Rebellion of Queen Boudica
Prasutagus, client king of the Iceni after the Roman invasion of
Britain, realised that his province was in danger when he died, so he
decided to write up a will, in which he said that the Emperor Nero
would receive half, while the other half went to his two daughters
(Under British law, if the king had no male heir, he could leave his
estate to his daughters, but not in Roman law). The Iceni tribe was
ransacked, with even the highest men being treated as slaves. Boudica
herself was flogged while her daughters were raped; this was the last
straw for the majority of Britons.
When Britain was invaded by the Emperor Claudius, it was decided that
to prevent upheaval, some tribes would be allowed to keep there kings,
which would make the tribes think they had control of themselves,
while infact it was the Romans who controlled them by using the king
like a marionette. However when these “client kings” died, the tribes
land and riches would be seized. Prasutagus, suspecting this, decided
to leave a will so that his daughters, wife and tribe would be safe,
in it, he left to the emperor of Rome.
When he did die in AD 60, Nero (the new Roman Emperor) decided that
half was not good enough, and that all the assets must be seized, so
it was taken, however iceni resistance was fierce, but, ultimately in
vein, to make an example, Boudica, the wife of Prasutagus was flogged,
while her daughters were raped. This more than anything led to the
rebellion, which brought Roman control in Britain to its knees.
But it would be wrong to say that this was the only cause of the
rebellion, events that predated this also ca...
... middle of paper ...
...e
fate of her daughters is not known. Whether they died with Boudica or
were killed by the Romans, or escaped is unclear. All we do know is
that they disappeared from the scene, never to return.
If Boudica had survived and been captured, Suetonius would have taken
her to Rome and displayed her in a triumphal parade in Rome, and
subjected to absolute horrors of public torture before having her
executed in the amphitheatre.
Cassius Dio wrote that the British buried Boudica in an expensive
manner appropriate for a Celtic monarch, and halied her as a hero.
Tacitus says nothing of her burial. There is a story that she was
buried at Stonehenge and its legendary circle of stones were set up by
the Druids to mark her tomb. However, there is not solid foundation
for this and isthe story is largely taken to be a fable.
In the 17th Century, widespread colonization of the new world was constantly changing the face of the Americas. European power-houses like England, France and Spain were building colonies on every coast line of the new world. The Native Americans were being forced from the lands they called home for many years, and those that wished to stay were being converted to Catholicism or other religious practices. In some parts of the Americas Native Americans were even being pressed into slavery.
1) Shays' Rebellion, the post-Revolutionary clash between New England farmers and merchants that tested the precarious institutions of the new republic, threatened to plunge the "disunited states" into a civil war. The rebellion arose in Massachusetts in 1786, spread to other states, and culminated in an abortive attack on a federal arsenal.
Many Americans tried to return to their old lives after the Revolutionary War. It was easy for some, but it was difficult or near impossible for the others. Many farmers had a hard time reverting to their post-revolutionary ways and ordeals, and this proved challenging. Suffering from high debt, farmers in central Massachusetts and western Massachusetts tried to start over and build new lives. The government, on the other hand, did nothing to assist Americans who were trying to return to their lives from the brutality of war. Farmers were put were imprisoned by law enforcement for lack of paying off their debts. All of these issues caused a small rebellion which grew into one of the largest armed rebellions after the Revolutionary War. The leader of the Rebellion, Daniel Shays, later called his band of angry farmers Shays’ Rebellion. Shays’ Rebellion was a poorly planned and unnecessary revolt hurting the cause it meant to help.
