Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Nathan Ross]

I agree that Tacitus sometimes departs from a strict annalistic method and presents some topics thematically... If the revolt had broken out in AD60, it would have been easy for him, after dealing with other events of that year, to have written, 'Eodem anno gravis clades in Britannia accepta'...

Although if he wanted to stress that the revolt had already broken out that same year, he would have had to put his year break in the midst of the action, which we see elsewhere that he was disinclined to do.

Corbulo's Armenian war, for example, is mainly described in the section allotted to AD58. There's then a long break, as the bit on 59 mainly concerns Nero's actions during and after the murder of Agrippina. Corbulo's war narrative resumes in AD60 - despite the majority of the action having already happened in 59...

I must stress that I am not suggesting that Tacitus was 'wrong' or 'made a mistake'. Just that his idea of narrating history is not the same as our idea of reading it. He deliberately groups events from different years into the same year, in order to present them alongside or in relation to other events, particularly those in Rome.

In any case, without additional evidence I do not think we can state with any certainly when the revolt happened. Tacitus may indeed have the year spot on, by our reckoning. But there is sufficient evidence of his blurring of dates in other sections, I would say, to allow for at least the possibility that his annalistic method should not be read as a strict chronology.