The year is 60 AD and rebellion is rife in the land of Britain. Tens of thousands of fervid Celtic rebels stand ready to eradicate Roman existence on this distant island. Their leader, the infamous ‘Warrior Queen,’ Boudicca. Following a campaign of pillaging, destruction and genocide, victory was near at hand for this Queen.

Yet standing in her way is the last major Roman resistance: Two battle-scarred legions now prepare to fight for Rome’s – and their very own – survival on this far-edge of the known world. The odds were seriously not in their favour, yet defeat would mean certain death. Whoever wins this battle would decide the future of Britain.

Background: Britain in the First Century AD

At this time, Britain was witnessing a clashing of two very different cultures. On the one hand were the native British Celts, renowned for their warrior lifestyle and division. I say division because, very like the Gauls and the Classical Greeks, the Britons were split into small independent nations – each having their own identity and royalty. These tribes had fought against each other for land, respect and booty for centuries; to them it was a way of life.

This way of life however, completely changed with the arrival of a new power from the continent. That power was Rome. Although the Romans had been in contact with Britain since the time of Julius Caesar (over 100 years before), a full invasion of that land only occurred in 47 AD. This permanent arrival of the Romans resulted in a new type of warfare; war would no longer be mainly between neighbouring tribes. Now Rome, through subjugation and alliances, had been taking over these tribal kingdoms one by one, using the hostile divisions and lack of unity on the island to their advantage. Indeed, these internal Celtic divisions were so hostile that certain tribes had quickly made alliances with Rome. For their own gain and protection, these tribes allowed Rome within fifteen years of their permanent arrival, to become the newest major power in Southern Britain.

Underlying Tensions

Yet these alliances and such rapid expansion by the Romans also had its downsides. The island population in 60AD was still overwhelmingly Celtic and tribal identities remained dominant in all areas of Britain. Combine this with inevitable Roman mistreatment of the native Britons (especially by the soldiers and administrators) and the past bloody conflict between the two cultures in certain areas and this co-existence hangs by a thread. Rome thought they now controlled a large part of this new land. When you look beneath the surface, however, this control was seriously unstable.

It was in 60 AD that tensions finally boiled over with the death of the Iceni king Prasutagus. Having been an ally of Rome and a king in name only, following his death, the kingdom was to be ruled jointly between the Iceni and the Roman Emperor (Tac. Ann. 14.31). What followed however was such an outrage that it would spark a zealous rebellion as Rome lost all sense of honour and dignity. Prasutagus’ two daughters, supposedly meant for joint rule with Rome, were raped whilst his wife, the Iceni Queen Boudicca, was flogged.

The Roman mistreatment of this tribe did not stop with royalty however. They also targeted the Iceni nobility and common-folk, pillaging their lands and homes (Tac. Ann. 14.31). Remember, Roman ill-treatment of the native population was nothing new. Yet the scale and severity of this abuse now, however, was too much – not only had Rome mistreated the native rural population, but also their nobility and royalty! This universal maltreatment of the Iceni was an absolutely catastrophic mistake. Now the uprising not only had the numbers from the native population, but also powerful, charismatic figureheads from the nobility; a combination so crucial to a successful rebellion.

Boudicca

That main figurehead was the Iceni Queen Boudicca. Pictured by our best surviving source for this rebellion, Tacitus, as a vehemently Roman-hating woman full of drive and determination (her speech at 14.35 is a great example), her portrayal has fascinated people for nearly two millennia.

Now, although the idea of openly powerful and charismatic warrior Queens was not unusual in parts of the Ancient World (women such as Artermisia, Tomyris or Penthesilea come to mind), for the Roman World and Western Europe in general, this was a completely alien concept. Even in continental Celtic Europe, as Christoph Bulst highlights in his paper on Boudicca,

‘no queens….are known…this is an institution particular rather to Britain.’ (you can find a link to his article at the end)

This uniqueness of British Celtic Queens is why Boudicca’s persona and powerful rebellion is so fascinating.

The Rebellion Begins

Due to resentment of Rome by the native population throughout Britain, the ranks of Boudicca’s rebellion swelled quickly. With this horde, Boudicca led a ruthless campaign against anything Roman. One legion and three Roman cities were destroyed, namely Camulodunum (Colchester), Verulamium (St Albans) and Londinium (London). The death count was staggering. Tacitus records that, in these three cities, around a phenomenal seventy thousand Romans were slaughtered (Tac. Ann. 14.33). This was a terror campaign with a deadly message to all Romans in Britain; get out or die.

The unexpectedness and rapidity in which Boudicca gathered her forces meant that any serious Roman opposition took time to organise. At the time of the outbreak, most of the Roman legions were on Anglesey; far away from Roman heartlands in South-East England. By the time these legions had returned, cities were in ruin and slaughter was rife. Faith in Rome being able to quell this genocide was almost completely spent. Many important Romans, including certain administrators responsible for the extreme mistreatment of the Iceni (Tac. Ann. 14.32), had already fled. The Romans looked beaten.

Finally, these two legions confronted the Boudiccan horde somewhere in central England (the exact location of the battle is unknown but a couple of possibilities are suggested, see here). This was the key test for Boudicca; defeat these legions and she would destroy most of the Roman forces in Britain. Lose, however, and all her support would melt away overnight.

The Battle

We do not know the exact number of troops Boudicca had in her army. It is likely, however, that her numbers were so large that it was impossible to give an accurate estimate of its size; Boudicca’s horde was THAT huge. Indeed, the Britons were so confident, that many of them had even brought their families to witness this ‘independence day!’ (Ann. 14.34) The Romans however, are stated to be only 10,000 strong, at an extremely significant numerical disadvantage (14.34). There would be no mercy for them from their vehement enemy. No longer were they fighting mainly for Roman preservation, but for their own survival.

And so, with such overwhelming numbers wouldn’t you expect a complete British victory? Well, no. What we must remember was that this rebellion was basically just a rabble, consisting mainly of poorly-armed farmers (yes, some nobles likely had lovely gilded weapons I’m sure, but they were few in number). The Romans on the other hand, were all full-time professional soldiers. Their previous battle-experience was invaluable, whilst their equipment was far superior to that of their counterparts. Yes, the British had the numbers, but the Romans had the skill. And so, what happened instead was a bloody and merciless slaughter of thousands of British rebels. The relentless power and discipline of the cohesive Roman legionaries and auxiliaries carved up any in their path. Rather than defining the end of Roman rule in Britain, the battle became a Celtic slaughterhouse. Tacitus’ staggering statistics recall that at the battle,

…some reports put the British dead at not much below EIGHTY THOUSAND, with roughly four hundred Roman soldiers killed. (Ann. 14.37)

Why did this happen?

These statistics were the reason, I believe, why Boudicca had attacked undefended Roman cities and one single legion previously. Perhaps she knew that her numbers could only overpower either small or untrained resistance. Two professional armed legions however, was a step too far. Rome had won a ‘heroic’ victory and crushed the rebellion. As for Boudicca, although people debate her exact fate, she died soon after the defeat.

For a modern comparison of a victory against such overwhelming odds, look no further than 1879 and the battle of Rorke’s Drift. Here just over 150 British soldiers fended off almost 4,000 Zulu warriors. As with the Romans, it was the equipment, discipline and knowledge that they would receive no mercy from their enemy that were key reasons for the British victory against such numerical odds. Likewise, the Zulus were similar to Boudicca’s Celtic rebels. Both, for example, had a huge desire to oust a foreign power’s rule in their land. Despite having had a previous victory, the inferior weaponry and tactics of the Zulus was a key reason for why they eventually lost. Both Rorke’s Drift and Boudicca’s revolt show that numbers and zeal alone does not guarantee victory.

The Aftermath

Boudicca’s defeat resulted in swift Roman restoration and vengeance. Direct Roman military rule was established and many tribes that had committed to the revolt such as the Iceni, were put to the sword and their lands sacked (Tac. Ann. 14.38). Furthermore, archaeological remains show that the Romans started putting much more focus into military constructions (walls, forts etc) in their territory north of the Thames. This territory had been the heartland of the rebellion.

The unexpectedness of the revolt was what really shook Rome and so they did what great nations do; they learnt from their mistakes. Never again would Rome allow such large-scale massacring of their population to happen. Likewise, they fortified their settlements in the event of any similar spontaneous rebellion occurring in the future.

Let’s be clear though, this rebellion was completely avoidable. It was the outrageous extortion, committed on the Iceni by the local Roman procurators and officials, that triggered it. Yet despite the outrageous atrocities and mass slaughter committed by both sides in this campaign, this unexpected rebellion was in the long-term very helpful for Rome. As stated, Rome realised the instability of Britain. It therefore changed its policy from one of expansionism to one of consolidating its power on this distant island.

What if?

It’s amazing to consider however, what would have happened if Boudicca’s horde had overpowered these two legions. What followed would have been a spectacular ousting of Roman control on this island. These two legions formed the last credible Roman resistance in Britain. Following their destruction, Rome undeniably would have lost their foothold on Britain. The consequences of such on British history as we know it would be incredible.

Following Rome’s expulsion, Boudicca’s ability to unify certain tribes in her rebellion could have helped to mend internal Celtic hostility. Putting aside their differences, these tribes may have formed some sort of defensive alliance. The aim of this alliance would have been simple; to provide enough unified opposition to prevent Rome from ever trying to invade their island again. Yes, tribal divisions would still arise, but the Roman threat and their previous hostility could have united enemy tribes regardless.

Removing anything Roman

Hadrian’s Wall, Fishbourne Roman Palace, the Baths at Bath and the vast multitude of forts. Just a few of the now famous Roman sites to dot the British landscape. With a successful Boudiccan revolt however, there would be no such architecture; Rome would simply not have been there to build it. Instead, Celtic architecture would have continued. Roundhouses made with wattle and daub and thatched barns would dominate the land. Without the continued ‘Romanisation’ of Britain, we (or whoever would be here instead of us!) would be learning about a very different, more ‘backward’ Britain today.

Three particular Roman towns suffered the dreadful wrath of the Britons in the revolt, namely London, St Albans and Colchester. Their restoration was dependent on a Roman presence. It seems very likely that if Boudicca had won, the victorious Celts would not have rebuilt these towns – they would represent a reminder of the past Roman occupation. With a Boudiccan victory, certain great modern day cities such as London may have never come about.

Not just architecture and cities, but certain individuals would never have existed yet alone become famous! Among these would be people such as the Roman governor Agricola who led a campaign deep into Scotland. Although in Agricola’s case he would still have existed, he never would have had the chance to venture so deep into Britain and gain his fame. But there is one person in particular who I’d like to mention. A man whose life has (possibly) left a huge impact on British legend.

The Legend

That man was Ambrosius Aurelianus, who lived around four hundred years after the revolt. So why was this man, living so long after this rebellion, directly affected by it? Why is he so central to British history and legend? Well, it was this man who many believe (although we cannot decisively prove it!) was the original King Arthur. It is documented by the historian Gildas (de excidio Britannorum, chapter 25), that this man led the Romano-British resistance against Saxon Invaders and defeated them in battle.

If this man truly was the inspiration for the King Arthur tales by later Romance writers, his fame is vital. Without Roman occupation in Britain however, this man I would argue would never have existed; Ambrosius Aurelianus (as the name suggests) is noted as being one of the last Romans in Britain (Gildas, chapter 25). If the inspiration for King Arthur was this man, then without long-term Roman occupation, the legendary tales of King Arthur would simply be non-existent.

Conclusion

The ramifications of a successful Boudiccan revolt are staggering to consider. Success would have changed the course of (at the very least) British history in the Ancient World for hundreds of years. Roman occupation has been such a critical part of our history, introducing so much to this distant land. Sanitation, roads, order and the ‘civilised’ Classical World; just a few things we got from Rome. It’s amazing therefore to consider if this one battle had had the alternate outcome. If the rebellion had been a success, imagine how different a Britain we (or somebody) would be learning about today.

Enjoy the article? Please leave a like! It’s only one click.

Notes, Links and Related Reading

Please subscribe if you enjoyed the article.

Views are entirely my own when references not stated.

Tacitus’ account of the Boudiccan Revolt can be found here.

Gildas’ extract concerning Ambrosius Aurelianus

Interesting papers on Boudicca’s revolt and its implications for Britain. Can be found on Jstor.

Blust, Christoph M. ‘The Revolt of Queen Boudicca in A.D 60,’ Historia:Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte. 1961, Bd. 10, H.4, (1961), pp. 496-509.

Fulford, M. ‘Nero and Britain: the Palace of the Client King at Calleva and Imperial Policy towards the Province after Boudicca,’ Britannia, Vol. 39 (2008) pp. 1-14.

Overbeck, John C. ‘Tacitus and Dio on Boudicca’s Rebellion,’ The American Journal of Philology, Vol.90, no.2 (1969), pp.129-145.

Author: Tristan Hughes Twitter Facebook

Did you enjoy this article? Signup today and receive free updates straight in your inbox. We will never share or sell your email address. I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information

Share this: Tweet





WhatsApp



Like this: Like Loading...