Like many other rulers in Britain at this time, Boudicca witnessed the suffering caused to her people by the heavy taxes, conscription and other indignities generated by the Roman Emperor Nero. The final outrage came when her husband Prasutagus died, and the Romans plundered her chief tribesmen and brutally annexed her dominions. This was too much for the Queen and she determined to take on Nero and his Legions. In this she was not alone, for tradition tells that all of south east Britain came to her side, ready to die for the Queen who was fierce enough to take on the Roman Empire. It's noteworthy that tribes which remained loyal to the Romans, (like the uvellauni) were not spared Boudicca's wrath.
Boudicca's opportunity came when the Roman Governor General Seutonius Paulinus and his troops were stationed in Anglesey and North Wales. By the time Paulinus got back, the Roman municipalities of St Albans and Colchester had been burned to the ground by the Britons. Boudicca's warriors were more than a little intimidating. They virtually routed the Ninth Legion that had been marching from Lincoln to help Paulinus, and without additional support from Rome there was little he could do against the determination of these people. Eventually they marched on London and it was here at last that Paulinus faced Boudicca and her army of Britons in the field. We don't know where, (possibly the Midlands) but we do know that a desperate battle was fought, and although the Romans were the victors, they regained the province at great price.
Many thousands of Britons fell in battle and those who lived were hunted down by Roman soldiers. But it would seem that Boudicca's actions had shocked the Roman world into adopting policies that were a little kinder. Some historians believe that the relative lack of Romano-British remains in Norfolk is testimony to the severity with which the Roman Empire crushed Boudicca and the Iceni peoples.

What do you think would have happened had Boudicca been successful in the defeat of the Romans?? What would Britain have been like having shook off their oppressive occupiers?? And what would the effects be on the Roman Empire??

zero, rome would of simpely retaken it--no one at the time was capable of standing up to her if she wanted something

did you watch battlefeild britain, panzerking? ;)

Well, as Boudicca's previous battles had been against garrisons, rather than a mobilised field army, it's highly unlikely she could have stood up to Rome forever. It might have taken a decade or more, but sooner or later another set of legions would have beaten the Iceni into a page of history.

did you watch battlefeild britain, panzerking? ;)

Her army did sucessfully overwhelmed a single legion of 5000 by ambushing them in close country. Had she continued to fight an irregular war instead of engaging in a set battle it would have been very possible the romans could be beaten.

I think Britain might have been abandoned for some time. However, I think an ambitious war-mongerer like Trajan with some military prowess would probably have invaded later anyway, and in that invasion the Britons wouldv'e been screwed.

Romans were so strong back then, so I think they just would have conquered it decade later... But, I for once think that britons never really had a chance.
Romans could have conquered the scotland too, if they would have wanted.

I know you're secretly little nationalistic, or something... ;) :D

But it would be worse for britain if the Roman wouldn't have conquered it.

EDIT: I think this battle is really intresting, because it is really a perfect example of how strong the Roman discipline was...

Romans were so strong back then, so I think they just would have conquered it decade later... But, I for once think that britons never really had a chance.
Romans could have conquered the scotland too

Rome tried to conquer Scotland, Julius Agricola in 84ad and Septimius serverus in 208ad both marched throughout Scotland--the Picts simply avoided battle ( except at Mons Graupius--a roman win ), no towns, few villages left the Romans " nothing to hold ", as soon as they left, the picts returned

did you watch battlefeild britain, panzerking? ;)

No I never saw it, wish I had though if it was about Boudicca coz this era of early Britain has always fascinated me. :)

I agree with the posts that even if Boudicca had won over the Romans it would have been shortlived as it was a Roman dominated world at the time. Would have been quite cool though to have a warrior queen who united the early Brits through a hatred of the Romans. Especially as at the time when the Romans landed England was more-or-less a mass of celtic tribes who co-existed using similar language and customs but each individual.

Rome tried to conquer Scotland, Julius Agricola in 84ad and Septimius serverus in 208ad both marched throughout Scotland--the Picts simply avoided battle ( except at Mons Graupius--a roman win ), no towns, few villages left the Romans " nothing to hold ", as soon as they left, the picts returned


This is true, the Picts (or Caledonians) retreated into the mountains and dug-in and the Romans did not see this kind of fighting as profitable decided against following them. Then in 122AD when Emperor Hadrian visited Britain he saw the difficulties considering the terrain of Caledonia and decided that it would also be impossible to convert the Picts to the Roman way of life. So instead they built Hadrian's Wall to keep them out.

Rome tried to conquer Scotland, Julius Agricola in 84ad and Septimius serverus in 208ad both marched throughout Scotland--the Picts simply avoided battle ( except at Mons Graupius--a roman win ), no towns, few villages left the Romans " nothing to hold ", as soon as they left, the picts returned

The Pictish clans and tribes were utterly crushed by three battles.

