Preview

Tacitus: Agricola And Germany

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1780 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Tacitus: Agricola And Germany
Tacitus, in his writings of Agricola and Germany, states in chapter thirty-three, page fifty-four, “Long may the barbarians continue, I pray, if not to love us, at least to hate one another, seeing that, as fate bears remorselessly on the empire, fortune can offer no greater boon now than discord among our enemies." (Germ, p. 54) This quote from Tacitus, who was a prominent historical writer back around the first century in the common era, is a major point of discussion within the academic world of ancient Rome. This quote is taken to mean many different things. One point being that Tacitus is writing about how these Germanic tribes are fighting amongst themselves, afterward Rome will come in and eliminate their enemies. Another point being …show more content…
Rome, in the past had fought Germans, and either lost, or taken heavy casualties. This great history of war between the two, from Tacitus’s usage of writing, is most well-known to the people of Rome. All throughout Chapter 37, page 56, Tacitus lists numerous defeats of the glorious Roman armies at the hands of the Germans. “During this long period there have been great losses”. (Germ, pg. 56) Tacitus goes on to explain the abundance of defeats Rome has encountered with a long history of tried, and failed, domination of all of Germany. Also on page 56, chapter 37, later down the paragraph Tacitus states “taking advantage of our dissentions and the civil wars, they stormed the legions’ winter quarters and even aspired to win”. (Germ, pg. 56). Within this quote, how the Germans took full advantage of the conflict within Rome to forward their agenda and attempt, but failed, the attack Rome. Tacitus may be poking the idea that, if Rome keeps having issues like this, and keeps fighting amongst themselves, then Germany has the capability and intuitiveness to take advantage of any situation like …show more content…
Whether it is fear of them uniting, or fear of them invading, Rome, for good reason, was terrified because of these people. “The freedom of the Germans does indeed show more aggression than the despotism of the Arsacids. After all, what else can the East taunt us with except the slaughter of Crassus, the East which itself lost Pacorus and was cast down beneath the feet of Ventidius? But the Germans routed or captured Carbo and Cassius and Scaurus Aurelius and Servilius Caepio and Maximus Mallius and robbed the Roman people at a stroke of five consular armies”. (Germania, pg. 56) Tacitus is referring to the problem Rome had been encountering with the Parthian empire in the east. Tacitus is, at this point, shouting the realization that Germany is a massive threat to Rome, saying look at this one battle that killed one major person, with us killing one in return. And then look at these battles with Germany and all the heroes they have taken, and all the armies lost, with no response from Rome. In a sense, saying that this empire in the east, is nowhere near as much of a threat as the Germans are. Going back to Agricola, Agricola had gone to battle with his legions he commanded in Britain against these natives. On page 21, chapter 29 Tacitus includes the line “the Britons, were in fact, no way broken by the outcome of the previous battle” they were awaiting either revenge or enslavement”. (Agricola, pg. 21).

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    groups of so-called barbarians. Between c100 CE and the time of the fall of the Western Roman…

    • 1030 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    DBQ Barbarian Invasions

    • 1909 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Much of the Roman frontier followed the natural boundaries of the Rhine and Danube rivers across Europe. On the other side of these rivers were territories the Romans never brought under their control and tribal peoples such as the Goths, Franks, Vandals, and Huns. By the middle of the fourth century CE, many Roman governors had allowed these so-called “barbarians” to settle on the Roman side of the rivers, and Roman generals had even recruited many of the men as soldiers in their armies. However, the barbarians never assimilated fully into Roman culture. By the end of the century they started to wage a series of ferocious campaigns into Roman territory, eventually destroying the city of Rome itself.…

    • 1909 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    How Did Rome Fell Dbq

    • 300 Words
    • 2 Pages

    A cause Rome fell was due to the invasions of intimidating, yet powerful enemies like the Huns. In Document D, Marcellinus describes how the Huns were fierce, wild beings that were expert horse riders. [Document D] The Huns were “fierce warriors” from Central Asia.[Textbook pg.33] The Huns were the definition of “savagery”.[Document…