“In the first years of peacetime, following the Revolutionary War, the future of both the agrarian and commercial society appeared threatened by a strangling chain of debt which aggravated the depressed economy of the postwar years”.1 This poor economy affected almost everyone in New England especially the farmers. For years these farmers, or yeomen as they were commonly called, had been used to growing just enough for what they needed and grew little in surplus. As one farmer explained “ My farm provides me and my family with a good living. Nothing we wear, eat, or drink was purchased, because my farm provides it all.”2 The only problem with this way of life is that with no surplus there was no way to make enough money to pay excessive debts. For example, since farmer possessed little money the merchants offered the articles they needed on short-term credit and accepted any surplus farm goods on a seasonal basis for payment. However if the farmer experienced a poor crop, shopkeepers usually extended credit and thereby tied the farmer to their businesses on a yearly basis.3 During a credit crisis, the gradual disintegration of the traditional culture became more apparent. During hard times, merchants in need of ready cash withdrew credit from their yeomen customers and called for the repayment of loans in hard cash. Such demands showed the growing power of the commercial elite.4 As one could imagine this brought much social and economic unrest to the farmers of New England. Many of the farmers in debt were dragged into court and in many cases they were put into debtors prison. Many decided to take action: The farmers waited for the legal due process as long as them could. The Legislature, also know as the General Court, took little action to address the farmers complaints. 5 “So without waiting for General Court to come back into session to work on grievances as requested, the People took matters into their own hands.”6 This is when the idea for the Rebellion is decided upon and the need for a leader was eminent.
Euripdies' The Bacchae is known for its celebration of women's rebellion and patriarchial overthrow, claims which hold truth if not supremely. The Thebans, along with other women, pursue the rituals and culture of Dionysus’s cult which enacts their rebellion against men and the laws of their community. However, this motion to go aginst feminine norms is short lived as they lose power. When Agave comes to her epiphany, Dionysus is the one who is triumphant over Pentheus's death, not Agave or her sisters These women must be punished for their rebellion against both men and community. This female power is weakened and the rebellion muted in order to bring back social order and also to provide the story with a close. Female rebellion actually becomes oppressed through The Bacchae due to its conseqences and leading events of the play. This alludes to the message that women who do not follow traditional roles of femininity are subject to the destruction of an established society.
Wife of John Adams, and the mother of John Quincy Adams, Abigail Adams was known to advocate education in public schools for girls even though she never received formal education; however, she was taught how to read and write at home and acquired the opportunity to access the library of her parents where she broadened her knowledge of philosophy, theology, government and law. The informal education provided her with a basis of political ideas influenced by her grandfather, John Quincy. Both his teachings and his interest in government moved Abigail towards the thoughts and ideals that she carried through her involvement in the early colonial government. Abigail Adams desired both boys and girls to have access to education. In addition
The Stono Rebellion of 1739 in many ways can be classified as a mini American Revolution. Instead of Royalists versus Patriots, we have rebellious slaves versus just about everyone else. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact causes but through different accounts and documents we can deduce what or who may have caused the revolt. Based on my previous analysis, I suspected that Spanish influence was at fault but after discovering more accounts I believe it was a combination of outside influence along with lenient regulations that helped raise awareness from slaves. The incident at Stono holds a significant place in American history, just like the American Revolution, there were victims being oppressed, obstacles in obtaining equality and triumph that led to a contemporary way of handling the situation.
Lasting from 1789 to 1799, the French Revolution led a major turning point in the history of France. Ten years were filled with bloodshed, war, and terror. One of the results of the revolution was the overthrow of the monarchy, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Marie Antoinette is considered the most infamous and despised person in French history; however, not many know her life story.
