Evidence for Boudicca?

[Drop Bear]

I've been having an argument about the historicity of Jesus. My position: There is no contemporary evidence; he may or may not have existed.

My opponent claimed there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Buodicca,in an attempt at argument by analogy .


The person of Boudicca, her people and the wars she fought against the Romans were apparently described by Tacitus and Cassius Dio. I'm presuming their accounts would have come from contemporay Roman campaign and senate accounts. Is this correct? If not,what are the contemporary sources of evidence about Boudicca?

I'm not suggesting she didnn't exist. I'm only after some specific information..Unlike the figure of Jesus, I'm unaware of any contoversy about Bouddicca's historical existence.

[Pebble]

I've been having an argument about the historicity of Jesus. My position: There is no contemporary evidence; he may or may not have existed.

My opponent claimed there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Buodicca,in an attempt at argument by analogy .


The person of Boudicca, her people and the wars she fought against the Romans were apparently described by Tacitus and Cassius Dio. I'm presuming their accounts would have come from contemporay Roman campaign and senate accounts. Is this correct? If not,what are the contemporary sources of evidence about Boudicca?



I'm not suggesting she didnn't exist. I'm only after some specific information..Unlike the figure of Jesus, I'm unaware of any contoversy about Bouddicca's historical existence.

Boudicca, whose name is sometimes spelled Boadicea, may or may not have been of direct Icenian heritage; it is only known that she was married to the Iceni king, Prasutagus, and among royal Celtic houses marital alliances with other tribes were not unusual. Knowledge of Boudicca survives from the writings of two historians of the Roman empire, Tacitus and Cassius Dio. The latter penned his impression of the Iceni queen: Boudicca, wrote Dio as quoted in The Rebellion of Boudicca, "was huge of frame, terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice. A great mass of bright red hair fell to her knees: she wore a great twisted golden necklace, and a tunic of many colours, over which was a thick mantle, fastened by a brooch."

Well if as evidence you accept Roman accounts written years after the event, Boudicca wins 2:1. I'm not aware that Senate papers survived.

[Matt]

There's the matter of corroboration. The historians say that Boadicea raised Colchester in AD60. Archaeological digs in Colchester confirm. The Bible states that Herod had all children under two killed. No corroboration either archaeological or historical for what you might think would be a rather notable event. The usual caveat that the absence of evidence and so on applies. In fact we have the opposite of corroboration. Historical and archaeological sources confirm that Herod himself was dead at the time of the census (which didn't require anyone to travel to the city of their birth to be counted by the way)

[DrS]

Tacitus is a very reliable source, though fifty years or so after the event in this case. One of his sources, however, was Agricola, Governor of Britain much nearer the time of the events, and Tacitus' father-in-law. Through him he could have had access to people and documents. It's speculative, but it's the sort of area where Tacitus can generally be trusted. The particular problem is lack of firm physical evidence, though as Matt says, there is evidence about events associated with the queen which very firmly backs up Tacitus' account of things, even if not of the woman herself.

[ndall]

There was an In Our Time programme on Radio 4 about Boudica a little while ago. I don't recall the experts going further than "she probably existed". Hopefully this acceptance of uncertainty from scholars of Boudica will support your case.

You can still listen online here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r7lr9

[Tony Williams]

There was an In Our Time programme on Radio 4 about Boudica a little while ago. I don't recall the experts going further than "she probably existed".

What? Next you'll be telling me that Alfred may not have burnt the cakes! Is nothing sacred?

[Drop Bear]

Thank you for your replies.


I was after contemporary records,such as those which exist for say Julius Caesar.

Yes Tacitus is more reliable than other ancient writers such as Dio, Suetonius and the Roman apologist Josephus. However,the discipline of history as we know it did not begin before Gibbon,so care is needed with ancient sources.

I seem to be left with 'probably' or 'most likely' which is fine with me,but I lose the argument. I claimed there are contemporary records for the exsitence of Boudicca. Serves me right for not checking my facts first.

[ndall]

Thank you for your replies.
I seem to be left with 'probably' or 'most likely' which is fine with me,but I lose the argument. I claimed there are contemporary records for the exsitence of Boudicca. Serves me right for not checking my facts first.

I would say a skeptic should be very happy to correct his mistakes. You still win the wider point:

There are no contemporary sources for Boudica, but for this reason people who study her seem to be comfortable admitting she might not have existed. The same attitude should apply to Jesus of Nazareth.

[tolman]

I've been having an argument about the historicity of Jesus. My position: There is no contemporary evidence; he may or may not have existed.

My opponent claimed there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Buodicca,in an attempt at argument by analogy.

