Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Theoderic]

Nathan wrote:

This would be your suggestion of a gathering for the Consualia? August 21st, or 18th if we follow Plutarch. Sounds feasible - although we'd have to assume that the Romans compelled the Britons to honour one of their own agricultural dieties, which is probably acceptable.

Just had another thought.....was there a significant celebration of the Cult of Claudius around this time?

[Theoderic]

Nathan wrote:

A. The revolt began in late August. The fall of Colchester, defeat of Cerialis and Paulinus's march to London happened in September, and the final battle in early October. Reinforcements arrived at the very end of the sailing season in late October. The saga of Classicianus, Polyclitus and the arrival of Turpilianus happened over the spring and summer of the following year.

B. The revolt began in late September. Colchester fell in October and London in November. There was then a winter lull before the final battle the following March and a punitive campaign over the summer. Classicianus, Polyclitus and the reinforcements all turned up before the end of summer. Turpilianus took over in September or so.

I still think that scenario A is most likely with the revolt lasting August to June but with the famine extending as late as the following year, probably causing more deaths and possibly the final straw for the Iceni as an independent entity.

Tacitus sets the scene for the battle with Boudica as the turning point of what actually was a prolonged war as he says but concentrates on the earlier exciting events and hardly touches on the boring part of the ongoing small daily engagements, apart from noting that Classicianus realises that continually destroying the local population was wasteful and sends to Nero to have Seutonius Paulinus removed.
   
The Trinovantes and others were possibly subjugated October to December but those who refused to submit (even if they had the chance) like the Iceni were mercilessly chased into the Fens as they refused to submit where they possibly spent the winter.

Seutonius must have had a problem trying to beat them as he had to mount an amphibious assault which went disastrously wrong (the loss of ships) after Polyclitus had sent a “watered down report”

If this happened Classicianus must have sent a further report basically saying that Seutonius Paulinus was just out of control and determined to wipe out any rebels and wasting resources and stopping the rest of the Province from operating effectively financially as the military resources were concentrated in the East.

Tacitus states that Seutonius had to hand his army over to Turpilianus whilst the war was continuing but obviously the Imperial decree was to negotiate with the rebels rather than continue a war that was dragging on, tying down a considerable amount of troops for little reward.

Although the Brythons in the East lost their lands they caused much of the west of Britannia to be denuded of troops and control, which had to be re-occupied by Frontinus and Agricola in the 70s.

[Nathan Ross]

was there a significant celebration of the Cult of Claudius around this time?

His birthday was on the 1st of August, so that would be celebrated as his dies natalis. His death and Nero's dies imperii were the same day, of course - 13th October.

I think Tacitus says that the priests of Claudius were conscripted from the local people - perhaps the Trinovantes tribal nobility?

Seutonius had to hand his army over to Turpilianus whilst the war was continuing

"he was ordered, as though the war continued, to hand over his army to Petronius Turpilianus" - so Tacitus implies the fighting was actually over by that point, but I'm not sure why this is significant; surely all outgoing governors handed their army over to their successors?

[Theoderic]

Nathan wrote:

so Tacitus implies the fighting was actually over by that point, but I'm not sure why this is significant; surely all outgoing governors handed their army over to their successors?

I had interpreted "as though" in the opposite way - that Tacitus was outraged that the war was still going on and the army that he had amassed was to be given over to the new Governor, otherwise as you say, why mention something that would happen anyway.

Tacitus had little time for military leaders who didn't attack the enemy (eg: Veranius, Turpilianus and  Trebellius) so for Seutonius Petronius not to be allowed to finish the job was a  bitter pill to swallow.

[Renatus]

These are my latest thoughts on this matter, taking into account some recent comments.

