Talk:Boudica

Template:Vital article Bold textpedia:Featured article candidates/Boudica 1 |action1result=not promoted |action1oldid=33065204

|action2=FAC |action2date=03:53, 12 April 2007 |action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boudica 2vjghsjghrtsliturtliyroityerityruity— |action2result=not promoted |action2oldid=120681186

|currentstatus=FFAC }}

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Obfuscatiion. Peer reviewers: SpencerPaddock.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues

Nice job! tanx buddy Two things - the location of the Iceni territory (more or less), would be handy; and what happened to the daughters? I only vaguely remember that their rape and or otherwise outraging was a contributing factor. --MichaelTinkler

in the bit about (paraphrasing) "retreating soldiers prevented from fleeing by their families", it's written a little bit ambiguously: presumably it means that the families were physically crowding the way. Alternately, it could mean that their families refused to allow them to leave, urging them to stay and fight. Since I don't know the right answer, I won't clean it up.

I've rewritten that bit - it should be a bit clearer now. --Nicknack009 16:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is a bit ambiguous about the exact dates involved. Is it really not known for sure exactly when Boudicca was defeated? Would the fact that it's descibed as 60/61 suggest that it was around the turn of the year? - Jayem

No, it's pretty clear from Tacitus that the revolt started in the spring or summer (campaigning season) and was defeated before the start of winter. Dates from Britain in this period have been worked out by counting up the years served by each governor. There's a one year margin for error because it's not clear whether Quintus Veranius died within twelve months of being appointed, or within the calendar year of his appointment. --Nicknack009 18:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have cross referenced the bit of trivial about Boudicca and platform 9-3/4 Kings Cross station from the Harry Potter page. --Andrew Grimmke

Yes it is true that it was started in spring but on the Roman calendar the year starts in March so it would be the March of 62 C.E but then considered the turn of the year. -Royal Russell 9:54 PM, 8/31/2005

It's true that the Roman calendar started in March, but the dates in question aren't based on the original Roman calendar. The relavant historians (Tacitus and Dio Cassius) used the consuls to identify the year, and the consuls took office on 1 January, so events they describe are dated retrospectively using a January-December year. However, Tacitus isn't entirely annalistic when dealing with Britain in his Annals, but often sums up a period of several years at an appropriate place in the overall narrative, and Dio Cassius's account comes from an epitome which doesn't mention the consuls, hence having to count up years served by governors. The rebellion (or at least the build-up) started before seed-time, as Tacitus says the Britons had neglected to sow their crops, hoping to seize Roman grain, so it could have started before March and therefore in the calendar year of 59 or 60 and ended at the start of winter 60 or 61. By the turn of 62 it would have been all over, and Suetonius Paulinus would have been carrying out his punitive operations. --Nicknack009 19:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Now on to a different subject: MichaelTinkler you said you had a bit of trouble with under standing where Iceni is. Well Iceni is the bump sticking out just above Kent, which is modern-day Norwich. And her daughters, Cammora and Tasca probaly poisoned themselves with Boudicca. -Royal Russell, 9:31 PM, 9/28/2005

That "bump sticking out" is in fact East Anglia, comprising the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. Norwich is the main city in Norfolk..... 192.30.202.16 16:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Vivien Shiers

OMG! I just re-read what I wrote back more than a year ago! I feel really dumb! "bump sticking out?" How could I be so air-headed? Anyway I go by a different name now rather than Royal Russell. User:Jim Bart 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Death?

Okay, I thought the part on her death was a) a bit short and didn't do justice to the in depth article, b) There is a little more to it than simply either swhe died or got ill. So I'd thought I'd expand it, just not to a geeat extent.

"According to Tacitus in his Annals, Boudica poisoned herself, though in the Agricola which was written almost twenty years prior he mentions nothing of suicide and atributes the end of the revolt to socordiam indolence; Dio says she fell sick and died then given a lavish burial; though this may be a convenient way to remove her from the story. Considering Dio must have read Tacitus, it is worth noting he mentions nothing about suicide (which was also how Postumus and Nero also ended their lives)"

That is what I wrote, I would like it if someone would tidy it a bit and add a source ref. I do have a ref only I have no idea as how to do it...far to confusing for me. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Defying-Rome-Guy-Bedoyere/dp/0752444409 the book is in depth and is written by a man respected in the field. The Chapter Boudica (pages 69-70) mentions the part I added. DarkMithras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.246.129 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

More books that come down on the side of suicide by poison: "She took poison after her defeat, rather than be forced to march in a Roman triumphal parade. (15)".

• Bonnie Sanderson and Judith P. Zinsser; A History of Their Own: Women in Europe From Prehistory to the Present, Volume 1; New York; Harper & Row, Publisher, 1988; p. 56.
• Their reference for note #15 is: Graham Webster; Boudica: The British Revolt Against Rome A.D. 60; Totowa, NJ; Rowman and Littlefield, 1978, pp. 87-89.
  

"Boudica poisoned herself. Dio adds that she was buried secretly with great honor, but where this took place we have no means of knowing. The discovery of her burial place would cause an archaeological sensation, but it is unlikely." There's a "Book list" at the end of the book, but no footnotes or endnotes.

• Michael Wood; In Search of the Dark Ages; New York; Facts on File Publications, 1987; p. 32.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not quite that simple.

There are only three sources in antiquity that mention Boudica. Dio, Tacitus and Agricula.

Dio mentions absolutely nothing about her being poisoned. The only times he mentions poison is when referring to Nero's disposal methods and death. Dio states Boudica "fell sick and died." There is no evidence whatsoever in Dio's works that suggest she had poisoning of any kind.

It is pure speculation on that Woods part. He seems to have made a connection with "getting ill" and "poison". After all, if you have poison, you get ill right? But this is Woods' opinion and it is shared with neither Dio nor the Agricula.

The Agricula put it down to indolence. He was a Tribune at the very time Boudica had her rebellion. Agricula was contemporaneity to her time of death, there is a good chance he was at the battle. Yet he mentioned nothing of poison.

Tacitus writes of poison. He is the only one.

Two of of three historical sources say she wasn't poisoned - and one of those sources was present at the time. If this was a courtroom, poison would most likely be ruled out as the cause of death. The only real thing that keeps it popular is tradition.

DarkMithras 2015

That's something of a misunderstanding of the facts. There are indeed three sources (all of which are linked from the article so you can read them), but two are by the same author. Tacitus wrote Agricola in about AD 98, in which he gives a fairly cursory overview of the revolt, which doesn't mention how Boudica died. He gives a more detailed account in the Annals, written c.116, in which he says she committed suicide by poison. Cassius Dio wrote his Roman History after AD 229, but the passage about Boudica's revolt survives only in an epitome or abridgement made by John Xiphilinus in the 11th century, which says that she fell ill and died.

