Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

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.

This is unduly pessimistic.  Tacitus' technique is principally annalistic but he seems to depart from it in two ways.  First, he will explain how a situation arose by setting out the background and this may lead him to consider events in an earlier year.  Any historian would do that.  In relation to the Boudican revolt, he first explains what led to Paulinus' assault on Mona, namely, the relative inactivity of his predecessors Aulus Didius, who had not sought to advance beyond existing conquests, and Veranius, who had engaged in minor raids upon the Silures but had then died before proceeding further, and his desire the emulate the successes of Corbulo in Armenia.  The importance of the Mona campaign in relation to the revolt is that it explains why Paulinus was not on hand to crush it before it had got started but was only made aware of the outbreak in the final stages of the campaign, when it was too late to prevent its early successes.  His consideration of the background to the revolt itself involved the death of Prasutagus and its consequences, which could well have occurred the previous year, and the grievances of the Trinovantes, which were evidently of long standing.

His second departure from a strictly annalistic approach is that, once engaged on a topic, he may pursue it to its conclusion or at least until he reaches a natural break, even if this extends into a later year, before turning to events elsewhere in his original year.  Again in relation to the revolt, this is evident when he considers Turpilianus' less antagonistic governance of the province, which would have extended to his return to Rome in AD63.  Also, it is possible that some at least of the events in the aftermath of the revolt could have taken place in the following year.  One thinks of what Tacitus implies was the ponderous progress of Polyclitus and his entourage through Italy and Gaul, which seems likely to have taken some time.

Having said all this, the revolt itself appears to have been short-lived and there is nothing to suggest that it did not arise and fail in the same year.  It is clearly the 'gravis clades' that Tacitus states was suffered in Britain and I see no reason to disbelieve his unequivocal statement that it occurred 'Caesennio Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus', i.e., in AD61.