Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 9191465" data-attributes="member: 4303">I am not aware of any widespread historiographical tendency to question the historicity of a character, and to later revise that view and affirm their existence in the light of new evidence. In fact, I cannot think of a single instance of this occurring. Perhaps you might provide some examples?Even if this were the case - and it's not, by the way - I'm not sure why the existence of such a general historiographical tendency should inform our particular assessment of Boudica's story, which should be judged entirely on its own merits.Relying on hypothetical sources which we don't have and which may have never existed doesn't really help. We have Tacitus.We can trust that there was a violent uprising against the Roman government, and that the Iceni and Trinovantes were involved. We can reasonably trust that an Iceni queen was involved, although the account of her absolute centrality to the uprising might elicit some scepticism, and her &quot;actual name&quot; is questionable. We should be highly sceptical of the specific account which led to her rebellion (her flogging and humiliation; the violation of her daughters). We should ignore the speeches given by Boudica and Suetonius - these are obviously fabrications. We should doubt whether she poisoned herself - Tacitus adds this embellishment to his own account years later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sepulchrave II, post: 9191465, member: 4303"] I am not aware of any widespread historiographical tendency to question the historicity of a character, and to later revise that view and affirm their existence in the light of new evidence. In fact, I cannot think of a single instance of this occurring. Perhaps you might provide some examples? Even if this were the case - and it's not, by the way - I'm not sure why the existence of such a general historiographical tendency should inform our particular assessment of Boudica's story, which should be judged entirely on its own merits. Relying on hypothetical sources which we don't have and which may have never existed doesn't really help. We have Tacitus. We can trust that there was a violent uprising against the Roman government, and that the Iceni and Trinovantes were involved. We can reasonably trust that an Iceni queen was involved, although the account of her absolute centrality to the uprising might elicit some scepticism, and her "actual name" is questionable. We should be [I]highly[/I] sceptical of the specific account which led to her rebellion (her flogging and humiliation; the violation of her daughters). We should ignore the speeches given by Boudica and Suetonius - these are obviously fabrications. We should doubt whether she poisoned herself - Tacitus adds this embellishment to his own account years later. [/QUOTE]

Verification