Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[MonsGraupius]

the 60-61 Ad tag as if Kevin K Carroll never bothered to publish a paper....

It is annoying the way they keep doing that - implying, for one thing, that the rebellion lasted for two years, rather than a month or so with a lengthy aftermath.

Meanwhile, I went to the British Museum exhibition last week, and was dreading the inevitable mentions of Mancetter and Paulinus's dash to London... Luckily the matter of the battle site was passed over in silence (along with a lot else, as it happens!)

The exhibition itself is so keen look 'behind the myth' that it neglects to mention over half of what we know - or think we know - about Nero; all that remains is the vague impression that he was probably a decent emperor unfairly maligned by 'elite historians'...

I've had many an argument with "elite historians" who will state unequivocally that Tacitus was a liar and nothing he says can be trusted ... after having cited most of their argument from Tacitus. When I ask them to show these "proven lies" by Tacitus, they get aggressive and say "it's well known" without ever being able to prove it.

What we actually have is "elite historians" who just cherry pick the texts ... to claim the bits that they like are "undeniable" and the bits they don't are "obvious lies".

The classic place this is used is when "elite historians" pick their favourite Scottish Hill and claim it to be the site of "Mons Graupius". A lot of the detail about the site is in the battle speech by Calgacus (one of the Caledonian leaders). And that is why we get this oft stated "The Romans like Tacitus just made up battle speeches". That is because the speeches contain awkward phrases like "the Romans in sight of the sea" (I forget the exact wording). But the implication is clear, the sea could be seen from the battle site or Roman encampment. Which is why "elite historians" come up with this lie about Tacitus being a liar ... presumably because that is how they approach history.

I've found the same approach with the Birthplace of St.Patrick. The early biographies make it clear he was born in Strathclyde. But "elite historian", wanting to link St.Patrick to totally inappropriate places, just ignore the facts and place St.Patrick's birthplace in the middle of England where no pirates would ever have gone ... and state categorically that is where he was born ... based on a very twisted "likeness" with a Roman name.

And likewise we see the same approach being used for Boudica's last stand. At no point does it even imply the battle is on Watling Street, and there are very good strategy reasons why it wouldn't be there, and parts of the text that point to a long delay which totally puts a spanner in the idea of the gallop back up Watling St. But that too has to some become an "unchallengeable truth".

I could go on ... everything from the "Highland clearances" to the British "Celts" is largely a fabrication. Even something like Arthur ... when you start examining the early texts what to I find: a "Merlin of the Caledonian Forest". And Arthur fights one battle in the Caledonian forest and several other battles look very suspiciously Scottish. Uther (Arthur's dad) is also describe by Geoffrey of Monmouth as retiring to "Alt Clud" (Dumbarton Rock), and that too can be linked by the Roman name to a battle of Arthur and the annals of Strathclyde list names suspiciously Arthur sounding. But no, "Elite historians" have decided that not only is Arthur English ... but if he isn't English, he is a myth.

So basically, if anyone honest actually put the effort into working out what actually most likely happened in history, I suspect half of what is written by "elite historians" would be found to be utter BS.