24th July 2008, 04:32 PM
In response to Mark Horton's
"Everyone seems to have not noticed the extraordinary coincidence
of the Boudicca revolt, the start of the construction of the roman
baths and the great fire of rome all took place within 2 years.
surely they were connected in some way?"
I give you How Rome burned under Nero
(From The Twelve Caesars, Suetonius - full text here http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...Nero*.html)
"For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city119 so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and fire-brands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. 2 For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs. At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings,120 the houses of leaders of old were burned, still adorned with trophies of victory, and the temples of the gods vowed and dedicated by the kings and later in the Punic and Gallic wars, and p157whatever else interesting and noteworthy had survived from antiquity. Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas121 and exulting, as he said, in "the beauty of the flames," he sang the whole of the "Sack of Ilium,"122 in his regular stage costume. 3 Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too all the spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bodies free of cost he allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property; and from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals."
So, there's that coincidence cleared up - Nero set fire to Rome, there for all to see.
And as for Mr. Horton's
"Tacitus and Cassio Dio give completely different accounts of the death of Boudicca - so if one is wrong, why cant both be?"
It has to be said that the accounts do differ, but not a great deal. Here's Tacitus' version (who was alive when the events occured)
"Boudicea put an end to her life by poison."
and Dio
"Nevertheless, not a few made their escape and were preparing to fight again. In the meantime, however, Buduica fell sick and died."
So yes, a little different, but not so different that you would be justified in calling all of it in question.
Horton seems to be under impression that the internet hasn't really taken off yet.
Full texts here -
Tacitus "http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.10.xiv.html"
Dio "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html"