Boudicca

[Andrew Dalby]

I think the context of the Brittunculi insult is actually related to native irregulars /auxilliae in weapon training : though the "wog" diminutive insult would be easily applicable to any passing tribesman.I dont suppose the Tribes , at that time considered themselves to be "British" in any way ,save only as being (in some cases) anti-Roman, so they might not have got the insult. However I think this is too fine a semantic nicety to work out-unless AD can give us a logical suggestion?

 

You want logic? From me? Impossible! You must have some other AD in mind.

 

Anyway, here's my pennyworth. All war statistics are highly dubious, from Iraq all the way back to Roman Britain and classical Greece, because, just think about it, who did the counting, what interest did they have in producing a certain result, did they count the bodies or the missing, how were they sure the missing were dead, etc. etc.

 

OK, so Boudicca sacked those cities. If you were an ordinary inhabitant, hearing that Boudicca's rebel troops were on the way, would you stay or go? Would you stay Romanised or turn back into a Briton immediately? Might you even sneak round the back and join the rebels when no one was looking?

 

I am hedging meanwhile, because just doing a search on Brituncul* in the Latin CD-ROM. Not found. Brittuncul*. Not found. Not in Lewis & Short. Not in Oxford Latin Dictionary. Nice word, but who's supposed to have said it, anyway?

[phil25]

Senior soldiers on the line of the later wall, at Vindolanda. It's used on the tablets found there.

 

The word has only been known around 10-15 years.

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

Senior soldiers on the line of the later wall, at Vindolanda. It's used on the tablets found there.

 

The word has only been known around 10-15 years.

 

Phil

 

Thank you Phil for posting that whilst I was off board.

 

AD if you scroll down my blog entries to "Garrison Life at Vindolanda" Birley , in the book of that name mentions the "discovery" of the word in the tablets. He cant make out if its a general diminutive or not but its apparent context may be in relation to training auxilliae/irregulars, as the context is an "official" communique.I have posted links to the tablet site-with your language skills you might be able to make out what is actually being said.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Pertinax

[Andrew Dalby]

Senior soldiers on the line of the later wall, at Vindolanda. It's used on the tablets found there.

 

The word has only been known around 10-15 years.

 

Phil

 

Thank you Phil for posting that whilst I was off board.

 

AD if you scroll down my blog entries to "Garrison Life at Vindolanda" Birley , in the book of that name mentions the "discovery" of the word in the tablets. He cant make out if its a general diminutive or not but its apparent context may be in relation to training auxilliae/irregulars, as the context is an "official" communique.I have posted links to the tablet site-with your language skills you might be able to make out what is actually being said.

 

Thanks fellows, I wondered if it was some such source. I had never seen it.

 

Well now, I may be stupid -- indeed I know I am -- but I can't make this word appear when I try a search of the tablet database. If you can't paste the text here, tell me what word or reference to type into the tablet search engine and I'll give it another go. But really, you know, I expect Birley has got everything reasonable out of it already ...

 

Cancel all that. I actually have the edition and have found it in the printed index now. And now that I have the reference number, I can type that into the Vindolanda search engine and find the tablet. That's not the point, though, is it? Why doesn't the word search work? Ah well ...

Edited May 30, 2006 by Andrew Dalby

[Andrew Dalby]

Now, then. It is curious that two words for 'Britons' occur within a few lines. As pointed out by Adams, the diminutive word is closely parallel to one or two others, 'virguncula' (which means a little girl if I remember rightly, not pejorative) and 'latrunculus' which probably is pejorative (and doesn't necessarily have a real diminutive meaning), 'bandito' or the like. OK. EITHER diminutive OR pejorative. Here, they aren't small (Britons were tall, according to Strabo etc.) so it's pejorative: they are hated or mistrusted.

 

The commentary suggests tentatively that this is information with a view to recruitment. It could be. But I think it's information about the enemy. After all, there must be an enemy, or else no need for a garrison at Vindolanda. If I were the commander at Vindolanda, I would not be expecting to recruit Britons as auxiliaries. My duty is to fight them, and I don't trust them enough yet to recruit them. The recruiting goes on further south, I reckon.

 

So this text says: The Britons fight naked (if text is correctly reconstructed. Again, this doesn't apply so much to men recruited to fight elsewhere in the Empire: in that case I think you issue clothes and make them wear them. It applies to the enemy, and we know that Celts fought naked, so no surprise here). They have masses of horsemen. (We know that.) The bloody Britons don't even stop when they are going to throw their javelins (i.e. they don't take position -- they do it while moving).

 

It's pejorative in the same way that soldiers always have to be about the enemy. You have to hate them, you have to have bad names for them, or you might end up thinking they are reasonable fellows and not want to kill them any more.

 

Don't know if this is any use at the end of the day. But thanks for making me look at the text. Very interesting.

[Pertinax]

Makes sense-because until the 3rd C AD we have no indication of any British unit on the Wall (and that is a Staffs/Cheshire outfit), all the Britons that we are aware of are outshipped to Gaul .Indeed the only time we seem to have attested British presence we have suggestions of collusion with tthe locals ( very late 390 AD ish).Also the obvious policy on Auxilliae is "send em elsewhere to test loyalty" , the Sarmatiae for example -long way from Dacia (and beyond) to Bremetennacum.

If recruitment is envisaged then thats fair enough, the whole history of the wall is mostly "bushfire" policing without major conflict-though three such "wars" do occur from 120 to 420.Seems very reasonable to employ the troublesome local louts and ship em out to the Rhine!

Thanks for checking that over AD.

 

edit: British units seem to have been "irregular" in nature ,where attested-thoug I hesitate to suggest all of them were for certain.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Pertinax

[phil25]

Soldiers almost always have a diminultive for the enemy:

 

Wogs and Fuzzi-wuzzis (British imperial); Brits (US in Revolutionary War?); Eyetyes (Italians WWII); Bosche (Germans WWI); Frogs (French at many times) are some that spring to mind.

 

I like your interpretation AD better than the "official one". I am certain the Romans would have had a term for their foe, and this tablet provides it. I see the wor as potentially being affectionaley (!) belittling - the misture of respect and scorn that one professional soldier often has for another through history.

 

Thanks for your explanation,

 

Phil

[Artimi]

Wasnt sure where else to put this..

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2009/apr/...-history?page=2

[sylla]

Checking on this old thread, the uncritical acceptance of the figures from classical historians is always amazing.

The 230,000 men of Boudica's army reported by Dio, assuming extremely high mobilization rates, would have required a base population (Iceni and client tribes) of at least two million subjects; some three million under most conventional rates.

This is an optimistic hypothesis, which would require the unlikely assumption of 0% casualties from previous campaigns and 100% local recruitment (ie, no neutral or romanophile natives).

The Iceni territory was little more than modern Norfolk, (which current population is BTW some 840,000); that was like 5% of Britannia's territory.

The current average estimation for the whole Roman British population is around three millions, more or less like modern Panama or Costa Rica.