Tacitus is the earlier source. He wrote within living memory of the events, and is likely to have had a first-hand source as his father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, was a junior officer on the staff of the governor of Britain at the time of the revolt. His two accounts do not contradict each other on this point, because only one of them mentions how Boudica died. Cassius Dio is a later source, writing outside living memory of the events, and we only know what he wrote second hand. Most historians would conclude that Tacitus is more likely to be reliable on this subject. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

DarkMithras

That's what happens when I a) do not reread what I write and make edits b) check facts and make sure I have not crossed wires. :(

Okay, here is what I mean - and I have the book in front of me so I cannot makes mistakes. Take in mind that Guy de la Bedoyere is no maverick, nor is he a fringe historian. He is as accepted and as mainstreak as you can get... and he says this.

"This brings us now to the curious mystery of the end of Boudica. Her fate is not really very clear. Tacitus says she 'ended her life with poison'. Dio says that in the aftermath [of the battle] she grew sick and died."

"... having served her literary purpose she was written out as quickly as possible. It is interesting that the two accounts of her death are so radically different. Tacitus ought to have been more accurate, but suicide was also how Nero ended his life eight years later and it was the was disgraced camp prefect of II Augusta escaped punishment. Given her personality, as described by the Roman historians, it is scarcely credible that shew would end her life so ignominious a fashion. So it is quite possible that when he came to write the Annals, suicide suited his dramatic purpose."

In the Agricola which he wrote nearly twenty years before the Annals, Tacitus attributed the revolts demise to socordiam, 'indolence', and made no mention of Boudica's end. On the other hand, Dio's account of her withering away and dying from an illness sounds more like a convenient way of removing her. Surely if she had committed suicide Dio would have known about it."

"We really need to ask whether Boudica's real role in the whole revolt was ever really very significant at all, and just possibly whether she actually existed."

As I said, this is Bedoyere. It is what he writes. Wikipedia isn't biased, it tells all facts from all sides given they have a credible source. It doesn't matter if "Most historians would conclude". They do not all agree, so is contested therefore be included.

DarkMithras:2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.128.226 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Both versions are included. The article states clearly that the sources differ, and doesn't come down in favour of one version or the other. I explained why I thought Tacitus' account in the Annals is more likely to be reliable than Dio's, not because I wanted to rule out Dio's account, but because you were arguing in favour of ruling out Tacitus's account. De la Bedoyere is just as sceptical of Dio as he is of Tacitus, so he does not support your argument that we should follow Dio rather than Tacitus. De la Bedoyere is a well-known historian of Roman Britain, but the extract is not offering any "facts", but rather his opinion on the known facts, and I would suggest this is a minority opinion at best and does not represent scholarly consensus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Roman forces outnumbered, or Boudica's forces?

In the second paragraph, this caught my attention: "Roman emperor Nero briefly considered withdrawing Roman forces from the island, but ultimately Boudica was defeated at the Battle of Watling Street by the heavily outnumbered forces of Roman provincial governor Gaius Suetonius Paulinus." (bold added for emphasis)

Is this correct? Were the Roman forces outnumbered, or were Boudica's forces outnumbered? I didn't edit it, since I don't know the facts, but it makes more sense if Boudica's forces were outnumbered, not the Roman forces. Can someone look into this and make the necessary changes?70.17.38.39 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the History Channel special airing 3/26/06 - Boudica's forces outnumbered the Roman forces. However, her forces were more 'savage' and not highly trained nor protected like the Roman forces, hence the loss.

Boudiccas forces outnumbered the Romans by about 20 to 1.--Andy mci 17:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Brythonic Celtic?

In the first paragraph the text explicitly states that she was the ruler of the "Brythonic Celtic Iceni". I think this need to be less emphatic as there is a growing level of support for the idea that the pre-roman people of Eastern Britain were not in any way Celtic. Now there are theories that they might have been "Germanic" but there is strong genetic evidence of cultural and ethnic difference between the east a west in Britain.

I just believe that this debate about the origin of the people of eastern Britain should be reflected and that theory and evidence has moved on.

As far as I know there is no evidence whatsoever of Germanic language in pre-Roman or early Roman Britain, and plenty for Celtic. Odd that the anti-Celticists will emphasise archaeological continuity when it suits them, and archaeological difference when it suits them, to deny Celtic influence in Britain. The evidence - some genetic but no linguistic evidence for Germanic presence in south-eastern Britain - suggests that Caesar was right all along, and the Belgae - Celtic-speakers with some Germanic roots - settled there in the 2nd/1st century BC! --Nicknack009 21:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Early life" section

This section is largely rubbish. The bit about her family being well-off is okay, and the roundhouse is reasonable supposition, but there's no evidence that the (medieval Irish) practice of fostership was practiced in Britain (and the purpose of it in Ireland was more about political patronage than "learning how to be sociable"). The bit about "warrior school" and the date of her marriage are simply invented. This is not history and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Cite sources or it should be removed. --Nicknack009 19:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Age?

Ok now how old would Prasutagus be at his death? What was the normal age for a Icenian Briton at the time? Or any Briton?

Prasutagus's age at death is not given in any of the sources, therefore nobody knows. It's not even known that, as is often assumed, he died in 60. The account of the conspiracy to rebel given in Agricola suggests that discontent had been building for some time, so he could easily have died, and the Iceni lands been annexed, quite a number of years previously. Stats for average life expectancy in Britain at the time don't exist, so any attempt to give a figure would only be guesswork. --Nicknack009 23:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of history is only guesses. Poserlkg

The whole thing sounds implausibly sudden as usually told. *Why* was Boudica flogged and her daughters raped? It makes more sense if we assume a history of friction, perhaps even of active assistance to rebels in other parts of Britain: but that can never be more than speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.164.240 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Boudica's name

I am just a casual reader, but I noticed an error near the top of this article - was Prasutagus her husband or her father? I guess it is possible they both had the name, but not likely. An edit is needed here.

The article doesn't say Prasutagus was her father, but I can see it how might be taken to mean that. I've clarified it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states that: "Kenneth Jackson concludes that the correct spelling of the name is Boudica, pronounced /bəʊ'diː.ka:/, although it is mispronounced by many as /buː.dik'ə/"

However, the stress markings are in the wrong place for IPA transcriptions: I assume the contributor meant /'bəʊdiː.kaː/ (with stress on the 1st syllable) and /buː'dɪkə/ (with stress on the 2nd syllable) respectively. However, I've never heard the name being pronounced with stress on the 2nd syllable - it is usually pronounced "BOO-di-ka" (ie. /'buːdɪkə/).

Can anyone confirm the pronunciation before I edit the article? I particularly would like confirmation of Kenneth Jackson's pronunciation of the name (note that the system of transcription used in the book may place stress markings after the stressed syllable, rather than before it). Thanks, --Dave ~ (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To quote the article in question:

"The philological fact is that the name must have been Boudica, pronounced in phonetic terminology /boudi:ka:/, in 'English' spelling it would be ' Bowdeekah ', where ow means the dipthong seen in e.g. the phrases 'tie a bow' or 'bow and arrow', and the stressed syllable is the dee, with long vowel, the final a being also long. The generally accepted Boudicca is probably (and incorrectly) pronounced by most people as /budikə/, or, in popular spelling, ' Boodikka '."