    • 300 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    From a snapshot of the Second Punic War, the Carthaginians defeated the Romans while under the consul of Gaius Flaminius. The battle is considered one of the largest and most successful ambushes in military history. The battle consisted of around 50,000 Carthaginian soldiers versus about 30,000 Roman soldiers. The aftermath of the battle produced well over 15,000+ lost soldiers for the Roman army while Hannibal only lost approximately 2,500 of his own. Despite the overview of the battle, much more can be examined when looking at the events leading up to the brilliant ambush set by…

    • 1242 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Boudicca and Her Revolt

    • 292 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Suetonius: leaving pockets of potential trouble (client kingdoms) behind Roman lines had become only too clear.…

    • 292 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Despite some flaws, Rome’s military was superior because it upheld Roman virtues. Due to Tacitus’s unfair treatment, one can understand why he believes Roman virtue was not upheld. There was an aggressive behavior and political corruption within the senate, which Tacitus voiced in his Agricola and Germania. However, the structure of Roman government was brilliant and due to her value for liberty she set the foundation for other nations. Men of Rome natural crave philosophy and were able to use this branch of knowledge to their advantage. Tacitus mentions specific examples of men gaining political power with the help of philosophy. However, Tacitus denied the significant influence the Greek philosophers had in Rome, such as Plato. Tacitus recognized and expressed how Classical Rome valued and respected the sacredness of marriage. From this one can see Tacitus has a gasp on Roman values. However, he seems to be overly critical of Rome…

    • 984 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Romans were great diplomats. They were firm when necessary and smart about granting citizenship. They also let citizens participate in domestic affairs. Their military was made up of strong, persistent soldiers. If a substantial amount of men were lost in battle they wouldn’t just surrender, but instead recruit new soldiers. They would build up new armies so that they could keep fighting. The Romans were also good strategists. By the year 264 BCE Rome had established colonies in strategic spots throughout Italy. By connecting these settlements with roads, they built a military and communication network that helped them rule more effectively. By getting military help from allies, they mobilized Italy’s military…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Rome, Constantinople, and the Barbarians begins by reaffirming that barbarians fit the epitomization of the external dimension because they were foreigners. Barbarians were the name the Grecko-Romans used when referring to non-Greek speakers. It was up to historians to ask whether the barbarians of the Christian era, the Goths, Vandals, Huns, other tribes, fit into this idea of unforeseeable “ruin from the outside.” Despite this idea of unforeseeable “ruin from the outside”, the barbarian invasions did not happen to an unsuspecting Roman empire. Rome was custom to having warlike tribesmen at its gates and could deal with them (Goffart 275). Barbarian tribes were portrayed under anachronistic names. The Goths…

    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tacitus does not avoid making some connections between Germany and his home state of Rome. It is clear that like Rome, Germany values their arms. The bestowing of arms to the youth as a symbol of honor is the German equivalent of the Roman’s giving their sons togas (Germania 4). Through this segment Tacitus does momentarily take a step back from argument it is within the nature of barbarians to be significantly different from where the homeland. With this similarity does come one major polarity that is important to note. Tacitus highlights that lack of proactivity that exists within German military tactic. He describes time of peace as being used for “idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and to feasting, the bravest and the most warlike doing nothing” (Germania 5). This is where Tacitus finds his Roman home state to be superior to this barbaric tactic. He recognizes the need to plan ahead for times of conflict rather than to be caught off guard. Sima Qian also notices this feature of the Xiongnu, how during “times of peace they enjoy themselves and have nothing to do” (Xiongnu 16). The neighboring state starts to be associated with laziness through these descriptions during times of peace, which could not be said for these historians’ home states. The custom Tacitus does highlight, however, is that in those times of conflict, very little is off limits for the Germans. This is where the accounts of the two historians once again parallel each other. There is a definite respect for the power that these neighboring clans hold and their military prowess. Sima Qian speaks of the devastating defeats those who encountered the Xiongnu faced; entire infantries were wiped out and cavalries were exterminated (Xiongnu 32-33). Tacitus’ account of wartime practices of the Germans also carries this same level or regard, emphasizing that being…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Roman Empire Dbq

    • 621 Words
    • 3 Pages

    There were many factors that weakened Rome and catalyzed the collapse. Over time these factors weakened Rome’s power and caused the fall of Rome. For centuries Rome had been fighting the Germanic tribe but C.A. 300 CE, the Germanic tribes began to take over European land. “In 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully sacked the city of Rome” significantly…

