Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

To say that Tacitus' account of the revolt presents us with a chronological conundrum would be something of an understatement.  However, I have been trying to get to grips with it in the light of recent comments and I now present my conclusions.  This involves the occasional repetition and, to some extent, modification of what I have said previously.

The first thing to note is that the bulk of Tacitus' account relates to the events of a single year, AD61.  The only part of it that can be said to relate unequivocally to a later period is what he says about the governorship of Petronius Turpilianus.  There are two passages that lead to this conclusion.  First, there is his statement that the revolt broke out during the consulship of Caesennius Paetus and Petronius Turpilianus (Caesen[n]io Paeso et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus).  I will consider the possible significance of this wording later.  The second is the statement that, after the investigation and report of Polyclitus and the debacle of the wrecked ships, Suetonius was ordered to hand his army over to Turpilianus who had resigned his consulship (qui iam consulatu abierat).  These were the last recorded events of Suetonius' governorship and there seems little doubt that they occurred in the same year.  As I have remarked before, the significant word is iam.  Translators have rendered this differently - Church & Brodribb, 'just'; Michael Grant in Penguin, 'recent'; Loeb, 'by now' - but all, together with its literal meaning of 'at this/that time', convey the impression of a comparatively recent event.  Turpilianus would have stood down in favour of a suffect consul in June or July 61 and iam would have been a singularly inappropriate word to use for an event occurring in or after January 62, when even the suffect consuls would have laid down their offices.  All this points to the events leading to the appointment of Petronius Turpilianus as governor occurring no later than the end of 61.  What can possibly be pushed into 62 is Turpilianus' arrival in the province.  This would mean that the order to hand over the army to the new governor was issued in 61 but with the implicit rider, 'when he arrives in the province'.  It is evident from this that I have difficulty in accepting a timeline that has Polyclitus arriving to conduct his investigation during a second year.  This would mean that, as the making of his report, the loss of the ships and the order to hand over to Turpilianus all took place subsequently and Tupilianus laid down his consulship in June/July 61, the revolt must have broken out in AD60, thus reviving the old notion that Tacitus had made a mistake with his dates.  I am fundamentally opposed to the doctrine that anything that we find difficult to understand can be explained away by assuming that the author had made a mistake, rather than acknowledging a possible deficiency in our understanding.  There may be instances in which such a conclusion can be justified but I do not think that this is one of them.

With this in mind, we have to consider the time when the revolt might have broken out, as there is a lot to fit in before the end of the year.  Nathan has proposed that this would be after the harvest in 61 and, further, that that harvest might have been a poor one.  If that were the case, it would presumably mean that a poor harvest would have taken less time to get in than a full harvest and that the revolt could have broken out slightly earlier than would otherwise have been the case.  There is another possibility, however.  The product of a full harvest would surely have been too great for the rebels to take with them and, accordingly, they could have harvested only so much of the crop as they could have loaded on to their wagons.  However, there is an objection to both these scenarios: Tacitus' wording that I have referred to above.  'Caesen[n]io Paeso et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus' means, literally, 'with Caesennius Paeso and Petronius Turpilianus consuls' or, in less stilted English, 'when Caesennius Paetus and Petronius Turpilianus were consuls'.  Taken at face value, this refers to the period when they were ordinary consuls, before handing over their consulships to suffects in June or July and, thus, before the harvest.

To consider when the outbreak could have occurred earlier in the year, we have to take into account two further statements from Tacitus.  First, He says in Agricola 15 that the Britons began discussing their grievances after Suetonius had set out on his campaign to Anglesey; secondly, that news of the outbreak came to him after he had defeated the inhabitants of the island and was engaged in establishing a garrison and destroying the sacred groves (Annals, 14.30).  So, how long did the rebels take in their preparations and how long did it take for Suetonius to reach that stage of his operation?  I am not going to attempt to suggest a detailed timeline but will speak in general terms.  We do not know when Prasutagus died or how long it took Catus Decianus to arrange for the appropriation of the Icenian lands and for his subordinates to accomplish it.  Deryk suggests that it might have taken some time and he may well be right.  Certainly, if Prasutagus' death had to be reported to Rome and for authorisation of the annexation to come back to the province, it is easy to imagine that has death occurred sometime in AD60.  That said, the annexation must have taken place by spring AD61 to fit in with the timing suggested by Tacitus.  Boudica's preparations need not have taken long.  Enlisting the assistance of the Trinovantes would have been relatively easy.  They were the neighbouring tribe and already had grievances of their own regarding appropriation of land.  Engaging other tribes need not have involved organising a grand tribal assembly.  All that was required was to send out envoys with a simple message, 'Prasutagus was a client king and look what happened to us.  You are in for the same or worse, if you do not join us.'  She could then wait until the envoys retuned with pledges of support and then, when she had enough to give her confidence, embark upon the revolt.

Meanwhile, Suetonius was engaged on his Anglesey campaign but we are given few details.  The fighting on the island seems to have been over very quickly.  We may infer from Tacitus' description that the inhabitants threw everything they had into opposing the Romans' landing and, failing in that, had nothing left, leaving Suetonius free to establish his garrison and destroy the groves.  The bulk of his campaign, therefore, would have consisted in marching to the Menai Straits and building the invasion barges.  Being a cautious general, it is unlikely that he set out with less than his full campaign army, deterring any opposition with a massive show of force.  We may see him, therefore, assembling his forces during the spring of AD61 and setting of as soon as he deemed weather conditions to be favourable.  The march need have taken no longer than would have been expected of any campaigning army and he may have been able to take advantage of pre-existing track-ways.  On the other hand, the time taken to construct the barges remains uncertain, depending on their number, design and carrying capacity.  Being able to call on the resources of his whole army for felling trees and building the barges will probably have speeded up the process.  The number will have depended upon how large a force he intended to land on the island and whether he intended to carry it across in one or more waves.  Again, being cautious, he is likely to have used a substantial force and, considering that the enemy would have had plenty of notice of his intentions and appears to have massed on the shore to oppose him, it is likely that he sent it across in one wave.  However, he is unlikely to have used his full army but kept a substantial part of it back, strategically placed to protect his rear.  We know nothing of the design or carrying capacity of the barges but they may well have been little more than glorified punts and, therefore, knocked up quite quickly.  Of course, the longer this process took, the nearer it takes us to the middle of the year for the outbreak of the revolt.

The final issue to consider is the missed planting of crops.  If we suppose that the revolt broke out before the harvest, the missing of planting in the autumn ceases to be relevant.  We then have to consider the possible significance of missing sowing in the spring.  If I understand Hanny's comment in his post #1991 correctly, the natural cycle for cereal is planting in spring for harvesting at the end of the year but this is modified by human intervention in the form of manuring and weeding, which leads to increased yields and, possibly, earlier maturation.  This being so, the lack of such intervention would result in cereal reverting to its natural cycle.  Thus, failure to sow in the spring would mean that there was nothing to harvest in the latter part of the year, after the defeated rebels had returned to their homelands, and this, coupled with the failure to harvest the crop from the previous year, would have led to the famine referred to by Tacitus.