Don't know how that would be best rendered in IPA, but hopefully it should help you. --Nicknack009 17:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the article. --Dave ~ (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Could some one explain to me how it should be pronounced instead of BOO-di-kah? is it Bee-oo-dik-ah? or what? sorry I'm an air-head (see above my comments made signed as "Royal Russell"). - signing off as the Drama King from Texas! 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The o and the u are pronounced separately, so it comes out as something like "bow" as in "bow-and-arrow". --Nicknack009 12:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am from Colchester and I thought her name was Boudicca, pronouced BOO-di-ka. I am not sure what they say it is in the Castle Museum - I must find out. {Jake95 21:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)}

I was wrong. It is in fact Boudica. This spelling was used for ages before a Roman historian spelt it as Boudicca. Someone in the middle ages found it and mistook the o for an a and the second c for an e, hence the spelling Boadicea. (I got this information from a history textbook.) {Jake95 19:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)}

The historian = Tacitus. {Jake95 19:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)}

I was always taught that it was title and not a name at all and that her actual name had been lost. Saying that her name is Boudica is like saying Henry the VIII's name is King. - Just another 2 cents to further confuse things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.191.100 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What evidence were you given that "Boudica" is a title? There were early kings of Brittany with the personal name "Budic", meaning "Victor". Perhaps of some relevance is that the ill-fated, but nonetheless very influential, emperor Magnus Maximus (reigned 383-388), who was born in Gaelic-speaking Galicia in Spain and who gave the order for the foundation of Brittany, named his son "Flavius Victor". Zoetropo (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Celtic-speaking Gwyre people of the Cambridgeshire and Norfolk fens during Anglo-Saxon times inhabited what had been Iceni territory. The "capital" of the fenland is Wisbech, and the Wisbey and related families of Cambridgeshire still regard themselves as kin to the Welsh. Zoetropo (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This text appears to be a mischievous interpolation: "The most prominent in most sectors of society is Marvin, which comes from the latin Marvinus Rupudrium, in Irish folklore, she was know as the mighty pamplemousse laitier (grapefruit slag), an inside joke amongst tribal elders". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.133.85 (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time you see something like this, feel free to remove it yourself. Dougweller (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Picture

The article shows a picture of a statue of Emperor Claudius. I would say this belongs to another article, and this article about Boudica should show a picture of Boudica, if such is available. 84.112.148.111 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Iceni or Eceni?

I've reverted back to the spelling "Iceni" for now. It may be that "Eceni" is more accurate (but then again, Iron Age British coin spellings are pretty variable, particularly between E and I), but Wikipedia policy is that the best known version of a name should be used, and as far as I know the scholarly literature still uses "Iceni". My suggestion would be to find an authoritative scholarly work that supports the spelling "Eceni" as the more accurate one and edit the Iceni article accordingly (the way this one does with Kenneth Jackson and the spelling "Boudica"), and after that, roll out the change to this article and others. --Nicknack009 12:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe in ghosties?

At the end of the first paragraph in the "Other cultural references" sections is the line...

"As with all reports of ghostly activity, it is up to the individual to decide whether they are true or not."

This seems like a bit of a throw-away comment to me, so how about we throw it away? It seems like the author is trying to speak to me. It doesnt seem very "encyclopedic". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scowie (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Location of her defeat

Dear me. The platform 10 of King's Cross site for Boudica's grave was based on an April Fool by a British Media organisaton. I'll see if I can find source for it before deleting the reference. 86.141.172.111 12:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/a-b/boud5.html Doesn't confirm the April Fool, but says categorically that there is no truth in the suggestion. I'm being bold. WillE 12:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The circumstances of her death are mostly speculative, I doubt there is much credence to the Train Station theory.

The location of the Metchley "Camp" (in fact, a series of Roman forts) is not "near" King's Norton in Birmingham. It is over two miles away, implying a rather large battlefield if the relevant theory is to be believed.EEye (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit reverted

Fabartus, I have reverted your edit to the opening of the article. Firstly, starting with "best known as Boadicea" is incorrect, as the correct name is now very well known and used in all sources from popular to scholarly. It is also bad practice to open with the incorrect name. Secondly, the year of her death is not certain (it was either 60 or 61, but Tacitus is not precise enough to allow us to plump for one or the other, as is discussed elsewhere on the talk page. Thirdly, the opening clarification bit is entirely unnecessary as the matter is discussed thoroughly in the article. --Nicknack009 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

She IS best-known as Boadicea. I only recently discovered "Boudica". Perhaps historians and scholars know the correct pronunciation, but wikipedia (like any encyclopedia) is not written for scholars who already know everything, but for the average person (who says "Boadicea"). (This is an interjection: Earlier replies to top comment start below.)77Mike77 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One - why have you ignored the points above? Two - why have you duplicated pretty much the whole article in the introduction in the summary? Three - do you seriously think it's reasonable to edit a fully-referenced article on the basis of watching a TV programme? --Nicknack009 17:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Further corrections: Catus Decianus was not a proconsul. Tacitus says that Boudicca was flogged and her daughters raped, not that all three of them were flogged and raped. The "ambush" of the 9th legion is fiction - Tacitus gives no details of how it was defeated, just that it was defeated. Londinium was not yet the capital of Roman Britain. Tacitus makes no mention of the evacuation of Verulamium by Suetonius. If you are not prepared to read the sources, which are helpfully linked to in the footnotes, you have absolutely no business editing the article. --Nicknack009 17:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

========================================================================================

EVERYONE outside of Britain and US uses the Latin --Boadicea-- as the correct spelling. "Who says Boadicea?" -- Everyone, they even pronounce it as Latin BO-A-DI-CEA. Whereas "C" is a non-existent sound in English, and EA is construed as a diphthong. You cannot claim "Boudica" is the correct spelling -- since there are no written BRITON sources of the time. The onlyreason "Boudica" is popularized now days -- is very simple -- it's a bastardization that speakers of ONE language are comfortable with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎69.250.240.232 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2013

Her name is Celtic, not Latin. Tacitus spelled it various ways, iusually Boudicca with two 'c's - specialists in Celtic languages believe this to be wrong and that it had only one 'c'. Dio, who wrote in Greek, spelled it Boudouika. A medieval clerk misread the 2nd 'c' as an 'e'. Where's the evidence it's not used in other countries (not that it matters, this is the English language Wikipedia). Dougweller (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The "correct" spelling, just means the most appropriate using modern conventions. It does not, of course, mean that that's how she signed her name! You can, of course, easily click on the interwikis to see how "everyone" else spells it. I checked a few. "Boudica" rules. Paul B (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be surprised if the woman was literate and signed her name at all. Any written Iceni records may have been left up to a "tribe scribe". Does anyone know of sources that describe general literacy, in any language, among the Celts in her era? After all, they minted coins that bore royal names in their own language. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Romans Rally" Innacuracy

I noticed an inaccuracy while reading this section. One line ("As the Phalanx advanced in a wedge formation") incorrectly states that the Romans fought in a phalanx formation. I won't take the time to explain why this is wrong unless anybody has objections. I have corrected the mistake. 24.6.14.215 01:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC) The documentary "The Roman war machine" states that after an early defeat to the Celts the Romans had to bribe the Celts to leave Rome. The Romans then completely changed their military tactics with smaller, more mobile but smaller groups of soldiers replacing phalanxes in case anyone was wondering. Sioraf (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Other Real People with the Name Boadicea, Boudicca etc.

