She was both. Queen Boudicca of the Iceni, though revered by many to be a freedom fighter only, was a terrorist as well. Indeed Boudicca amassed a major faction of warrior combatants from her own tribe and from the Trinovantes--an allied tribe--in a revolt to fight against the rule of the Roman Empire and for freedom of her peoples in Britain. However, most of her method gave clear indications of terrorizing. Boudicca did not actively seek out to fight Roman legions in Britain when she began her movement. Instead, she marched to Roman-built cities, and murdered any civilian in reach, and burned down any home present. She annihilated Camulodunum (now Colchester), Londonium (now London) and Verulamium (now St. Albans), with her first attack on Camulodunum being completely by surprise. She figured that wiping out any Roman influence of all kinds would bring freedom to her people, but attacking non-martial municipalities would be considered as terrorism today. Her first actual battle came against a small legion that was effectivly ambushed by Boudicca and her fighters, taking place before her upcoming defeat.
We know that Roman general Seutonius Paulinus with a larger organized legion, utterly destroyed Boudicca's immense-sized fighting faction in what is known as the Battle of Watling Street with Boudicca very likely falling ill and dying shortly afterwards; while most of Britain remained under Roman rule for a few more centuries. Yet again, Boudicca is often revered as a mightly heroine, fighting for freedom, today; and there is a part that clearly gives her that desereved reputation. However, we must not forget that Boudicca's actions of terrorism only led to an unnecessay premature and forced death of tens of thousands of people on both sides. And her revolt accomplished almost nothing, except for some lowered taxes to the Roman emperor in the Roman British province. Thus, we can question the motives of who is often considered to be a freedom fighter here.
In all fairness to Boudicca, we should also know that when her husband, King Prasutagus of the Iceni and a client king of the Iceni within the Roman Empire, died, he left his kingdom to both the Roman Emperor and his (and Boudicca's) daughters. A peaceful resolution could have ensued in which Prasutagus's and Boudicca's daughters could have then ruled as client queens of the Iceni lands in the Roman Empire--a simple continuation. However, instead Roman local officials fully seized the Iceni lands, and flogged Boudicca and assulted her daughters after Prasutagus's death. So, Boudicca's revolt, though included terrorism, was certainly motivated by her pinpointed anger. We today would still not consider the utter destruction of non-martial cities and the brutal murder of civilians as a just answer to such atrocities, but we can understand why Bouidicca turned to such actions--highly unfortunate, but at the very least somewhat understandable.
So, to conclude, Boudicca was both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Her terrorizing strategies to fight for freedom, once again, is very condemnable. Yet, the big "what if" here is if only the Romans would have allowed the Iceni client rulership in the Iceni lands within the Roman Empire to continue as it had before.
He was a freedom fighter to his people.
Mahatma Gandhi is called the freedom fighter because he freed India from the colonialist rule of the British Empire.
POO
Jose Marti was a Cuban writer, poet and freedom fighter. He was born on January 28, 1853 in Havana, Spanish Cuba.
Yes afcourse the indian freedom fighter was a good
No he was a freedom fighter
a terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
There is no difference. Look up the definition of the word euphemism.
are you serious? well if you've learnt at school Gandhi is far from a terrorists in fact he was killed by an extremist, but to answer you question, he was a freedom -fighter
He would be either a terrorist or a freedom-fighter, depending whether you were on his side.
He was a filipino freedom fighter
yes, he is freedom fighter
yes.he was a freedom fighter.
He was a freedom fighter to his people.
It all depends on particular points of view. As they say: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Generally speaking, these days, it's "Terrorism". Of course it's well known that one man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter. Who is the judge?
While the obvious answer is "they fight for freedom," this is actually a complicated question. Depending on what side you are on, a person might consider you a freedom fighter, or if they oppose you, they might consider you a traitor or a terrorist. "Freedom fighter" is thus a very controversial term. In some countries, those who fight to defeat an unjust or cruel government are considered freedom fighters; historically, many popular uprisings that led to reform in a country were spearheaded by "freedom fighters." But the term has also been used in a very different way: Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda thought of themselves as freedom fighters, since they wanted to defeat western governments they regarded as enemies of traditional Islam. This is not to say that Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter: most people, including many Muslims, would say he was a terrorist, because his methods killed many innocent people. But the point is that the term "freedom fighter" is very subjective, depending on who is using it. Ideally, it refers to those who fight against an unjust regime. But it has also been used by extremists who distort its original meaning.