The Romans could have conquered it easily, but there was nothing really but hills, forests, and ignorant people.

Agricola did invade scotland, but troubles started in dacia, and the legions had to abandon scotland because areas around dacia were better than scotland, so the legions were withdrawn and send protect the empire in south.

I do agree that the pictish did avoid battle many times, but that wouldn't have stoped the Romans.

Romans were so strong back then, so I think they just would have conquered it decade later... But, I for once think that britons never really had a chance.
Romans could have conquered the scotland too, if they would have wanted.



Very difficult to conquer Scotland unless you control all the Irish/Scottish sea routes as well. Very difficult to build Roman style roads across Scotland (mountains and lakes).

Why has no one mentioned the fierce Scotii either? Surely another factor in the Romans deciding that Scotland was a game not worth the candle.

The Pictish clans and tribes were utterly crushed by three battles.

The Romans could have conquered it easily, but there was nothing really but hills, forests, and ignorant people.




Then why did they conquer places like Gaul? I'm not too knowledgeable on the people but they weren't building cities or sewer systems either.

Wine growing country perhaps? They did plant a few vinyards in Britain (still a handful of vinyards today) but the UK isn't great wine country... perhaps that was the reason.

Why has no one mentioned the fierce Scotii either? Surely another factor in the Romans deciding that Scotland was a game not worth the candle.

Their first foray north was made in 79 or 80 AD by Cnaeus Julius Agricola from Carlisle, reaching as far as Perthshire. Later expeditions in 82 and 83 established forts as far north as Aberdeenshire and the following year Agricola's forces defeated the native Caledonii at Mons Graupius. However, most of his forts were abandoned shortly after and by 118, the effective limit of Roman rule was marked by Hadrian's Wall (named after the emperor Hadrian), a defensive barrier running across the north of England between the Tyne and the Solway.

During the 140s, the Romans tried to move their border northwards and built a new defensive barrier, the Antonine Wall, between the Forth and the Clyde. For the next forty or fifty years, the Romans regularly occupied and abandoned this position in favour of the security of Hadrian's Wall.

Between 208 and 211, the Emperor Septimus Severus conducted a major campaign against the Caledonii and other tribes from major camps based around the Tay and Angus. When Severus died in 211, the Romans retreated again to Hadrian's Wall.

The final incursions came a century after Severus but this time, the Picts (a confederation of tribes based north of the Forth) fought back and by 367 had overrun Hadrian's Wall which the Legions finally abandoned in 400.

Then why did they conquer places like Gaul? I'm not too knowledgeable on the people but they weren't building cities or sewer systems either.

Because Gaul was a gigantic land, rich with forests, rivers and good farm land. Also, there were many other resources it there. Scotland was poor, it had bad farmlands, forests weren't that great either... and it would have probably costed more for the Romans to keep it under control then they would have gained from the mining, forests, or agriculture...

The Romans never controlled Kernow/Cornwall either. It's terrible land to get to and fight on, and not worth sending a legion into.

Had Boudicca defeated Suetonius, I doubt she could have consolidated her position to any great extent- there was no cohesive national British support to draw on, after all. Either there would have been a full-scale invasion/re-taking of Britain by the Romans, or (and I think this more likely), the Romans would have stepped back from South-East England and consolidated their position in the South-West. This would allow them to minimise their risks while retaining control of the major sources of gold, tin and lead (which is what they really wanted Britain for).

In time, the rebellious South-East would probably have become Romanised by degrees even without a conquest.

Scotland was poor, it had bad farmlands, forests weren't that great either...

Actually the Scottish forests at the time were stupendous. Most of Scotland was forested. It just all got cut down in later centuries.

Yeah, i mean kafka has a point, there was no real unifying force in britain. But it took the romans years and years to subdue the picts (indeed they never really did, did they?)

Anyway as with most 'invasions' of britain there were very few actual battles it was more the case that trade and natives sympathetic to the invaders culture and way of life made switch to the new status quo - hence when they left things just went back more or less to the way they were before.

wouldnt the loss of four legions (garrison forces) have been a serious loss for the romans ???

Theres another issue though there was no unifiying force to unit the british celts as Kafka2 says but Cunobelin was uniting the tribes at a worring rate before claudius decided on the action to be taken say some. If boudicca had managed to get more tribes on board then maybe... Albion / britian was getting to be quite a prosperous place by then of course.

i love this bit of british history too panzerking.

Theres another issue though there was no unifiying force to unit the british celts as Kafka2 says but Cunobelin was uniting the tribes at a worring rate before claudius decided on the action to be taken say some. If boudicca had managed to get more tribes on board then maybe...

Cunobelin's actions didn't mean a great deal outside of South-East England (which was what the Roman historians concentrated on). True- you had the Trinovantes and Catuvellauni on board, but the hold over the Atrebates was always suspect. I don't see enough evidence of concerted aims and actions to consider that unification would catch on.