Anyone feel like adding a paragraph about other real Boadiceas ? 86.140.146.134 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC) it is known that boudicca drank poison and died

Name on Statue

Does anyone know, is there a name on the statue that illustrates this article? I'm guessing that if there is, the name is more likely to be Boadicea than it is Boudica (unless the statue was produced in the late twentieth century, and in style it looks more likely to be late nineteenth). Works of art tend to retain the names given to them by the artist. If later scholarship finds new orthographies, the spelling of the original is nonetheless usually maintained. So if someone knows this statue (or lives nearby and can go take a squint at it)... If the statue is entitled Boadicea, I would suggest that the caption read "statue of Boadicea (Boudica)". Mddietz 20:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/3303275/Hulton-Archive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.72.39.184 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Spellingand pronunciation

User:Kwamikagami, I've tried to be as clear as I can. Jackson is not arguing what the name "would have become" (whatever that means), but what it actually was. He argues that the vowels of the first syllable are a dypthong consisting of an o sound followed by a u sound, which is similar to the "ow" in "bow-and-arrow" in English - but it's not əʊ, as it would be pronounced in BBC English/RP - the o is an o, not a schwa. It's definitely not aʊ, which is the vowel of "house". --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure if it was a contemporary pronunciation or modern. Makes a difference in which IPA key we link to, since the simplified one only works for fairly recent English. How does it look now? kwami (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pop cult reference

The following paragraph -

She appeared as a World Leader in Civilization II as Boadicea, and in Civilization IV's expansion Beyond the Sword, Boudica is added as a leader of the Celtic Civilization, along with Brennus.

- was moved by me for discussion. Normally, I simply delete game references as non-notable and to keep wikipedia from becoming a marketing tool via google search results. However, because of the cultural section's notable size, I think the paragraph, after expansion on why it is notable in how Boudica was depicted in the games, should be included. --OrbitOne (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

She is depicted as a floozy in Civilization IV.77Mike77 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Boudica caption

I'm not certain, but the caption under the picture [1] in the article seems to represent the young lady in the picture as the subject of the article. It may be due to a long day, but I'm having trouble coming up with something that would work well in its place, perhaps something along the lines of "A reenactor portrays Boudica outside a gatehouse" would work, but I'd like a few opinions before changing it. Zharmad (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence

I understand there are clear layers of burnt material under both Colchester and London which confirm Tacitus's accounts of her retribution on those towns. Perhaps some expert could add a section on this?--Straw Cat (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

References???

What's with the first paragraphs? Has no one here ever heard of references and citations? Where was all this stuff copied from? Or was it made up? I came to here looking for some specific information about Boadicea, only to be told -- authoritatively and in a tone of immense self-assurance -- that that was "formerly" her name. Oh yeah? What happened -- she get married or something? What does "formerly" mean and who sez? In brief, without references, it's all original research. Don't believe me? Here's an example.

"Boudica has since remained an important cultural symbol in the United Kingdom. The absence of native British literature during the early part of the first millennium means that Britain owes its knowledge of Boudica's rebellion to the writings of the Romans." (From the last paragraph of the Introduction.) Without references, this pure OR.

Here's another example. "... Boadicea ... known in Welsh as "Buddug" ... (d. AD 60 or 61) was a queen of the Brittonic Iceni tribe of what is now known as East Anglia in England, who led an uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire." The word "who" following "England" -- to whom does it refer? In usual sloppy English, probably Boadicea, but in correct grammar, it refers to the Iceni.

No, I am NOT going to fix up this article. I came here for information, not to edit stuff. I do not want to waste time editing out the weasel words in the section on her name (e.g.,"probably derived," "almost certainly") or trying to figure out what the two inadequately cited authors may have meant. The article is a mess.

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot something. About her name. There is NO single authoritative true source for its spelling -- only different versions attested to by different writers and experts, some self-proclaimed, some not. The whole name thing has to be replaced with a nice review of the sources that exist, and cut all the garbage about "almost certainly."

I Googled both versions of her name. Boadicea = 360,000 hits; Boudica = 179,000 hits.

Added later: I searched Google Books with Boudica = 580 books with her name thus spelled; Boudicca = 1235 books; Boadicea = 2490 books; in percentages, Boudica = 580/4305 = 13.4%, Boudicca = 28.7%, Boadicea = 57.8%.

Timothy Perper (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to me that Timothy Perper (talk · contribs) took into account that any one book worth it's salt will list and qualify the variations in spelling. That means that there has to be a lot of overlap in the numbers of books giving these spelling variations (in addition to the other variations that this user doesn't mention). So, the total number is not 360,000 + 179,000 books, but probably far fewer than that 360,000 number. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all rather confused; firstly the article incorrectly states that "Until the late 20th century, Boudica was known as Boadicea." This is simply untrue. In fact she was known by several variants of her name, which moved in and out of "fashion" over time. She is called Bonduca in Holinshed's Chronicles (1577), and so also gets called Bonduca in the famous Jacobean play about her. That probably remained the most common form of the name into the 18th century, as in Purcell's Bonduca suite. Boadicea is prefered by Victorian writers because they thought it sounded more dignified, but even then scholars were aware of other variants. Boudica - which is really a return to a version similar to the once-popular Bonduca - becomes more common in the late 20th century. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural Reference Addition Please

Don't forget to add the tv adaption in 2003 'Boudica Warrior Queen'

Already mentioned - even has its own article Boudica (film). Paul B (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Little POV?

"Their cause was just, and the deities were on their side; the one legion that had dared to face them had been destroyed. She, a woman, was resolved to win or die; if the men wanted to live in slavery, that was their choice." lol wtf? There's stuff like this all over the article. Maybe we should prevent any anglo-saxons from editing this article xD --Propaganda328 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons??? Are they going to be biassed in favour or against Boudica? Are you perhaps unaware that she was a Celt? The passage, BTW, is a summary of Tacitus's version of her battle speech, not the POV of any Wikpedia editor. Paul B (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if it's quoted from someone, why isn't it between any quotations, and doesn't it say who said it. As for the other thing, well, who am I kidding, I don't even know what a Celt is lol.--Propaganda328 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, in the previous sentence. It's not in quotation marks because it is a summary, not a quotation. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay I fixed it.--Propaganda328 (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, you didn't. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request - BBC Radio 4's In Our Time

BBC Radio 4's In Our Time is a 45 minute discussion programme about the history of ideas, with three eminent academics in their field, hosted by Melvyn Bragg. Each edition deals with one subject from one of the following fields: philosophy, science, religion, culture and historical events. It is akin to a seminar. The entire archive going back to 1998 is now available online in perpetuity.

