Boudicea or Boudica is the British queen of the Iceni who led the tribes of Britain in revolt against their Roman conquerors in the first century AD. Her original Celtic name “Boudica” has become corrupted over the years to “Boudicca” or “Boudicea”. But whatever the spelling, the queen of the Iceni’s name has always meant “victory” or “victorious”.

But was Boudica a real person? Many archaeologists and historians believe that her name suggests a concept adopted by the rebellious British to represent their cause rather than an actual person. So what evidence is there to suggest Boudica the woman existed?

Boudica, Boudicca, Boadicea — What’s in a name?

The search for a historical Boudica starts with her name. Until recently, “Boadicea” was the version most people recognised. But it is not the correct one. This is because Boadicea is a corruption resulting from a copying mistake in the Middle Ages.

The scribe, working from the Latin version of the name “Boudicca”, replaced the “u” with an “a” and the second “c” with an “e” to give the name we are most familiar with. But “Boudicca” itself was a distortion of the real name. In his account of the Boudiccan revolt, Tacitus added an extra “c” to the Celtic name.

The correct name Boudica can be found on inscriptions across the Celtic world. For example, an altar from Bordeaux to a local goddess Tutela Boudiga or “Tutela the victorious” suggests that the name Boudica describes a concept or quality rather than an individual.

But Boudica was also a personal name. Webster cites a memorial stone from Lusitania set up by one Caeno to his father, “Lovius, son of Caeno and to his mother Boudica, daughter of Tongus”. Based on this evidence, it is not unlikely that a woman could have been named Boudica in early Roman Britain.

Boudica in Tacitus’s Annals

The earliest written account of Boudica comes from the roman author Tacitus. Although written 40 years after the rebellion, Tacitus’s sources are contemporary to the events. His father-in-law Agricola was governor of the province of Britain in 78AD, 17 years after the uprising. But Agricola also served in Britain at the time of the rebellion. So even if he did not witness events directly, the future governor would have heard firsthand accounts of the event.

There are two references to Boudica in Tacitus’s account. She first appears as the wronged widow of Prasutagus, king of the Iceni. Prasutagus was a client king of the Romans. To preserve the independence of his kingdom after his death, Prasutagus hoped to ensure the emperor’s goodwill by making him co-heir with his two daughters.

However, Prasutagus’s will was not honoured. Instead, the Romans appropriated the whole kingdom, Prasutagus’s daughters were raped and his widow flogged.

Boudica is not explicitly mentioned as the instigator of the rebellion that followed. Instead, Tacitus makes it clear that the violation of Prasutagus’s family was representative of the humiliations visited on the Iceni, which led them and other disgruntled British tribes to rise.

Nothing more is said of the queen until the last battle of the rebellion, when Tacitus describes the queen rallying the British tribes. In the speech, Boudica relates her experiences to the whole of Britain, referring to her warrior lineage and the justness of her cause.

The speech is pure historical rhetoric. It is almost certain that it is a literary tool to bring alive the historical account rather than a report of an actual event. It begs the question if Boudica is merely a dramatic character who Tacitus used to epitomise the injustices of the Romans.

Archaeology and Boudica

Archaeology provides evidence that almost certainly proves that a rebellion against the Romans occurred in 60-61AD. It cannot, however, prove that Boudica herself led that revolt or even existed.

While archaeology has revealed destruction layers in the Roman towns described by Tacitus as destroyed by the Britons, the scene of the last battle has never been found. Here Boudica made the famous speech in the Annals. Here she reputedly died by poison.

But even if the battleground and the queen’s grave were found, there would be no way of identifying Boudica. The dead from the battle were vast, including not only men and women but even the Britain’s pack animals if Tacitus’s account is to be believed. 

Boudica’s body would only be one of many. She would not stand out from the rest of the dead. Despite the dramatic licence and gaps in Tacitus’s account, it is still feasible that a historical Boudica existed. But without concrete evidence, we can never say for sure.

Resources

Current Archaeology 226: “Did the Boudiccan Revolt reach Silchester?”

Current Archaeology 247: “Boudica’s Final Battle”

Grant, M (Trans) 1990. Tacitus, Annuals of Imperial Rome. Guild Publishing: London

Webster, G, 1993. Boudica: The British Revolt Against Rome AD 60. Bt Batsford Ltd: London