To: blam
Sounds like revisionist claptrap to me. I've always read that she was roundly defeated when the second Roman legion was arrayed against her, and that her "triumph" last only a scant few years, marked mostly by raids on remote Roman outposts and villages that had been overburdened by taxes.
The revisionists make her out to be some kind of William Wallace in a bodice. Color me skeptical.
19 posted on
02/07/2008 3:53:51 PM PST by
IronJack
(=)
To: IronJack
History is written by the victors. Who knows.
21 posted on
02/07/2008 4:53:24 PM PST by
Clock King
(Bring the noise!)
To: IronJack
How so? William Wallace came up a cropper in the end as well...
23 posted on
02/08/2008 11:16:00 AM PST by
thundrey
To: IronJack
Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. </Obi-Wan Kenobi>
38 posted on
02/11/2008 12:03:04 AM PST by
wafflehouse
(When in danger, When in doubt, Run in circles, Scream and Shout!)
To: IronJack
I agree to some extent — she led the Iceni and various other tribes which rose to disaster, and Britain was quiet for centuries thereafter (other than some Roman governors who declared themselves Emperor). No province was more Romanized than Britain.
44 posted on
02/11/2008 2:33:16 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________Profile updated Sunday, February 10, 2008)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson