Boudicca's Rebellion: Tacitus And Cassius Dio

When examining events in the distant past, it is good to keep in mind that our frequently sparse and incomplete records were written by individuals who were often more interested in their current political situations than the actual facts . Such is undoubtedly the case with the authors of the only primary texts recording the events surrounding Boudicca’s rebellion: Tacitus and Cassius Dio. Tacitus, for example, was more interested in his political agenda when writing the Agricola than when writing the Annals . Writing 40-50 years after the rebellion, he likely had detailed knowledge of the facts since his father in law was a soldier serving in Roman Britain , but he went to pains to paint Boudicca as a character who almost uniquely stood up to the Emperor Nero . His account seems to be less focused on the actual events than it was on the political climate in Rome and the author’s opinion of women in leadership . Cassius Dio’s account is also questionable since he wrote it in the early 3rd century AD and the only remaining copy is an abbreviated version missing much of the original detail . Dio’s opinion of Boudicca is clear: he felt that Rome was shamed by the fact that a woman could wreak disaster in one of its provinces . The matter is further complicated by the fact that there is very little overlap in the works of the two
Known as “nativistic movements,” these revolts tend to occur after the foreign power has been in control of the territory for several years rather than during the initial expansion phase, as local leaders begin to realize that their loss of autonomy is likely to be permanent . The local political structure and culture are threatened by acculturation, and specific incidents of mismanagement can rapidly lead to widespread efforts to banish the intruders