    • 621 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Yes, indeed throughout history, Rome ultimately exhibited a readiness to adapt its military tactics and strategy to successfully confront particular challenges. The Roman military was a highly organized institution. There was a straightforward system of rank, and a number of different splitting up of the basic unit. The entire basis of Roman infantry tactics was the idea that by keeping troops in arranges, one could fight more successfully. Most military commanders of the day simply had their troops rush passionately at the enemy, relying on better numbers, better soldiers, or luck to hold the day. The Romans realized that they could not always rely on these, so they turned to strategy. Each situation was wrapped up differently, taking into account land, the type and strength of the opponent's troops, and the type and strength of the Roman's troops. The Romans also thought that the best tactic would be the one that had the most effect without exposing the troops to unnecessary risk. One of them was to cut off their opponent from his resources. Armies run on their stomachs and equipment, and both require regular supplies. Without a stable supply of food and water, an army will starve or dehydrate killing or uncomforting the troops and they would fall apart. The Roman Soldiers would attack the resources themselves. When they conquered territory, they took as much as they could. This not only gave them more food, it prevented it from falling into their opponent's hands and they would also try to cut off the transportation so the amount of supplies that could reach the enemy was severely reduced. One of the most famous tactics that the Romans used was called “siege”. Siege was a military operation in which troops surround a place and cut off all outside access to force surrender. The Romans would typically build a wall around the existing city to help control the enemy. This wall would be built to prevent the enemy from escaping. The ongoing siege would eventually…

    • 358 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are various points Tacitus uses the praise that frequently heaps on his father-in-law Agricola as a vehicle for condemning the values of contemporary Rome. First, Tacitus describes Agricola’s character a man who had no “…incorruptibility and self-restraint in a man of his caliber would be to insult his virtues”. By stating this, Tacitus send a message to everyone that all the other consult and leaders were driven by corrupt and self-interest. Tacitus gave a clear picture of the values of all higher rank officials as well as the people who were aspiring to attain power. They were driven by greed, corruption, and the motive to attain all the power. Secondly, Tacitus describes Agricola as someone who “…scorning all rivalry with his colleagues,…

    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Roman Successor Empires

    • 3500 Words
    • 14 Pages

    The Barbarian kings were keen to keep the roman elite such as Theoderic. This is seen in Conssedorous- writing the histories of the Goths. The Barbarian elites engage in the Roman lifestyle such as speaking Latin, writing and adherence to law and order. The Warlords needed to cooperate with the Roman elite due to it being pragmatic. Both parties had motives with the Barbarians wanting the prestige, culture and skills needed for administration, etc. and the romans wanting to retain their power and…

    • 3500 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Since the third century C.E., Rome faced many problems and was weakened by barbaric invasions from 100-500 C.E. Around 476 C.E, most of the Eastern Roman Empire was still intact, but the Western Roman Empire was covered by barbarians. External enemies, such as the Saxons, Vandals, and Ostrogoths engaged with Rome, which enabled the empire to wear out slowly. On the other hand, this powerful empire was not only weakened by external rivals but by internal decay as well. The increase of enemies contributed to the problematic issue of recruiting soldiers. Rome had difficulty recruiting male boys from Rome into their military, which resulted in the government to promptly pay German foreigners to join the army. Low funding from citizens did not give the military supplies or resources they needed to protect Rome. Consequently, citizens rarely paid for the army, even though Rome kept on paying German foreigners for their army. This caused a major conflict. Lastly, many foolish decisions made by the emperors and government caused the aspects of the military to slowly…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alaric Raid Rome

    • 854 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Throughout history, the role of barbarians in Roman culture had been contested. When the Romans lacked infantry, they outsourced troops through barbarian mercenary groups. Through this process, the Romans arrived at a conflict. They needed the barbarian groups to defend them. However, they did not feel this entitled the Goths to equal rights. This conflict perpetually placed the barbarians in a state of confusion and was at the root of their sack of Rome. Would the sack of Rome have been avoided had the Romans allowed barbarian assimilation?…

    • 854 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays