The Morality Of Boudica In Rome

Introduction

Boudica is known as the queen of Iceni, a Brythonic Celt tribe in British during early Roman Empire period. Her husband Prasutagus, the king of Iceni, was actually a ‘puppet’ of Romans. The kingdom was annexed by Romans after Prasutagus’s death, his wife Boudica and his daughters got violence by Romans as well. Therefore, Boudica led the Iceni, the Trinovantes and others tribes in British into a massive anti--Roman uprising in 60 or 61AD. Unfortunately, those British people were far less organized than the Romans troops and the soon be suppressed. Although the account of Boudica in two Rome imperial historian works is the only record of this enigmatic figure remained since, her skeleton story that a woman who dared to take on the

Although The Annals5 contains the author's deep feelings are his yearning for the simple and unsophisticated morality in Roman republican times, and his hatred for monarchy that means subjectivity could not be totally avoidable, it is still considered as high credibility in that historical circumstances.

Tacitus presented is the insatiable Roman greed and lust prevalent during the reign of Nero result in the revolt, which is cited in in the book Agricola6 ‘Nothing is now exempt from their avarice, nothing from their lust’. In The Annals5, his narrative of Boudica, as a powerful female leader, she revolted for lost freedom and violence done to her family and tribe. There is the contrast between her scene of dignity and the cruel aggression of Romans1(Macdonald). It is also suggested in The Annals5 (Chapter14:35)

my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters. Roman lust has gone so far that not our very persons, nor even age or virginity, are left

He attempted to emulate Thucydides in his writing style and tried to recorded every significant events detailed. Unfortunately, blind adherence to the two dominant principles in historiography field during that period may reduced the authenticity of Dio’s Roman History4. On the one hand, both historical details and biography served great significance due to authoritative order. On the other hand, a historian could also be a rhetorician, which means he may add amount of ornamentation, as long as lacking of significance, on his own responsibility, or even presented in an overly dramatic manner. Therefore, his work was historically inaccurate in some ways. Furthermore, as a Roman consul, who enjoyed the privileges of the nobility and spoke highly of monarchy, his narrative could be typical Roman.

By contrast, Dio’s Boudica was more neatly as a negative figure. The evidence is suggested in Dio’s Roman History4,

While this sort of play was happening in Rome, an awful disaster occurred in Britain: ......And moreover, all of this was brought upon them by a woman, and this in itself was the greatest cause of shame for the Romans.

Dio thought those disaster results in a shame of Roman, not only the success of a foreign army over the Roman military but also the unexpected power of a female leader compered with the effeminate leader of the empire, Nero. Dio’s Boudica appears masculine in action and foreign in appearance, her