An edition about Boudica was broadcast with Juliette Wood, Associate Lecturer in Folklore at Cardiff University; Richard Hingley, Professor of Roman Archaeology at Durham University; and Miranda Aldhouse-Green, Professor of Archaeology in the School of History and Archaeology at Cardiff University.

You can listen to the programme on this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00r7lr9. Would you be able to include this as an external link?--Herk1955 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This programme contains a discussion about whether the Boudica story is myth or historical fact. No-one says anything stronger than "she probably existed". Is this level of confidence in the evidence reflective of the consensus among experts? Because if so I can't see an equivalent expression of doubt in this article. Any suggestions? Liberacy (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the programme was rather idiosyncratic in that regard. I don't know any significant body of literature that claims she is mythical. Paul B (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers and final battle

Some evidence following excavations by Reading University at Silchester suggested that the city was burned and destroyed with reliable dating to the Iceni uprising, although this isn't mentioned in the Roman record. If this is correct then not only are the Iceni and Trinovantes involved but the Silures and others. The Roman numbers of belligerants involved may not be so extreme after all.

The father and son team Peter and Dan Snow, in their TV series "Battlefield Britain" after having surveyed the Watling Street area from both air and ground, suggested Paulerspury near Milton Keynes as the most likely site of the final battle.AT Kunene (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Paulerspury is pretty much debunked now, the Snow's were pretty equivocal about the candidate and it was a newish theory in 2004 that never really gained any traction beyond that one tv show. The bone scatter was small and C14 dated to the Anglo Saxon period. Topography is so subtle that it is not of strategic significance and the rear of the Roman forces were close to Watling Street so hardly unapproachable as Tacitus described. Let Cuttle Mill drift inoffensively away without hurting the feelings of the author of that site theory.

Queen Boudica African?

Have you seen this latest archeological find that announces that London was built by Africans whose queen was Boudica?74.229.102.208 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say Africans it says "rebel Iceni tribesmen", and here is a better article [2]. The stupid image perhaps confused you as it does look like a black slave, but no one is making that suggestion. " "The timbers were prepared using 'native' British woodworking techniques, unlike the Roman carpentry used everywhere else. Might this have been the work of forced labour?" Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Another case of African's hijacking another culture (like Egypt for example) and claiming 'dibs'. Romans used slaves, slaves were from all different areas of the world. The word slave does not mean "a black person who was forced to work", possibly comes from the word Slav. Repainting Boudica as black is actually quite racist in many peoples eyes...and is equal to calling Cleopatra black (she was Greek). I can only imagine what would happen if a fringe theorist suddenly decided that Dingane kaSenzangakhona Zulu of the Zulu Kingdom was actually a white chip shop owner from Essex. Martin Luthor King was a German wasn't he? People would feel a bit miffed with all this. This is not history, it is silly. Besides, as the person above me has already stated, the article linked never said black people - simply slaves...who were Celts. DarkMithras 2012/09/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.172.103 (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Egypt is, however, in Africa. So that one's not quite so silly... :-) 165.120.151.143 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

cultural references

I removed two cultural references:

Boudica is discussed at length by Sir William Gull as an inspiration for carrying out the Jack the Ripper killings in the Alan Moore graphic novel From Hell.

On the TV series Top Gear, during a challenge to convert second-hand cars into police cars, Jeremy Clarkson fitted his car with wheel spikes he referred to as "Boadiceas" in reference to the mythological spikes on the wheels of Boudica's chariot. Top Gear, 11x01 Police Car challenge

The first is uncited, does not appear in the article, links the real identity, and does not accord with my recollection of the "inspiration" for the murders. Boudica is perhaps mentioned in Moore's novel, as are a lot of other historical references, but I believe the threshold for inclusion would be a mention of this fact in an authoritative work about the subject of this article.

The second uses a primary source, casual references to Boudicea would number in the thousands, and it fails to meet this same threshold for inclusion. cygnis insignis 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Titles

The original Roman account doesn't seem to refer to Boudica as "Regnii" or royal although she is referred to as the wife of Prasutagus. Although she is usually referred to as Queen perhaps "Chieftainess" is the more accurate description.

It also seems unlikely that could have been a mass slaughter in Londinium. The inhabitents must have been aware of the slow moving mobs advancing on the town and evcuated to Gaul and the Roman towns in Kent. As most of these towns were the other side of the now gone Wantsum channel they would be easily defended and much safer.

The references to the Hispana legion seem uncertain. On the march the legion must have been strung out for several miles and it cannot have all been ambushed at the same time. Possibly sections were.

Had Cerialis lost a whole legion it seems unlikely that his career would have survived the inevitable courts martial. As it did and he eventually became a military Governor perhaps the legion being routed and having eventually regrouped it was too late to join Suetonius in time for the main battle.AT Kunene (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Flogging

Perhaps changing the context of Boudica's flogging may make the sequence of events clearer. If Nero was considering abandoning Britain he may well have ordered his agent, Catus Decianus, to make a final sweep for any portable valuable loot to swell the Imperial coffers. At the top of the list is the client kingdom of the late Prasutagus.

When the tax gatherers arrive on Boudica's door stop she may have tried to stop the looting and ended up being flogged as a warning to anybody else who got in the way. A Roman flogging usually resulted in the death of the victim so Boudica not only surviving the punishment but going on to raise a rebellion implies that she got off lightly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AT Kunene (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't

"It was normal Roman practice to allow allied kingdoms their independence only for the lifetime of their client king, who would agree to leave his kingdom to Rome in his will..."

Most of this history surrounding Boudica is concocted, and made up, in 19th and 20th century. And above quote is outright lie, fabricated to support construction and narrative about evil Romans and good Britains.93.136.52.203 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Any statement about this should have sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS - right or wrong. I don't see what you seem to see in any case. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hairy

Reference 11 says, "The term xanthotrichos translated in this passage as red-brown or tawny can also mean auburn, or a shade short of brown, but most translators now agree a colour in between light and browny red - tawny -Boudica and her stories: narrative transformations of a warrior queen, Carolyn D. Williams, University of Delaware Press, 2009, p. 62." This passage does not seem to appear on page 62 of that work. Our version seems to be a paraphrase which perhaps came from somewhere else. Warden (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Namesake?

The names 'Boudica' and 'Victoria' aren't similar at all. I'm not doubting that some people thought this, but why? Was King William's namesake Socrates?...that would make as much sense. Maybe explain that, please.77Mike77 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

They're namesakes in that the two names are identical in meaning. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research, vocabulary mistake.

