Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[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.