Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

the Iceni could have re-armed... the Iceni were not poor and were probably not that well monitored being a Client Kingdom under a trusted ally.

We don't know enough about the Iceni economy or trade links to know how easily they could have rearmed, I think. I don't know of any iron mines in East Anglia - iron was a valuable commodity, and swords in particular were prized items, which is why they were so often given in sacrifice. Any weapons - or metal to make them - would have to have come through Roman-controlled territory. Even by sea - ships at this time probably could not sail directly across to the Iceni coast from the continent.

Before the death of Prasutagus, there was no apparent reason for revolt. After it, the Iceni were being molested by Romans, probably tax assessors and the like, who surely would have reported any overt warlike preparations.

So I don't think we can assume that the Iceni, still less the Trinovantes, were either well armed or well trained and disciplined. The vast majority of their forces would have been a sort of farmers' militia, armed with improvised weapons.

would the Brythons have fought in armour or with helmets at all?

They may not have done so traditionally, but I'm sure many of them would have taken and used the arms and armour captured from the Romans after Colchester and Cerialis's defeat. Helmets and good quality swords in particular would have been prized. We might remember the Zulus, after the British defeat at Isandhlwana, picking up and using British rifles!

I still do not subscribe to the argument that babes, very young children, young girls or the elderly would have gone to war specifically to fight.

Certainly not! Contrary to the claims of certain gushy TV presentations, it seems unlikely that Icenians of all ages and both sexes were trained to fight. Paulinus told his troops at the last battle 'there are more women than warriors in their number' - so they wouldn't be both.

However, there does seem to be some evidence for native British armies taking non-combatants along with them, rather than leaving them to fend for themselves at home. I don't think we need to assume these were restricted to cart-driving wives!

The statement does not relate simply to the final battle. It explains why the rebels suffered hardship during the winter, because they had not planted crops because those of all ages had gone to war.

Yes - and if the crop in question was supposed to be planted in the springtime, this means that 'those of all ages' had left home for the initial attack on Colchester, rather than joining the warriors later in the campaign.

the reason for the tribes going to war was to regain their lands

But the Romans had not yet occupied the Iceni lands - they were only preparing to do so. And Colchester was not in Iceni territory anyway. The Iceni could not have believed that by sacking one colony in a neighbouring tribe's land they would 'take their country back' - they would know that they had to defeat the Romans decisively, or face a rapid retribution.

So there would be little reason for anyone to return home after Colchester, and plenty of reason for Boudica and the other leaders to prevent anyone from doing so. Only by keeping together an overwhelmingly large force would they stand a chance of defeating the Romans. The various religious rituals and sacrifices mentioned by Dio may have been a way of binding together the disparate factions of the rebel army under a sort of divine mandate, perhaps.