Re this sentence ,'It was in the Victorian era that Boudica's fame took on legendary proportions as Queen Victoria was seen to be Boudica's "namesake"', there is no citation, and the use of the word "namesake" is a mistake. I used Bing to research the quoted sentence, and there are two pages listing sites where the sentence appears essentially verbatim. One cannot tell which copy is the original, and for it to appear in a wikipedia article without a citation suggests it was just cut and pasted "from the internet". The word "namesake" is clearly misused; it does not mean that two completely different names have the same meaning when translated into different languages. Respected dictionaries have the same definitions, e.g. Collins, from dictionary.com:

1. a person or thing named after another

2. a person or thing with the same name as another

Re definition1, Queen Victoria was NOT named after Boudica. She was allegedly somehow identified with Boudica AFTER she became Queen (and there isn't a citation for that alleged phenomenon).

Re definition 2, the names Boudica and Victoria are not remotely the same! They end in "a", that's all! Boudica has no V, T, nor R, while Victoria has no B, U, nor D. That is like saying that the word "veranda" was named after the "bazooka", i.e. totally ridiculous.

Also, the word "namesake" is in "scare quotes", indicating that the author is aware that the two are not really namesakes, and suggesting that people at the time abused the word "namesake" in the manner indicated. Yet there is no citation for this nonsense.

Because they are non-referenced and ridiculous, I suggest that the mentions of this "namesake" mistake be removed altogether, unless a citation can be provided. A statue of Boudica was built during Victoria's reign, fine, but they were not "namesakes".77Mike77 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Another thing, this sentence - "It was in the Victorian era that Boudica's fame took on legendary proportions as Queen Victoria was seen to be Boudica's "namesake",..." - implies a non-existent cause and effect, i.e. the word "as" suggests that there was a resurgence of interest in Boudicca because her Celtic name, when translated into English, has the same meaning as the Latin name Victoria when translated into English (i.e. "Victory"), whereas, in reality, it was not this quirk of name translations that caused the resurgence in interest in Boudica, but it was rather due to the English Renaissance, as mentioned earlier in the article. So that sentence appears to be both false and redundant.77Mike77 (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are copied word-for-word on many websites. I don't see any problem with the use of "namesake" in quotes. It's certainly not original research. It's just a a way to communicate that the names are the same in a meaningful sense. You are making a mountain of a molehill. Yes, Boudica was known in the English Renaissance, but not to the extent that she was in the Victorian era. Actually, she's a bit of an idiot in Fletcher's play. Clearly, though, there is a connection to female monarchy in both periods. The Victoria/Boudica connection is clear in several sources [3] [4]. She's even referred to as a "namesake" by the Victorians The Gentleman's Magazine, 1854. Paul B (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I didn't doubt that there was a connection of some kind. The article mentions a statue of Boudica being built in Victoria's time. My beef was that the article suggests that the resurgence of interest in Boudica was because of this quirk with the translated names, and that they were considered "namesakes" even though their names are entirely different. I am also interested in changing meanings of words. Today we would not say that Boudica and Victoria are "the same" or even "similar", and their translations wouldn't enter into it, so the word "namesake" is clearly incorrect in modern usage. But if that is how they used it then, that is fine. The article, overall, is very good, I think. It is just that one thing that bothered me. The numbered references you gave support the uncontested view that there was a resurgence of interest in Boudica, but the Magazine reference is the one that uses the word "namesake" in this strange fashion, which is what I was after.77Mike77 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reprisals & Aftermath

-nothing at all? Basket _Feudalist 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of name

Nitpicking, perhaps, but should her name be spelt with 1 or 2 c's? The best contemporary source, Tacitus, has 2. Jackson and others may have accurately reconstructed the pronunciation of her name in her native Brythonic, but how can you say what the "correct" spelling of her name was in a language which was mostly unwritten and presumably had no established spelling conventions? PatGallacher (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There's some discussion of this in the "References???" section above. The use of the term "correct" spelling does seem a bit odd. I've alaways assumed that this is intended to mean most appropriate spelling given the conventions used by scholars, but I don't know what the source actually says. Maybe "appropriate" would be better. Paul B (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tacitus offered more than one spelling. Celtic linguists argue that two 'c's would be incorrect. However, what does correct mean? How she spelled her own name? How someone else spelled it who had never seen it written down? There can be no 'correct' spelling. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I misremembered the section name above. It should have been "Boudica's name". Nicknack009 back in 2006 quoted the article by Jackson as saying "The philological fact is that the name must have been Boudica, pronounced in phonetic terminology /boudi:ka:/, in 'English' spelling it would be ' Bowdeekah ', where ow means the dipthong seen in e.g. the phrases 'tie a bow' or 'bow and arrow', and the stressed syllable is the dee, with long vowel, the final a being also long. The generally accepted Boudicca is probably (and incorrectly) pronounced by most people as /budikə/, or, in popular spelling, ' Boodikka '." Jackson, at least in this passage, does not say that 'Boudica' with one "c" is "correct", but does seem to obliquely imply that by criticising the version spelled with two "c"s. Perhaps the best approach would be to simply pop in the full quotation. I have notified Nicknack009, who is still active. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I may still have a photocopy of Jackson's paper somewhere, but it was seven years ago I used it to edit this page, so I've no idea where it might be. In any case, Wikipedia works on authority, and an authority is cited in support of the spelling used. It seemed on the basis of my reading to be the scholarly standard, and I sought out the most authoritative scholar I could find to demonstrate and justify that. Is there a good reason to change it? --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Came to the talk page to discuss this - the British English spelling is Boudicca. Since she's British I've put this spelling back in the lede (it was removed in 2017 sometime). A GS seems to suggest it's slightly more popular overall as well. It *is* incorrectly pronounced in British English, as per above, but that's also to do with the treatment of the 'ou' dipthong, rather than the double c; the incorrect pronunciation of the 'i' doesn't seem greatly affected by the double c either. Pronouncing it correctly in British English sadly seems to be a lost battle, as is the case with a great many other historical names. Mvolz (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed

In the "Background" section: "Prasutagus, it seems, had lived well on borrowed Roman money, and on his death his subjects had become liable for the debt."

This sentence may be 100% true or at least 100% attributable, but with the weasley "it seems" inserted there and then lacking a reference, it seems like the original, idle ruminations of the WP author who wrote that sentence. Can the author provide the source, please? If sourced, the "it seems" will vanish or be replaced by something like: "According to [source name], Prasutagus had lived well on borrowed Roman money, and on his death his subjects had become liable for the debt."

I added the tag. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fiction/Music/Film section

I'm not a fan of bulleted lists, especially disorganized ones like I see attached to this article. When the article was evaluated for Featured Article status for a second time, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boudica 2 in 2007, you were advised, "I recommend removing all such trivia to a seperate [sic] article Boudicca in popular culture as soon as possible." Since you chose not to, I have some suggestions that I hope will make the list a little bit better.

List name:

In the "Cultural Depictions" section, the sub-heading "Fiction/Music/Film" is very informal. In the first evaluation for Featured Article status Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boudica 1, 2005, the sub-headings were "History and literature", "Modern fiction", "Films and television", "Music", and "Other cultural references". These were simple and descriptive. Why were those titles ever changed? Although the items under each sub-heading weren't bulleted, they were a list nonetheless. (I'm happy to see that the bit about her "ghost" is gone.)

Organization:

Unless there's some subtle logic that's escaping me, I see no over-arching organization of the list. It's not organized by date of creation of the works mentioned, alphabetically by creator or name of work, or even by type of work. It's obviously a list of randomly tacked-on, me-too items. Why not choose an organization criteria and sort the items by it?

Run-on list items:

Some of the bulleted items start off by stating Boudica was the subject of films or novels, then runs off the rails by including dissimilar works. Examples -

• Change of subject: Boudica has been the subject of two feature films, the 1928 film Boadicea, where she was portrayed by Phyllis Neilson-Terry,[46] and 2003's Boudica (Warrior Queen in the US), a UK TV film written by Andrew Davies and starring Alex Kingston as Boudica.[47] She has also been the subject of a 1978 British TV series, Warrior Queen, starring Siân Phillips as Boudica. Jennifer Ward-Lealand portrayed Boudica in an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess titled "The Deliverer" in 1997.

• Change of subject: Boudica's story is the subject of several novels, including books by Rosemary Sutcliff, Roxanne Gregory, Pauline Gedge, Manda Scott, Alan Gold, Diana L. Paxson, David Wishart, George Shipway, Simon Scarrow, Mary Mackie and J. F. Broxholme (a pseudonym of Duncan Kyle). She plays a central role in the first part of G. A. Henty's novel Beric the Briton, and The Queen's Brooch, a children's novel by Henry Treece, is set during her rebellion. One of the viewpoint characters of Ian Watson's novel Oracle is an eyewitness to her defeat. She has also appeared in several comic book series, including the Sláine, which featured two runs, titled "Demon Killer" and "Queen of Witches" giving a free interpretation of Boudica's story. Other comic appearances include Witchblade and From Hell. The DC Comics character Boodikka, a member of the Green Lantern Corps, was named after Boudica. Additionally, in the alternate history novel Ruled Britannia by Harry Turtledove, Boudicca is the subject of a play written by William Shakespeare to incite the people of Britain to revolt against Spanish conquerors.

Plain quirkiness:

• Singer/songwriter Enya is found in two of the listed items.
• In this item, "Martha Howe-Douglas played Boudica in Horrible Histories.", one must follow the link to discover that Horrible Histories is a "UK children's sketch comedy television series".
• In "She appears as a character in the Xbox One exclusive game Ryse: Son of Rome.", what does "exclusive" signify? Why is is it not merely "game"? That "exclusive" inclusion sounds like marketing.
• If you follow the link to this item, "In the fictional world of Ghosts of Albion, Queen Bodicea is one of three Ghosts who once were mystical protectors. . .", Boudica is not mentioned at all. There's no non-WP source given, either.
• Following this link to its WP article, there's no mention of Boudica: "Boudicca is a character in the animated series Gargoyles.[48]". The reference link given, #48, returns a blank page. The IMDb page for this show does not mention Boudica in its long list of characters: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108783/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
• Following the WP link to The Libertines, Boudica is not mentioned under any spelling: ". . .British rock band The Libertines, refer to her under the alternate spelling ("If Queen Boadicea is long dead and gone. . .)" There's no non-WP source given, either.
• There's another cultural impact section called "Other cultural references" with two more items listed. If one culture section is good, then two are better?

If these works cannot be discussed in paragraphs (I realize that lists are easier, but paragraphs yield more interesting information, in my opinion), can they at least be cleaned up and organized? Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I came to see if anybody had mention of the Enya song of the same title, and to see if anybody would research maybe if the song was indead after the queen of the same title, (I imagine it is) could be notable and interesting.MaximusEditor (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Misconceptions

It might be worth mentioning how Boudicca never Rode into Battle Breasts Ablazing per http://www.crackedhistory.com/cracked-history-presents-10-things-history-got-wrong-women/ --173.241.225.165 (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Except there's no reason to think anyone ever thought she did. Or even that she "rode into battle" at all. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rape

Must it be mentioned twice, without changing the wording? It seems rather abruptly inserted into the introduction. One of the first things people see on this page is that "Boudica was flogged, her daughters raped." 2602:306:C4CB:6930:9C80:25DB:F644:9E76 (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? It's a significant aspect of the story. Everything in the "introduction" (lede) is repeated in the main text. The lede is a summary of the article as a whole. The wording is similar, but not identical. Paul B (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Most if not all of the lead is a 'repeat' of what's in the main body of text, and this certainly belongs in the lead. 09:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Client kings having to give their kingdoms to Rome

Regarding “It was normal Roman practice to allow allied kingdoms their independence only for the lifetime of their client king, who would then agree to leave his kingdom to Rome in his will,” this is not true. There is no ancient sourced which states this. Client states remained semi-autonomous entities when their ruler died and he was succeeded by a local man. Many client kingdoms were eventually annexed and usually this was connected o local political instability. The two examples given are wrong. Galatia became a Roman client kingdom in 64 BC and remained so until 25 BC. It was originally ruled by thee chiefs and then Deiotarus became the king of most of this territory. When Deiotarus. Galatia was not annexed. Instead, the Romans appointed Amyntas, a Galatian as the king, to avoid fights between the Galatians over the succession. When Amyntas was murdered Augustus annexed Galatia. This was because Amyntas had been unpopular among his people and attacked and killed a prince. His murder was a revenge act for this. Galatia was annexed to maintain its stability. Although the last king of Bithynia, Nicomedes IV, was pretty much a puppet of the Romans, Bithynia was not a Roman client state. It was an ally. We do not know why Nicomedes IV bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. Presumably he had no heir. Moreover, Bithynia was under the threat of the kingdom of Pontus.

Judea was a client state of Rome from 64 BC to AD. During this time it was initially ruled by Hyrcanus. After Hyrcanus, Caesar installed Antip[ater. Antipater was succeeded by his son Herod the great, who in turn was succeeded by his sons, among whom he had partitioned his kingdom. Augustus deposed Archelaus in 6 BC on the request by the Jews, who were fed up with misrule. It was then that Judea was annexed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 020amonra (talk • contribs) 11:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The language that you say is false seems to derive directly from this article, page 176: _ Below, it cites where the idea came from: If we're going by sources rather than one's feeling it is not true based on some anecdotal evidence of client kingdoms where such things did not happen, perhaps the language should be restored, with a proper citation. Lucretius6 (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boudica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100819032234/http://paulerspury.org:80/content/view/18/49 to http://paulerspury.org/content/view/18/49/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boudica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233915/http://www.craftpegg.com/Battle_Church_Stowe_CP.pdf to http://www.craftpegg.com/Battle_Church_Stowe_CP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090415174354/http://www.dracandros.com:80/Jebgarg/tge/boudicca.htm to http://www.dracandros.com/Jebgarg/tge/boudicca.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051102020356/http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk:80/clb_tribe_iceni.htm to http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/clb_tribe_iceni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Rape (again)

I disagree with the opinion above, i.e. that rape should be mentioned in the lead. It seems that only Tacitus speaks of this event. So it's Tacitus pov and pushing pov in the lead is not a good thing.--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

British?

