; available from http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,406152,00.html. * The Sources For Celtic Law . Online. Available from http://draeconin.com/database/celtlaw.htm#THE%20SOURCES%20FOR%20CELTIC%20LAW. * Author unknown “The Boudiccan Rebellion” [Online] Available: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/his_boudiccan_rebellion.htm