Discussion History UsefulNotes / Boudica

1) Despite what you may think, I\'m not trying to whitewash Boudica. If you look at my initial edits on the main page, my primary focus was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who try to whitewash the \'\'Romans\'\', who were just as bad as they claimed she was. I am a harsh critic of the Roman Empire, and before you roll your eyes and try to cite that stupid scene from \"Life of Brian\", I suggest you take a look at ArtisticLicenceHistory on that same page, as well as WhatTheRomansHaveDoneForUs, which cites and deconstructs that very argument.

2) I am indeed dismissive of the wild stories about the atrocities she supposedly committed, or that they were as colorful as Tacitus and Dio like to claim, but can you really blame me? While those two weren\'t ass-kissers, they were still more interested in writing sensational tabloids than accurate historical records. Their job was to bash one subject and glorify another--no more, no less. Whether or not she destroyed those cities is inarguable, as you say, but \'\'how\'\' is up for debate.

3) As I said before, sacking cities was the norm in those days. That doesn\'t mean I approve of it, but every time I read one of those texts written by scumbags like Suetonius, Dio, Tacitus, Plutarch, Caesar, etc., I would always roll my eyes when they described the other side\'s \"barbarity\" while simultaneously glorifying their own crimes. Hypocrites, every damned one of them.

So, on the whole, I don\'t think Boudica was a hero or anything, but those who say that must also keep in mind that Rome was no better. Time and time again, I\'ve seen people say obnoxious things like \"the Romans saved these people from huddling around campfires and shitting in the woods\", or \"Rome brought civilization\", or nonsense like that. As brutal as the revolt was, you can\'t deny that it was provoked by an act of Roman brutality.