Surely the great difference is that even if Boudicca as currently known didn't exist, there could have been someone somewhat similar, and even failing that, it doesn't actually matter much.
When it comes to a historic 'Jesus', what exactly is being talked about - The Son of God actually existing, one of the numerous messianinc prophets at the time being called something like 'Jesus' and saying some of the things which are recorded as having been said, or what?

For the believer, anything other then an actual Son of God seems likely to be more than a little of a let-down, yet even if there were reliable contemporary sources saying that someone called Jesus was going around preaching, and had supporters who believed they were a miraculous healer, and who believed that they were the Son of God, that still seems to barely any better proof of divinity than could be got from assuming that the New Testament wasn't a total fabrication.

Simply given the existence of a religion which appears to reliably date from not too long after the claimed existence of its key figure, one could guess that there was likely some figure around not entirely dissimilar from the one described.
However, starting from that assumption, huge amounts of extra evidence of the figure's existence could be acquired whilst adding effectively no logical support for the person involved actually being divine.

It's basically the same situation as with a historical saint-like figure.
If there were some written accounts from the 10th century about a particular person existing in the 9th century and performing holy miracles, we might think that there may well be some real person inspiring the accounts.
If we later find out from other sources that a person almost certainly did exist at the right time and place with the right name, we can be much more confident they existed, but likely no more confident that they had divine powers even if the writings we uncover claimed very strongly that they had such powers.
At best, all any documentation could ever show is that there were people around who believed in the person concerned, but we already knew that before we started.

Likewise, for someone who doesn't believe that there was a Jesus (Son of God), whether there was or wasn't someone around at the time who was a Jesus (Not Son of God) is pretty much irrelevant.

[smudge]

Tacitus is a very reliable source,.

I've often heard this said. Out of interest, could you elaborate?

There was an In Our Time programme on Radio 4 about Boudica a little while ago. I don't recall the experts going further than "she probably existed". Hopefully this acceptance of uncertainty from scholars of Boudica will support your case.

You can still listen online here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r7lr9

I listened to this a few months ago and found it very interesting indeed. There are parallels with the Jesus story. Robin Hood also sprang to mind. Depending on degrees of evidence there is a continuum from folk legend to historic fact.

[DrS]

I've often heard this said. Out of interest, could you elaborate?

He was a senator and well connected, and in fact was consul one year, so had access to sources (official papers and people) that others writing at the time could not have. In addition, he was not a sensationalist writer (compared to someone like Suetonius, say), and his work can be seen to be generally factually accurate in so far as it is backed up independently by other sources. His methodology, too is recognizably different from many others, and puts him in a different class. His methodology, at times, makes him seem like a contemporary source rather than an ancient one!

[smudge]

He was a senator and well connected, and in fact was consul one year, so had access to sources (official papers and people) that others writing at the time could not have. In addition, he was not a sensationalist writer (compared to someone like Suetonius, say), and his work can be seen to be generally factually accurate in so far as it is backed up independently by other sources. His methodology, too is recognizably different from many others, and puts him in a different class. His methodology, at times, makes him seem like a contemporary source rather than an ancient one!

Thanks for that.
I imagine you would accept that though more reliable than many we would still have to assume a general pro Roman bias in his writings? It's often said that the winners get to write their version of history!

[DrS]

Yes absolutely. He was a Roman after all, though his actual place of birth is uncertain. To be fair, he was extremely critical of the Romans at times too, and he acknowledges the need to be unbiased. All the same, he is writing from the victors' perspective.

His bias can be seen most amusingly in his reports of Britons, whom he presented as fearful, and whose men painted themselves with blue woad, and whose women were the most frightening of all!

[smudge]

Yes absolutely. He was a Roman after all, though his actual place of birth is uncertain. To be fair, he was extremely critical of the Romans at times too, and he acknowledges the need to be unbiased. All the same, he is writing from the victors' perspective.

His bias can be seen most amusingly in his reports of Britons, whom he presented as fearful, and whose men painted themselves with blue woad, and whose women were the most frightening of all!

I recently finished reading Rubicon by Tom Holland which deals with the history of the Roman republic. Very interesting and enjoyable. If you have any suggestions for further reading I'd be very interested!

[polomint38]

Yes absolutely. He was a Roman after all, though his actual place of birth is uncertain. To be fair, he was extremely critical of the Romans at times too, and he acknowledges the need to be unbiased. All the same, he is writing from the victors' perspective.

His bias can be seen most amusingly in his reports of Britons, whom he presented as fearful, and whose men painted themselves with blue woad, and whose women were the most frightening of all!

Nothings changed there then