Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How language relates to national identity
Cultural and national identity
Cultural and national identity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How language relates to national identity
Tacitus does a wonderful job of describing the culture and life of Germany and its people in Germania. His personal feelings about them seem to be two-sided. Tacitus describes the people of Germany as barbaric and dumb but he also wants us to know that they had many qualities of a great country. The Germans have a strong army of soldiers that find their nobility through war and that makes them a possible threat. Although Tacitus finds many similarities between his home country of Rome and Germany, we find out that the two places are very different.
Tacitus starts out on the debate about the purity of the German people. He personally believes that the country has been plagued by intermarriage, causing a mixed race within the country. Despite that, Tacitus accepts the views of those who believe the country is pure and refrains from intermarriage(4).You get a vibe that Rome prides itself in their race and does not want it to mix with others. The German people also dress much different than the people of Rome. The people of Rome wore baggy robes and prided in looking good and the Germans clothing consisted of cloaks and the skin of animals.
…show more content…
Tacitus tells us that the Germans count by nights which differs them greatly from the Romans.
It is by night that the Germans meet with each other to discuss plans. They believe that the night ushers in the day(11). Everyone sits down at these assemblies bearing arms and clash their spears together if they approve of what is being said. In Rome, only certain important people take part in the decision making process that affects the community. These people are considered to be part of the council and they ultimately make every decision. In Germany, there are leaders that come together to make small decisions but when a large outcome decision needs to be made, the entire community is involved in the
debate. The Germans are described to be very lazy in Germania. Tacitus writes many times about how the German people don’t know how to work hard. They are lazy and expect everything to fall into place. On the other side of the spectrum, the people of Rome were constantly working. Tacitus then dives into the weapon use of the Germans. Precious metals are very far and few in Germany which has a great effect on the types of weapons that can be crafted. The Romans have swords made from hard metals whereas the Germans build spears. The spear was not to be underrated though as it could cause damage from close and long range. Tacitus seems to like the German people and culture. Yes he thinks the Germans are barbaric and stupid but they have war tactics and lifestyle choices that make them a developed society. The two cultures are very different and Tacitus makes this very clear. He believes that the Romans are superior but shows Germany some respect. Tacitus categorizes the Germans as barbaric, the one thing Romans don’t want to be, but could Germany be a threat to the empire?
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Tacitus's superiority is further perceived when he describes the German settlements and shelters and portrays them as uncivilized as they do not have great cities and a hierarchical structure of authority that would ensure a level of political stability. The tone used when describing the lack of agricultural development, and the way that the Germans constantly raid other communities for their sustenance also points to the view that German society is inferior to that of the Roman Empire. Therefore, Tacitus’ analysis of Germania is one that is conducted in a way that seeks to compare it to the Roman Empire; resulting in a situation where he looks at Germania, not within its own context, but within the context of the Roman Empire. Tacitus's bias and maintenance of unfavorable views of Germania maybe a result of the massive military achievements of the Roman Empire and its pacification and establishment of its dominion over disparate societies that were considered
Tiberius is remembered as a tightfisted and paranoid emperor. Tacitus goes against this view of Tiberius by giving examples of extreme generosity. However Tacitus doesn 't present Tiberius as a perfect emperor and his portrayal of Tiberius isn 't just propaganda. When it comes to military affairs Tacitus paints a very unflattering picture of Tiberius turning his back on the frontier while Romans are killed. Tacitus stated that his accounts on the Julio Claudian emperors was made without prejudice and the fact that he highlights both positive and negative aspects of Tiberius ' rule indicates that he was probably telling the truth.
...us heard this speech, did he gain access to it? Senators rarely travelled, especially not into enemy territory so this possibility is unlikely, and having heard this speech from Agricola is improbable too because of the different languages. From all the provided evidence, it is unmistakable that Tacitus wrote the Galgacus speech to show the Roman leaders their mistakes. Since publicly commenting on this was impossible, Tacitus had to be creative and by using Galgacus as a mouthpiece, he was able to express his views freely. In the end, Tacitus leaves his readers with one final question, does calling a society a civilization automatically make it civilized?
The Romans have had almost every type of government there is. They've had a kingdom, a republic, a dictatorship, and an empire. Their democracy would be the basis for most modern democracies. The people have always been involved with and loved their government, no matter what kind it was. They loved being involved in the government, and making decisions concerning everyone. In general, the Romans were very power-hungry. This might be explained by the myth that they are descended from Romulus, who's father was Mars, the god of war. Their government loving tendencies have caused many, many civil wars. After type of government, the change has been made with a civil war. There have also been many civil wars between rulers. But it all boils
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
Rome, even at its beginnings, proved to be a force to be reckoned with. It’s rapid growth and accumulation of power and repeated victories over powerful neighbors set Rome in a position of great authority and influence. As the leader of early Rome, Romulus’ effective command of his men and governance of his people provided the foundation for the building of a great city. Livy emphasizes Romulus’ possible divine origins and strong ties to deities as a validation and reinforcement of his ability to rule. A nation’s sole defense cannot be just bricks and mortar, it requires an army and a will and Romulus was able to successfully take action against the aggressors when action was needed.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
The Roman Way is essentially a collection of letters, poems and essays from some of the most famous literary minds of the ancient Roman culture. Edith Hamilton is attempting to show us a side of Rome that was previously unseen. She uses these stories to try and explain what the ideas, attitudes and beliefs are that make up the “Roman Way.”
... for seemingly sympathetic or admirable portrayals of Roman enemies, but in this case it is a facile one. Using all the mechanisms mentioned, Tacitus rather seems to be interested in reminding his readers of the humanity even of Rome's enemies, identifying them with an earlier vision of Rome itself and pointing out the ways in which dishonorable acts on the part of Romans can lead to unnecessary bloodshed and carnage. The Romans made the Iceni into rebels, goading them into war (in Tacitus' phrasing), and then were obliged to put down the rebellion which was essentially of their own creation. In the Annales, Tacitus gently reminds that recognizing the common humanity even of barbarians can avert war and lead to a more humane and honorable way of life.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
Since the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, attitudes of nationalism, Prussian militarism and expansionism saturated German society. As one can clearly see in the writings of the influential German historian, Heinrich von Treitschke, war and territorial expansion were seen as being necessary to the preservation and advancement of German society. He states that, “War is for an afflicted people the only remedy… Those who preach the nonsense about everlasting peace do not understand the life of the Aryan race, the Aryans are before all brave.” The mobilization of the people and resources, for the purpose of making war, were believed to be the means of preservation and advancement of German society. These ultra-nationalistic attitudes and beliefs resulted in widespread German enthusiasm with the coming of war in 1914. As expressed in a German newspaper, The Post, “Another forty years of peace would be a national misfortune for Germany.”
The Roman Republic began in 509 B.C.E. with the overthrow of the Etruscan monarchy. In 27 B.C.E the Roman Empire began with Octavian Caesar becoming the emperor, this ended almost 500 years of republican self-government. There is much debate over why Rome became so powerful so quickly. Many think it had to do with Rome’s military strength. Others think that it was because Rome knew of and controlled most of the trade routes. Still others believed it had to do with the technology that was advanced during the Roman Republic. All of these factors played significant roles, but which one played the most important role?
The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was “[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs” (Perry 105)