Exam Help

[WotWotius]

At the moment I am currently revising for my Ancient History A-level (mainly Roman Britain), and I was wondering if anybody could help me with the past question below. I'm alright with a), but b ) is so badly worded I cannot make much sense of of it. All help would be very much appreciated.

 

"Boudicea, with her daughters before her in a chariot, went up to tribe after tribe, protesting that it was indeed usual for Britons to fight under the leadership of women. "But now," she said, "it is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, 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 unpolluted. But heaven is on the side of a righteous vengeance; a legion which dared to fight has perished; the rest are hiding themselves in their camp, or are thinking anxiously of flight. They will not sustain even the din and the shout of so many thousands, much less our charge and our blows. If you weigh well the strength of the armies, and the causes of the war, you will see that in this battle you must conquer or die. This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves."

 

Tacitus, Annals [14.35]

 

a) How accurate do you conisder Tacitus' presentation of the feeling of the Britons towards the Romans to be?

 

b ) On the basis of this passage and your own knowledge and understanding, discuss how far Roman authors present the views of Britons towards the Romans impartially and reliably.

Edited June 14, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

A straight answer?

 

My personal opinion-this is the text of a funeral panygeric , its purpose to show Agricola as the paradigm of Roman excellence . It is suggested that the choice of Boudicca as the "hyped" leader of the Britons (no such people with a defined national consciouseness till Rome had made Brittania a province) was a deliberate ploy to show the "feminine" emotional ,unfocussed , and therefore Un Romanness of the Britons (or those tribes engaged) . Feminine I use here in the "archaic" Roman sense -plenty said on the forum about this concept previously. So my answer is -this might be construed as a propoganda pamphlet which tells you nothing about either side at all except they were in conflict.The Brythonic tribes would folow a Female of high status as would many Celtiberian "tribes" but until the Claudian invasion such units might last only the life of the "monarch " in question and then re-group in some other fleeting form.

Possible reality: bad/corrupt government of a client tribe by cynical provincial Governor.Dont forget the Icenii were clients and the real outrage was being de-militarised along with their much loathed Brythonic enemies .I have to point out that the British tribes hated each other more than Rome and defined themselves in terms of Roman abstract concepts , they also craved Roman consumer goods even if espousing opposition to Rome.Only such remote and non-material tribes as the Ordovices were outside this consumer circle.

I suggest the most difficult thing to consider is the lack of any idea of British nationhood- religious solidarity of a Druidic nature would be a greater influence.

[WotWotius]

Thank you for you help. Would you mind helping me with the question below? I think i'm ok for this paper, but I would like to here your view on the question.

The reason for posting such questions is that I need to get an A in order to get into Uni, so i'm at little worried seeing as the exam is in 2 days.

 

"For although they could have held even Britain, the Romans scorned to do so, because they saw that there was nothing at all to fear from the Britons (for they are not strong enough to cross p447over and attack us), and that no corresponding advantage was to be gained by taking and holding their country. For it seems that at present more revenue is derived from the duty on their commerce than the tribute could bring in, if we deduct the expense involved in the maintenance of an army for the purpose of guarding the island and collecting the tribute; and the unprofitableness of an occupation would be still greater in the case of the other islands about Britain."

 

"The Deified Caesar crossed over to the island twice, although he came back in haste, without accomplishing anything great or proceeding far into the island, not only on account of the quarrels that took place in the land of the Celti, among the barbarians and his own soldiers as well,148 but also on account of the fact that many of his ships had been lost at the time of the full moon, since the ebb-tides and the flood-tides got their increase at that time.149 However, he won two or three victories over the Britons."

 

Strabo 2, 5, 8 and 4, 5, 3

 

"The deified Julius, the very first Roman who entered Britain with an army, though by a successful engagement he struct terror into the inhabitants and gained possession of the coast, must be regarded as having indicated rather than transmitted the acquisition to future generations."

 

Tacitus, Agricola 13

 

a ) To what extent are these accounts of Strabo and Tacitus consistent with Caesar's own account of his campaigns in Britain?

 

b ) On the basis of these passages and your own knowledge and understanding, consider how far the views of the writers describing the campaigns of 55 and 54BC may have been influenced by the circumstances of their own time.

[Pertinax]

Before I attempt a fuller reply I have to comment that the "duty from commerce" phrase is the most significant , in my opinion, in the quotation. Had not the prestige of such an outrageous conquest at the ends of the Earth indeed "across the Ocean" been so significant I am mindful to suggest that Rome could have slowly effected assimilation of the Southern Tribes by trade alone.The Brythonic upper classes seemed to care not one jot what level of custom tax was imposed upon them.

 

My forthcoming review of the Roman Navy in Britain particularly mentions the inappropriate nature of anchoring techniques used in the Med, and the lessons learnt from GJC's loss of ships.Remember however the Romans were nothing if not combat engineers par excellence , a Legion could knock a serviceable Liburnian together with reasonable speed.

 

Tacitus is I think nicely balanced here, the same could be applied to Gaius' sea shell escapades as a dry run for the Claudian invasion.

more to follow..

[WotWotius]

Could you also say that Strabo was writing at a time of British non-interference?

Augustus mentions in the Res Gestae that two British Kings (Tincommius and .........?) sought Rome's protection, but Augutsus did nothing to reinstate them; this is strange as exiled kings provided excellent 'official' reasons for both Caligula's famous 'British expedition' (seashell incident), and Claudius' invasion. Furthermore, the imperial poet Horace

Edited June 14, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

I suggest that Augustus was very busy consolidating power and that the British Kings were "chips in the bank", which could perhaps be cashed in one day. Certainly the way in which British monarchs defined their legitimacy by reference to Roman standards of polity and ethics (never mind conspicuous consumption) tells us that Rome was the arbiter of "corectness" even if remote and non-interfering.Tacitus and Strabo certainly look a little more even handed in the quoted passages, the difficulty is of course that GJCs account is like an account of a British Victorian punitive expedition dealing with recalcitrant , cunning natives. If you admire GJC for his combination of wit,style,bravery and brass neck (as I do ) then I think you can "re-translate" in your own head, to a degree ,allowing of a more undoctored/spun mental vision of the Gallic Wars.

 

Ive said before , remember the initial "invasion" (expedition) had the prestige (and technical difficulty) of the first moon landing in its own day. To even land and wave a gladius about was an act of prestigious bravado that reflected on the Roman world as a whole.So, if you were part showman , part usurper what more daring task need be done? Conquest was perhaps not really on his mind at all-merely a "demonstrandum".

Edited June 14, 2006 by Pertinax

[Pantagathus]

Could you also say that Strabo was writing at a time of British non-interference?

 

For what it's worth, I believe Strabo dedicated his Geography to his 'friend' the Emperor Tiberius.

[WotWotius]

So my answer is -this might be construed as a propoganda pamphlet which tells you nothing about either side at all except they were in conflict.

 

This pre-battle adlocutio speech is almost definitely a fabrication of Tacitus

Edited June 14, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

Yes, I think the "Noble Savage" term is exactly apposite here , we have a foe that is admirable to the extent of having a certain moral integrity but is also emotionally immature. The eulogy cuts both ways , the foe is great and proud but "feminine" and unRoman. The speech does I think hint at the way Victorian "muscular Christians" looked down upon "base motives" in exploration and conquest.

[WotWotius]

Ok thank you for your help Pertinax.

I'll sure i'll do fine in my exam tomorrow.