"The absence of native British literature during the early part of the first millennium ...". It would be riduculous to qualify Caesar's account of the Gallic wars with the proviso "The absence of native French literature during the early part of the first millennium ...". Gallic may be appropriate, as insular Celtic (or perhaps Brittonic) would be in the former case. Ditto for any Roman campaign in the current territory of Germany(Germanic), Spain(Iberian), Turkey(Anatolian), Tunisia(Carthaginian), you name it. Britain did not exist as a national entity before the Act of Union of 1706. Back-projecting modern national constructs is the hallmark of modern nationalistic mythopoiesis. Admittedly, as exemplified in the current article, such stereotypes are deeply rooted in the contemporary mentality of certain communities. Another question is why such proviso should be added only to certain articles and not to others. The issue is not limited to ancient history. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at, but in fact the island was known as Britain since the time of Pliny the Elder. This is why we have so many articles on subjects such as Roman Britain (yes, it didn't cover the whole island) and why so many academic sources use the term. So there really is no back-dating. We go by what the sources say, not what people wish they said. And other articles should be discussed on their talk pages. Unless you want to write/change existing guidelines where applicable. Doug Weller talk 10:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Pliny's Britannia is a geographic designation. Even a revisionist historian like David Mattingly writes explicitly that in Roman times "there was no unified British identity as such, rather a mix of regional societies"(An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, 54 BC - AD 409, Chapter 1, "The Spectre of Empire"). On the other hand, as you correctly point out, ancient Britons are "British" for most British academic sources. While no German historian worth his salt would use the word "deutsch" to refer to the Germanic tribes, apparently time-warp "British" is indeed good enough for British historians and consequently for en.WP. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Germans think. Britain is the modern form of the ancient name given by the Greeks and then the Romans to the island. At root the name may refer to the natives wearing tattoos or body paint. The 'British' would simply be the natives living on the island at the time, as opposed to visitors, traders or conquerors from the Continent. And David Mattingly isn't a 'revisionist historian', he's an archaeologist. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boudica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080310172023/http://www.romanbritain.freeserve.co.uk/Legions.htm to http://www.romanbritain.freeserve.co.uk/Legions.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090530121347/http://www.messing-cum-inworth-pc.gov.uk/messVill.htm to http://messing-cum-inworth-pc.gov.uk/messVill.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/clb_tribe_iceni.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sacrifice of female captives to Adraste

This was marked [citation needed]. It is drawn from Dio Cassio's Historia Romana, 42.7

Nevshehir (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)sean taylor (nevshehir)

Pronounce

(See #7 2006, #16 2007 above). Lots of agreement for the “k” sound, but only the “s” appears in the intro (currently). (“k” bit is later.). MBG02 (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Two pictures of same statue on article?

In response to @LindsayH:'s revert of my edit, which deleted one of two images of same statue:

I understand that one image shows the general, full view of the statue, and that other shows a closer up image of the statue. Although I'm usually all for detail, two images of the same statue, despite one showing further supposed detail, is unnecessary. The image that is closer-up does not appear to have detail that is significant to the article. It's detail of the one of the two horses. Boudica is not even the primary focus of the image, she shoved to the left. Which general reader would need detail of one of the sculpture's horses? If this article was about sculptures of horses, it would be useful. Perhaps an image of a close-up on Boudica and her daughters would be acceptable, but a horse is not. One image of the full sculpture is best. --Violetnights (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Violetnights. Thanks for this. I have to say that i am not intrinsically opposed to your point of view, i quite see where you are coming from and what you mean. I undid your edit, not because i considered it wrong but purely because Boudica gets a lot of...less than optimal edits, shall we say; i don't know why, exactly, but she attracts a good number of experimenters and beginning editors, if not worse, and when the article appears on my watchlist with an edit which both removes something and is by a relatively new editor, i look at it a bit more closely and may well revert it. In this case, my suggestion is that you wait a few days to see if any further discussion happens here (i believe Boudica, and therefore this talk page, are watchlisted by quite a few people), and if it doesn't, then please redo your edit.
By the way, nice to meet you, happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, i think in your other edit from earlier, you removed the wrong word ("legends" instead of "legacy"); that section is far more about the legends or mythology of Boudica in English history than any actual legacy she left. Agree? happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@LindsayH: Yes, sorry. I was editing it late on a Friday night (NZT) and I was going to rearrange things but I forgot to. Thanks for your open-mindedness, it's a great trait to have on Wikipedia especially. I'll wait for a couple days and see if anyone opposes to my deletion of the image. Nice to meet you as well. Happy editing! :) --Violetnights (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree, having taken many photos of the statue that look like the one you believe has Boudica as its "subject" (many in fact like the second one here in the article) and rejected them for inclusion here as not conveying much about the energy or legend behind the statue. The one I did include was selected because I thought it did that. If it doesn't succeed on those grounds, by all means remove it. To my eye the second photo is one of the *location* of the statue, and not really about the statue itself. — Aldaron • T/C 18:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections on the uprising be split into a separate page called Boudican Rebellion. Considering the fact that this a highly notable revolt I find it strange it doesn't have an article of it's own. Flalf^Talk 06:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created Draft:Boudican Rebellion out of that section. Flalf^Talk 06:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Gonna wait 24 hours until splitting considering there hasn't been any response on the talk page, if there is any opposition let me know. Flalf^Talk 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've split the article out, see Boudican Rebellion. Flalf^Talk 04:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Londinium

My deletion, with reasons given, a couple of days ago was reverted. After a brief vist here I find myself on this talk page. Reason 1: To me it is 'obvious' that London gets its name from Londinium. This is an encyclopedia where a certain level of intelligence and simple common sense is to be expected so stating the obvious is unnecessary. Others may disagree. Reason 2: It is questionable (not contraversial as stated in the reversal) that Londinium is modern London. What modern London is, is not clearly defined anyway, making the link even more tenuous. What are we talking about? The City; Inner London, Greater London; the Greater London Conurbation or whatever else? Reason 3: To say that Londinium is modern London, without a citation, is therefore original research. I can see how at first glance my shorthand 'OR' could have been read as the word 'or' in capitals so that could have been better expressed I suppose. Anyway, I think my removal should be put back or the phrase should be reworded. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself an intelligent person and I have never heard the term Londinium. What might be common knowledge in your circles is an obscure fact in others. This is after all a global project with readers from around the world.

As for how well defined modern London is, that is beyond my forte. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The article City of London#Origin talks about the history of Roman Londinium and how it relates to what is now the city, citing Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA) (Leslie Wallace, Cambridge University Press, 2015), though I'm concerned that citation only verifies the later claim that there was no pre-Roman settlement in this location. In my view, one of the best explanations can be found by visiting the Museum of London and watching some of the exhibitions there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is common knowledge to people who got their education from comics :) —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)