At the end of the day, no matter what Roman soldiers did to her, she still let her warriors kill every man, woman, and child in three very large civilian population centers.
And that isn't just Roman Propaganda; modern archaeologists found a giant layer of ash under the city of Colchester dating to around the time of Boudica's Rebellion. Literally every mainstream historical expert on the subject agrees that the massacres took place, and that Boudica committed or at least allowed them.
http://www.ancient.eu/article/97/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/colchester_01.shtml
Literally the only defense you can make for the three massacres are moral relativism and moral subjectivism. But this doesn't work because most people, on an innate level, believe that murdering children is always unacceptable.
I am going to edit the page to make it clear that the massacres DID happen and that they were unethical acts, and I politely ask that you do not attempt to whitewash history. If you don't agree, then cite ACTUAL SOURCES.
Edited by Timjames98
Leaving aside the high emotions that are being invested in here...
1) This is really obscure history. The number of films, tv shows and games depicting Boudica are slim to none. So there's no reason for this to be such a big deal and provoke such a heated response. We can discuss this dispassionately.
2) Accusing Boudica of being personally responsible for the deaths of people at these sacks is highly iffy. As a commander and warrior queen she is responsible overall, but we have no hard evidence of her personally ordering these massacres. It could just be collateral damage from her sacking of the cities, which happens whenever you send an army into the field whether in ancient or modern times. Now Boudica did not differ between civilians and soldiers but the Romans did the same.
3) Defending massacres on the basis of moral relativism is more or less something all historians do: Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan (well these days by revisionists who want to get over Orientalism) are seen as great men even if we have hard evidence, unlike Boudica, of them ordering massacres and committing war crimes willingly. We even do this with the American Founding Fathers who are still "good men" even if their actions state otherwise. So there is absolutely no reason to demonize Boudica. Moral relativism is more or less the norm, except when its applied to people you disagree with, it seems.
4) This is a site about how Historical Domain Character are usually presented in fiction. Boudica was obscure for most of history and only seen as a hero in the Romantic-Victorian era and most depictions and renditions of her are positive and none of them whitewash her atrocities at all. So, at best some note in Historical Hero Upgrade is fine, but going further and beyond that, and bashing her is quite out of line. It's fine for an academic paper in a historical journal, but not here. This should reflect balance, some neutral viewpoints and at the very least an explanation for how the historiography came to see people a certain way.
I wasn't bashing her. I was simply describing her actions. If anything Cheapsunglasses was whitewashing her. I never mentioned Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, or Julius Caesar so I don't see what that has to do with anything here: I think I'm logically consistent because I consider it unethical for them to massacre civilians as well.
In any case I called in a moderator.
Edited by Timjames98
Pointing out that the sources of her come from Roman sources and that the reports of atrocities come from one historian writing even later than the first is perfectly fair and not in any way whitewashing.
Edited by revert Paradoxic
He was making it sound as though historians are in disagreement over whether or not the massacres occurred (they aren't; they have physical evidence and almost agree). Modern historians agree the atrocity happened, so raising doubt as to it is misleading.
Plus Tacticus wasn't exactly a lapdog for the empire; he regularly criticized leadership in the roman empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus#Approach_to_history
Historians are in disagreement about Cassius Dio stating that Boudica attacked and tortured survivors in grisly ways. That she sacked cities and razed it to the ground is not up for dispute, since that's part of Boudica's mystique and the great fiery power of a woman. Cassius Dio's histories are filled with sensationalistic details in the same way Suetonius is, which is why historians disagree about some of the stuff ascribed to Nero and Caligula.
There's absolutely no reason to not extend Boudica the same benefit of the doubt.
And sacking cities and razing it to the ground by the way is more or less how wars were done back then. You may feel that there's no memory for the victims of Camulodnum or whatever, but there isn't a memorial for the million Gauls that Caesar supposedly killed (which is also disputed because Caesar wanted to exaggerate his conquest).
The article for Boudica is written consistently with other Roman figures of antiquity, and recieves the same moral relativism and courtesy and no whitewashing whatsoever.
Ok then, how is this for a compromise: we acknowledge that her army massacred the three cities while also stating that atrocities were commonplace in that era, and we note that there is debate as to whether or not she ordered it as well as to whether or not it involved torture in the way that scholars claimed.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Edited by Timjames98
That's more or less what the article was before this discussion circle started...so yeah...just restore Cheapsunglazzes additions about Cassius Dio being unreliable and it's fine.
His additions weren't clear on what was debated among historians, and he seemed to take a Pro-Boudica tone, so I'll try to put similar edits to the ones he made but in a more clarified and neutral tone.
I made edits stating that some things are unknown and that Cassius Dio and Tacitus aren't entirely reliable. Are they satisfactory?
I'm glad we could sort this out like reasonable folk. I know we don't always see eye-to-eye, but at least we talk things out and try to find reasonable compromises.
Edited by Timjames98
First of all, I sincerely apologize to both of you for not responding to any of this. TBH, I didn't think anyone would. Allow me to address the things you've both been discussing:
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 Artistic Licence – History on that same page, as well as What the Romans Have Done for Us, 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.
Edited by Cheapsunglasses
You don't get any argument from me that Rome was a civilization of troglodytes and hypocrites, and that society progressed with their decline and fall...
...And in my view, Boudica IS a hero. Washington is a hero even if he owned slaves and drove Mohawk out of America into Canada...Boudica can still be a hero.
For most of history, a hero was a champion, a defender, a protector of the people and it had absolutely nothing to do with being a moral person...and as much as we want to deny it, the same applies to modern times. Boudica was a hero, a champion, and a defender of her people...
I have very mixed feelings about Boudica. On one hand, the Romans fired the first shot—what they did to her and her daughters is inexcusable. On the other hand, she killed a lot of people, even natives, in retaliation. But on the flip-side, this was the standard military code in those days—the Romans did it, too, and are just as guilty of Moral Myopia as Boudica's supporters are (Roman tabloids glorify Roman acts of pillaging, but condemn everyone else). Now, some might argue that Rome brought civilization to Briton, but in truth, the Britons were pretty civilized already: the Iceni had coinage, roads, a strong religion, decently built cities, an official capital and "state" border with other neighboring tribes (who, for the most part, had the same stuff), etc. They weren't unwashed thugs circled around campfires and living in mud huts. Now, some might argue that Rome sped up their advancement, and maybe so, but remember this: Rome had several fallen civilizations to borrow/steal ideas (and take inspiration) from, whereas there is no evidence that the British tribes had such things; they built themselves up from scratch, and they flourished.
Overall, I like to compare Boudica's revolt to the sinking of the Titanic: a tragedy that needed to happen in order to make the world metaphorically wake up. The revolt got a lot of people killed on both sides, but the Roman politicians who provoked it lost their jobs in the aftermath (Nero—as in, the guy who "fiddled" while Rome burned—decided that their continued presence in Briton would provoke more rebellions) and were replaced by conciliatory diplomats who treated the natives, including survivors among the Iceni, with respect and ensured their smoother integration into Roman society. Said provocateurs later got their just desserts: Seneca was executed for plotting against Nero, and Suetonius was likely killed on Vespasian's orders during the Year of the Four Emperors.
Edited by Cheapsunglasses Hide / Show Replies