The death of King Prasutagus marked the end of Celtic Britain’s amicable collaboration with the Romans and consequently resulted in an immense abuse of power in the Roman treatment of the Celtic tribes. This served as the foundation for the Celtic rebellion, which was then stimulated into a revolt following the abuse of Prasutagus’s widow Boudicca, and the raping of their two daughters. Boudicca’s desire to seek vengeance served as a catalyst for the uprising against Rome, with the hostile treatment of the Celts providing justification for further rebellion amongst the tribes.
The end of the client kingdom following Prasutagus’s death led to exceedingly aggressive behaviour from the Romans in terms of their treatment of the Celts, monopolising on their positions of power to intimidate the tribes and force them into a state of submission. After deciding to ignore Prasutagus’s will, the Romans not only forged a position of vindictive power and authority amongst the Celts, but also crafted a toxic environment which resulted in a constant underlying sense of collective resentment within the tribes. As stated by Sealey, “The Romans treated the Iceni as if they were a nation that had been defeated and forced to surrender.” In addition to this, Seneca “chose this moment to call in the huge sums he had lent to the Britons”, suggested by the hordes of Roman coins buried during the revolt, and the Romans also enforced conscription among the Celts to serve in
…show more content…
However, it was the abuse of Boudicca and her daughters which initially sparked the motivation to pursue revolt amongst the tribes. Although the Celts emerged from the battle horrifically defeated, these factors and the entire revolt demonstrated how the cause of liberty from mass oppression is one which is able to unite thousands of people into battling for a shared