Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2011
At Annals 14. 29. 1, Tacitus begins his account of the rebellion led by Boudicca in Britain with Caesen〈n〉io Paeto et Petronio Turpiliano consulibus gravis clades in Britannia accepta. The rebellion is described by Tacitus in Annals 14. 29–39. All scholars who have dealt with this revolt have realized that the events narrated cover more than one year. These events must cover parts of two years: at least part of one campaigning season (Suetonius's attack on Mona [Anglesey] and his battle with Boudicca), plus a winter, during which the governor of Britain was changed, and the period when Petronius was governor. Hitherto, Tacitus's habit of giving the events of more than one calendar year under one annalistic year in his discussion of the Armenian Wars has been cited to prove that he does this. A nearer instance is his discussion of British affairs prior to the revolt. Tacitus records the events of separate years together and tells why: haec, quamquam a duobus [Ostorio Didioque] pro praetoribus plures per annos gesta, coniunxi, ne divisa haud perinde ad memoriam sui valerent (Annals 12. 40. 5). Without doubt, he has done the same in his account of the rebellion.
1 E. Koestermann, ed., Teubner, 1960, edition quoted herein.
2 All dates are A.D.
3 Henderson, B. W., The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero (London 1903), 477–78Google Scholar, cites both Asbach and Panzer, but agrees with Asbach. Among others who agree with the date of 60 are: Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford 1958), i 391, ii 765–6Google Scholar; Bulst, C. M., Historia 10 (1961), 496–509Google Scholar; Frere, S., Britannia (London 1967), 87Google Scholar. There have been some dissenters, who believe 61 is the correct year. They include: Collingwood, R. G. in Collingwood, and Myres, J. N. L., Roman Britain and the English Settlements2 (Oxford 1937), 98–100Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., From the Gracchi to Nero2 (London 1963), 324–5, 439–40 n. 24Google Scholar; Overbeck, J. C., AJP 90 (1969), 143–4Google Scholar; Burn, A. R. in Tacitus, ed. by Dorey, T. A. (London 1969), 60 n. 6. 197Google Scholar
4 M. Griffin of Somerville College has pointed out to me that the consul of 61 is also L. Junius Caesennius Paetus. She cites AE 1973, 141 ff. and Syme, R.JRS lxvii (1967), 45–6.Google Scholar
5 This estimate is based on the following route for Suetonius: Segontium (Caernarvon) to Deva (Chester), 66 miles; Deva to Venonae (High Cross), 86 miles; Venonae to Verulamium (St. Albans), 66 miles; Verulamium to London, 22 miles; London to Venonae, 88 miles. Distances are approximate and are based on the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain3 (1956). There is the possibility that Suetonius went cross country from Segontium. The distance would be somewhat shorter, but travel would have probably been slower.
6 Birley, A., Life in Roman Britain (London 1964) 29Google Scholar, says that a legion could march 20–4 Roman miles in five hours. Watson, G. R., The Roman Soldier (London 1969) 54–5Google Scholar, agrees with this speed. This is, of course, a maximum speed. The estimates given in this paper do not require the Romans to move this quickly.
7 Britons would travel from Camulodunum (Colchester) to London, 50 miles; from London to Verulamium (St. Albans), 22 miles; from Verulamium to Venonae (High Cross) 66 miles. Distances are approximate and are taken from the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain3 (1956).
8 Dio Cassius 61–2 covers the rebellion.
9 The Latin word here taken to mean retain is detentus. This meaning has not been accepted by all editors. For arguments in favour of this translation see Furneaux, H., Annals of Tacitus2 (Oxford 1907)Google Scholar and Koestermann Annalen iv on Annals 14. 39. 3. Also see Thesaurus Linguae Latinae v (Leipzig 1909–34), col 812 and A. Greef Lexicon Taciteum (Leipzig 1877–90, reprinted Hildesheim 1962), 283.
10 Tacitus (Annals 14. 39. 3) states that the ships were lost on the shore. Koesterman's (Annalen iv, 102) suggestion that this was due to a pirate attack may well be correct. Yet since the ships were beached, an attack from land cannot be ruled out. The discussion assumes that this occurred late in the year. The ships may have been beached for the winter.
11 Atkinson, D., JRS xii (1922), 62–3Google Scholar, Collingwood, op. cit. (note 3) 98 and 103, and Birley, E., Durham University Journal 44 (1952), 88–92Google Scholar give 61 as both the year for the rebellion and for the beginning of Petronius's tenure as governor.
12 Asbach also used the end of Book 61 and beginning of Book 62 of Dio Cassius in arguing for a date of 60. This was successfully refuted by Panzer 171–3. All three men presented one other argument which has not yet been mentioned: that Nero awarded triumphal honors to Petronius in A.D. 65 for his activity in Britain. This, however, is erroneous. Tacitus, Annals 15. 72. 1, explicitly attributes the honours to the Pisonian conspiracy. He says that the honours were awarded quasi bello gesta. The honours have no place in a discussion of the British revolt.
