Replies

By the time Bouddica revolted, roman had ruled most of Britain for a generation. Her husband [and I presume the little lady] weren't all that patriotic when he was a client king of the Romans [I believe they've found Roman style coinage with his likeness on it.]

Prestaugus [Pardon me if I misspelled that] made Nero his heir, and tried to leave half his kingdom to his wife. I don't believe that the Romans, at that point, recognized her right to inherit. While what the Romans did to Bouddica and her daughters was indefensible, I wonder if she would have gone to war if the victims had been three of her subjects. I don't believe so. My personal opinion is that Bouddica led the Iceni to their destruction, not because of a patriotic desire to free the British Isles from Roman rule [and considering her revolt was limited to the Iceni and Trinovanti, with individuals from other tribes joining in, that would be a stretch], but because she had lost her status as queen of her tribe, and out of a personal desire for vengeance. That makes neither a hero, nor patriot to me. Her vengeance destroyed her tribe.

Bear in mind, Bouddica could have prepared her revolt, using as much time as she needed.The bulk of the Roman Army was on the west side of Wales, or in southwest England [except for the IXth] She could have trained her men. She didn't. Bear in mind also that most of the people she killed were fellow Britons. Many were Romanized to be sure, but they were Britons. Note also, that despite the absence of the Roman Army, none of the southern tribes joined her revolt.

And as for the argument she was a queen only, I can only say this. If she didn't have military advisers [which I doubt] she shouldn't have revolted, since she would have been incapable of leading the Army. If she did have military advisers, they were either inept, or they weren't listened to. Bouddica's downfall was caused by her arrogance.

Paullinus was withdrawn because of what he did after defeating Bouddica. The Iceni and Trinovanti came under that Roman rule of killing everybody in a tribe that revolted after they had submitted. Apparently Paullinus went at the work with greater zeal than Rome wanted [particularly against other tribes whose members had joined the march]. But those actions were also foreseeable by Bouddica, just as the starvation that would follow not planting a crop for the year of the revolt was. Sorry, we just won't agree on this one.