I think that we are getting hung up on the idea that the revolt broke out after the summer harvest and that this is in danger of leading us astray.  I have done a bit of searching online and it seems that wheat is quite a versatile crop.  It can have a life cycle of three months or four months and it can be sown in the spring for harvesting in the autumn.  It is harvested at different times in different countries, indicating that it is sown at different times.  For instance, I read that it is harvested in July and August in England but in September and October in  Scotland.  No doubt, climatic differences are relevant but also cultural differences.  There is no guarantee that modern, or indeed medieval, practice is the same as that in 1st century Britain.  Further, human intervention in the form of manuring and weeding affects the yield and, very likely, the rate of maturation of the crop.  Consequently, I remain of the view that the missed sowing that Tacitus mentions is sowing that should have taken place in the spring.

It is worth looking at his precise wording.  He says of the Britons that they were 'serendis frugibus incuriosos', 'careless about sowing corn' (Church & Brodribb).  'Incuriosus' means 'careless' or 'negligent' and, therefore, implies that they had failed to do what they might otherwise have done.  It does not seem to be an appropriate word to use in relation to the failure to sow a crop when the sowing season had not even arrived and, indeed, when it would have been absurd to delay the revolt until after that sowing.  What Tacitus appears to be saying is that the Britons failed to sow a crop that could have given them some sort of harvest in the autumn, after the suppression of the revolt.  It might not have been a very good harvest but it would have been better than nothing.  From the Britons' point of view, if they were about to embark upon a revolt that might last many months, it would have been a waste of time and, more importantly, a waste of seed corn to plant a crop that they were unlikely to be able to harvest.  Tacitus does not mention the failure to harvest the previous autumn's planting in the summer because it was a write-off, having been completely overtaken by the revolt and/or its aftermath.  It was, therefore, irrelevant.  The only harvest that might have been relevant would have been one in the autumn and there was none because of the earlier failure to sow.

I have looked further into the possible significance of the words 'Caesen[n]io Paeso et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus' and find that Tacitus on several occasions uses the same formula of the consuls' names in the ablative plus consulibus to indicate the consular year, often followed by a number of incidents that are unlikely all to have occurred in the first six months.  He sometimes uses such phrases as 'in the same year' or 'in the same consulship' but not always.  I will not, therefore, press the point that this wording might indicate that the revolt broke out before June or July, although I still consider it likely.  I have also looked into whether 'qui iam consulatu abierat ' might be simply a way of indicating that Turpilianus had come to the end of his consular year but have found nothing to help me.  I will, therefore, for the time being stick with my interpretation that it refers to his standing down in favour of a suffect in June or July.

This brings me to the circumstances leading to Suetonius being ordered to hand over his army.  This is evidently related to the loss of the ships.  Tacitus makes light of it but it seems clear that it was a serious incident.  He speaks of 'a few ships' (paucas naves) but this clearly means more than one or two.  Likewise, the loss of the crews reinforces the seriousness of the event.  It may be going too far to call it a naval disaster but it was nevertheless extremely serious.  Tacitus is somewhat ambiguous in what he says about this and its consequences.  Immediately, after his mention of this event, he adds, 'tamquam durante bello ' ('as if the war continued'), and immediately after that states that Suetonius was ordered to hand over his army.  Consequently, the comment about the war continuing could relate to either the incident with the ships or the handing over of the army.  Church & Brodribb and Loeb favour the latter but change the order of Tacitus' wording in the process: ' . . . but as he subsequently lost a few vessels on the shore with the crews, he was ordered, as though the war continued, to hand over his army . . .' (Church & Brodribb); ' . . . but, when later on he lost a few ships on the beach, and the crews with them, he was ordered, under the pretence that the war was still in being, to transfer his army . . .' (Loeb).  My aged Brodie crib retains Tacitus' order and appears to favour the first option: 'but, after having stranded a few galleys, and lost the men who rowed them, as if the war was still unfinished, he was ordered to resign his army . . .'  Michael Grant in the Penguin edition takes a similar line, although his version reads more like a paraphrase than a translation: 'Suetonius lost a few ships and their crews on the shore, and was then superseded for not terminating the war.'  To my mind, the Brodie and Penguin interpretations make more sense.

Reading between the lines, I think we can see what was happening.  The war was over and Suetonius was exacting retribution on the tribes that revolted and also those whose loyalty seemed in doubt.  After Classicianus' complaint, he assured Polyclitus that the rebels were completely defeated and that his retributions were at an end.  Polyclitus consequently reported to Nero that the war was over and everything had calmed down and that, therefore, there was no reason why Suetonius should not remain in office.  As soon as he was gone, Suetonius continued as before, this time raiding the coastal areas of the rebels' territories.  This was exposed by the loss of the ships and, when this was reported to Rome, it was decided that enough was enough and Suetonius had to go.  There followed three governorships in which a more conciliatory approach was taken and, consequently, when it was decided that a more aggressive policy could be safely resumed and expansion to the north and west was undertaken by Cerialis, Frontinus and Agricola, there was not a peep out of the Iceni or any of the southern English tribes.

[Nathan Ross]

He says of the Britons that they were 'serendis frugibus incuriosos', 'careless about sowing corn' (Church & Brodribb).  'Incuriosus' means 'careless' or 'negligent' and, therefore, implies that they had failed to do what they might otherwise have done... if they were about to embark upon a revolt that might last many months, it would have been a waste of time...

Although we also have to bear in mind the rest of the statement. They were 'careless about sowing corn, people of every age having gone to the war, (or 'turned to war'?) while they reckoned on our supplies as their own.' (omni aetate ad bellum versa, dum nostros commeatus sibi destinant.)

So they were not neglecting their crops because they were about to embark on revolt, but because it had already started and they were not physically present!

This is, I think, Tacitus pointing out that barbarians were essentially childish folk who go rushing off to war while neglecting the important things of life. But he is also, incidentally, telling us that the war was in progress during what would usually be the sowing season. So the fighting was happening during either March or October; if the revolt started during the Roman campaign season, which of those options seems most likely?

As for crop patterns, the bit I quoted from Shimon Applebaum in this post seems quite persuasive. Britain was exporting grain to Gaul in this period, so the Britons would hardly still be using a prehistoric summer cultivation pattern; winter grains were far more likely the main crop, as they were elsewhere in Europe at the time.

I completely agree with your thoughts about Suetonius and his ships and the end of the war though.

[Renatus]

Although we also have to bear in mind the rest of the statement. They were 'careless about sowing corn, people of every age having gone to the war, (or 'turned to war'?) while they reckoned on our supplies as their own.' (omni aetate ad bellum versa, dum nostros commeatus sibi destinant.)

So they were not neglecting their crops because they were about to embark on revolt, but because it had already started and they were not physically present!

This is, I think, Tacitus pointing out that barbarians were essentially childish folk who go rushing off to war while neglecting the important things of life. But he is also, incidentally, telling us that the war was in progress during what would usually be the sowing season. So the fighting was happening during either March or October; if the revolt started during the Roman campaign season, which of those options seems most likely?

This is reading too much into it.  Tacitus is simply saying that the rebels went to war without having planted crops.  The point is that they were 'negligent' in having done so.  It could be argued that, if they they had gone to war before the autumn planting, they would actually have been being sensible.  If they had delayed until then, they would have had to conduct their rebellion during the winter months, when Suetonius was no longer distracted by his Welsh campaign and was back in England with all his legions and ready to snuff out the revolt before it really got going.  The March and October alternatives are a false dichotomy.  The fighting did not take place during the sowing season but during tha growing season.

As for crop patterns, the bit I quoted from Shimon Applebaum in this post seems quite persuasive. Britain was exporting grain to Gaul in this period, so the Britons would hardly still be using a prehistoric summer cultivation pattern; winter grains were far more likely the main crop, as they were elsewhere in Europe at the time.

I am not sure that the Scots, who apparently harvest in the autumn, would appreciate being referred to as 'prehistoric'!  However, seriously, if the Britons planted their main crop in the autumn with a subsidiary planting in the spring, they could well have had a surplus to export to Gaul.  They might have had two harvests, a main one in summer and a lesser one in autumn, or, if the crops planted in the spring were properly managed, they could have been ready for harvesting in summer as well.  On the other hand, if crops planted in spring were neglected, as they would have been had they been planted immediately before the revolt, they might not have been ready for harvesting before autumn but would then have been available to sustain the defeated rebels over winter.  The point is academic, of course, because there was no such planting.

[Nathan Ross]

The March and October alternatives are a false dichotomy.  The fighting did not take place during the sowing season but during tha growing season.

Hmm. It seems to me that Tacitus is saying explicitly that the fighting did take place during the sowing season.

The Britons neglected their agriculture because they preferred to go off to war, thinking they could steal Roman supplies.

However, if we imagine that March was the sowing season, and the Britons were not already at war - why would they not sow crops? They could hardly have assumed that they would be away from home until October or so. Not to do so would not just be 'negligent', but amazingly stupid. What else would they have been doing instead?

I am not sure that the Scots, who apparently harvest in the autumn, would appreciate being referred to as 'prehistoric'!

It's not the harvesting season but the sowing season - all crops in Britain are harvested in late summer to autumn.

'Prehistoric' agriculture (the term is used by Butser, and refers to the period Applebaum describes as pre-500BC) had reduced yields as there was only one sowing, in the spring, a short growing period and a harvest in the autumn. Applebaum uses evidence from Wiltshire to show that the pattern changed - perhaps after the Belgic migration - to winter crops sown in the autumn.

[Theoderic]

Renatus wrote:

Polyclitus consequently reported to Nero that the war was over and everything had calmed down and that, therefore, there was no reason why Suetonius should not remain in office.  As soon as he was gone, Suetonius continued as before, this time raiding the coastal areas of the rebels' territories.  This was exposed by the loss of the ships and, when this was reported to Rome, it was decided that enough was enough and Suetonius had to go.

Great interpretation

[Theoderic]

Nathan wrote:

It's not the harvesting season but the sowing season - all crops in Britain are harvested in late summer to autumn.

I think this is undeniable.

I also agree that given the scenario of the invasion of Anglesey by Seutonius Paulinus, the sowing season referred to is not the Spring sowing.

The Autumn sowing for Winter wheat is October, therefore logically a large proportion of the Iceni and Trinovantes must have been away during October. 

This then probably places the battle to the second / third week of October.

A possible series of events would seem to work.

Classicianus arrives end of October.

Possibly everything else follows with the troops from the rest of Britain being brought together under canvass and the campaign continuing with the 14th, the 2nd, the 20th and the remnants of the 9th and associated auxiliaries, a formidable force to retake the lands and garrison them.

November, December, January and February for the campaign, troops arrive in March to be put in new quarters (not under canvass).

Polyclitus arrives in March and the campaign is temporarily suspended.

Campaign restarted in April and the loss of ships incident  occurs 

Turpilianus arrives June / July.

August - poor harvest for the Iceni and the majority of the harvest goes to the Roman army. 

Famine for the Iceni ensues.

[Renatus]

Although we also have to bear in mind the rest of the statement. They were 'careless about sowing corn, people of every age having gone to the war, (or 'turned to war'?) while they reckoned on our supplies as their own.' (omni aetate ad bellum versa, dum nostros commeatus sibi destinant.)

So they were not neglecting their crops because they were about to embark on revolt, but because it had already started and they were not physically present!

The Curse of the Translator strikes again.  The problem with Tacitus is that his style is so idiosyncratic that he defies literal translation and even the most conservative of translators has to paraphrase him to some extent in order to produce something in readable English.  We have seen this recently with the episode of the ships and Suetonius' replacement.  The result is that we end up interpreting the translation, rather than the text.  This is my attempt at a literal translation of this passage:

'but nothing so much as hunger beat down unconcerned with the sowing of crops and with every age turned to war, while they intended our provisions for himself.'

You see the difficulty.  A pronoun is missing and has to be understood, and singulars and plurals are mixed.  Tacitus is explaining why there was a famine and his explanation seems to be that everyone's attention was directed towards preparation for war, to the neglect of husbandry, on the assumption that they would be able to seize what they needed from Roman stocks.  Whether that was a reasonable assumption is another matter, of course.

However, if we imagine that March was the sowing season, and the Britons were not already at war - why would they not sow crops? They could hardly have assumed that they would be away from home until October or so. Not to do so would not just be 'negligent', but amazingly stupid.

But not as stupid as thinking that they might delay the uprising until after the autumn sowing, which is the other alternative.  I think it highly likely that they expected the revolt to carry on past the normal time for harvesting and, as I have said before, they were not going to waste valuable seed corn in sowing a crop that they were unlikely to be able to harvest.

Tacitus does not give us any dates.  All we know is that the outbreak of the revolt coincided with the final stages of the Anglesey campaign and we do not know how long that lasted.  The impression given is that, once a landing on the island had been accomplished, it was over quite quickly.  March is obviously too early and October is too late.  There is a lot to  pack in between the outbreak and the final stages of the incident but it can be done, if the revolt started early enough.  Tacitus tells us that the revolt broke out in AD61 and I am not going to disbelieve him on the unverified assumption that this occurred after the summer harvest.

[Nathan Ross]

You see the difficulty...

Ahhh, I suspected there might be some sort of difficulty here!

preparation for war...

But I'm still not seeing anything about preparing for war in this passage. Tacitus is very vague about timing, but unless the people were not physically present I don't see what sort of preparation for going to war in several months would involve not sowing crops...

delay the uprising until after the autumn sowing, which is the other alternative.

Presumably if the sowing is in the spring they start their revolt in April or May, fight in June, July and August, and aim to be back for September, for the harvest?

So since they're not actually starting the revolt in March (far too early for the Romans to be on Anglesey)... what are they doing instead? If they are actively 'preparing for war', why do the Romans not notice?

But this is starting to feel a bit repetitive, and is seems unlikely that we will reach any sort of conclusion. Perhaps we had better just leave this whole debate about chronology for now and hope to move on to something else?

[Renatus]

Presumably if the sowing is in the spring they start their revolt in April or May, fight in June, July and August, and aim to be back for September, for the harvest?

I doubt that.  If the plan was to drive the Romans from the province, as we are told it was, that was likely to be a lengthy process.  If they withdrew to their homelands for harvesting and autumn sowing, they would be passing the initiative to the Romans, Suetonius would gather his forces and launch a retaliatory attack, and the rebellion would be at an end.  They had to keep the pressure on and that would allow for no relaxation.  Accordingly, they had to remain in the field until the objective was achieved and the longer they did so, the more tribes were likely to join them and the easier the task would become.

So since they're not actually starting the revolt in March (far too early for the Romans to be on Anglesey)... what are they doing instead? If they are actively 'preparing for war', why do the Romans not notice?

They were doing what they would have had to do whenever the revolt broke out: planning generally, preparing weaponry and organising their 'secret conspiracy'.  Why did the Romans not notice?  Why indeed?  Whenever the rebellion broke out, they did not notice.  So far as failure to sow might have been a warning sign, by modern reckoning spring falls between mid-March and mid-June.  Do we know when in mid-1st century Britain seeds were actually sown?  Perhaps, they made a show of preparing the fields without actually sowing anything.  In any event, if the Romans were to have thought that the Britons seemed strangely inactive, would they necessarily have seen that as an indication of an incipient bloody revolution?

Anyway, you may be right and now is the time to move on.

[kavan]

I see that someones last meal at Colchester contained raspberries. Did the Romans have raspberry jam?

[Nathan Ross]

...planning generally, preparing weaponry and organising their 'secret conspiracy'... Perhaps, they made a show of preparing the fields without actually sowing anything. 

I cannot resist mentioning that all this planning, conspiring, mass deception and careful preparation would seem to be the direct opposite of incuriosus, 'careless' or 'negligent'...

But I am increasingly thinking that we cannot really take Tacitus on his word about all this, so we are back to square one...

Did the Romans have raspberry jam?

They might have had some sort of fruity spread - here's a recipe for apricot jam, for example. But without sugar as a preservative and sweetener (presumably they used honey instead?) the result probably would not have tasted much like our jam today.