In 1558, John Knox declared, “To promote a Woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any Realm, Nation, or City, is against all Nature…” (document 1). Knox’s statement was no different than most English men’s opinions during the 1500s. The majority of the population was opposed to having a women hold any type of political power, as they believed it was a job for solely a man to possess. Leading up to the time period of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, females had a specific purpose in life: to serve their husbands and provide them with children. All women lacked freedom and liberty, Elizabeth Tudor sought to change this matter. When Queen Elizabeth was coronated in 1559, men were superior in all economic and social aspects; however,
The colonies did not initially desire to succeed and become independent from the British, at first they were very proud of being British. Throughout the years of being a British Colony, The mother country of Britain committed actions that the colonists could not stand much longer. From taxation without representation to quartering British soldiers unwillingly, the tension built up until the colonists eventually rebelled. Some colonists remained loyal to the crown, while others joined the rebellion. These rebellious forces grew in strength and number, when the rebellion grew too big, the Revolution sparked. No longer would the colonist be forced to the British law, the colonists were willing to fight and die for their freedom. This event was
Short term consequences would lead to long term benefits as the attempts of a rebellion in 1837 demonstrated. The efforts of Upper and Lower Canada were “two parallel, separate movements”1 attempting to reform the broken political system in which the British government reigned supreme. This was a system where the French-Canadians were denied real power and control over their own government; where all the real power lies in the British governors. While the French aims to regain power over their economy and culture, the British would continue to deny them their wish while hoping to assimilate the French-Canadian culture altogether.2 At this point, assimilation was a very real threat seeing how the French were overpowered by the British both in terms of hierarchy and in terms of numbers. In the state of affairs, two prominent groups were in clear opposition: the Patriotes, lead by Papineau, were French-Canadians who put their efforts in hopes for, whom strives for, a government where the French majority (as it was in Lower Canada) could have a say in regards to colonial affairs.3 On the contrary, The Chateau Clique was composed of elites that would make up the Legislative Council, leaving the Legislative Assembly that composed of French-Canadians powerless. The injustice of the system was bound to fuel the Patriotes’ motivation in bringing a reformation of government. This was one of 3 equally important factors that would result in the the rebellions in Lower Canada: “a desire to develop democratic political institutions, an exploitation of the colony’s economy, and the creation of a colonial identity” 4
In the year 1826 Fredrick Douglass realized that he would eventually escape slavery. He would recount this thought four times in his life when he has to become most rebellious in order to survive slaveholders attempting to establish control and dominance in different ways. Each time one comes along Douglass responds using a different form of retaliation or rebellion to show his masters that they don’t own as much control over him as they think they do. All of these attempts to resist his masters control, slavery, and what slavery stood for were detrimental to Fredrick’s escape but the most influential one, the resistive act that started, and kept, the ball rolling was Fredrick’s determination to become literate. Knowledge is power and without his ability to read and write Douglass would have never escaped slavery or written a Narrative of his life.
In 1984 Julia and Winston try to rebel against the party. Winston and Julia wanted to be free and independent. Julia wanted to rebel against what affected her the most. While Winston wanted to rebel because he did not want to lose his humanity. However, these two main characters were not successful in their rebellion. To an extent, the characters know that they are being manipulated under newspeak, but the party knows how to bring the characters back to the uniformed mentality.
Sophocles’s Antigone and Julia Alvarez’s In the Time of the Butterflies are based upon a common theme: rebellion. While reading both pieces in class, the notion of to what extent a rebellion is justified surfaced frequently; however, reading both texts was insufficient in finding a conclusion to this topic, so I read through various poems to aid my deduction. After my extensive research, I came to the conclusion that rebellion can be justified by a rebel’s genuine belief in their cause. The process of justification is based upon one’s personal qualification of what is considered just; therefore, a single belief in the righteousness of any revolt justifies a rebellion.
“Let them eat cake.” A famous response given by Queen Marie Antoinette when she was asked about the grain shortages in her country. But, did she really say this? Many people see Marie Antoinette as a leading cause of the French revolution, with her enormous spending, affairs, disapproval of reform, and influence on her husband, King Louis XVI. But did Marie Antoinette play a decisive role in causing the French Revolution? Or were the peoples judgements the cause of the uprising? This essay will provide both sides of this argument, stating findings and facts about Marie Antoinette’s influence on the people of France, and what feelings she provoked in them with her actions, and if there was any connection between her behavior and beginning of the French Revolution.