Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them. From the beginning of 14.30, the description of the battle at Mona, Tacitus emphasizes the “un-Romaness” of the Druids, particularly their tradition of human sacrifice and the behavior of their women: “in modum Furiarum veste ferali, crinibus deiectis.”2 However, even before this, he begins a subtle campaign of Vergilian allusions, belying his unattractive descriptions of the Druids. The opposing battle line is described as “densa armis virisque,” a phrase which cannot help but recall Vergil's “arma virumque cano,” the first line of the Aeneid.3 Later in 30, he employs the Vergilian expressions “preces...fundentes” and “adolere aras”, referring to the superstitious and barbarian religious practices of the enemy but recalling, respectively, supplicating Trojans and Aen... ... middle of paper ... ... 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. Works Cited Tacitus. The Annals of Tacitus. Edited and annotated by Henry Furneaux. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907.
Tacitus is a Roman contemporary historian who lived approximately during the period 54 A. D. and died after 117. He is well known for his writings of "Annals" and the "Histories," which "covered the history of Rome from the death of Augustus to A. D. 96." Among his fellow historians, he is praised for his unbiased opinions and fairness of judgements. His work, Germania, comprises of his understanding of the Germanic people. Throughout the work, Tacitus describes their values, warfare and weaponry, religion, agriculture, leadership and government, and gender relations within their society. Although Tacitus's respect for the German tribes is perceived when he discusses monogamy in the German society,
Each of the Germania's 46 passages deals with a particular area of German civilization among which Tacitus develops a two-tiered theme. The two points he tries to make generally clear are the following:
Tacitus’s father-in-law, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, was a Roman general involved in the Briton resistance, so this provided him with an insight into the Britons’ society. Therefore, with his experience in the Roman political sphere and Agricola’s imparted knowledge, Tacitus was well equipped to write this speech. For clarity’s sake, the names “Tacitus” and “Galgacus” will be interchangeable as Tacitus wrote this under Galgacus’ name. The speech begins with Galgacus declaring that unification freedom, which sug...
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
3)Dionysius, Earnest Cary, and Edward Spelman. The Roman Antiquities. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard UP, 1937. Print.
In Tacitus’ Germania, the author reveals different aspects of the Germanic tribes of that time. Tacitus underlines religion, politics, and warfare in his passages. He goes into detail about climate, geography, social structure, the different customs of the Germanic people, and the tribes that make up Germany. Warfare being described to be one of the most important characteristics of the Germanic people, it was the most respectable effort that people of Germany could display.
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
In the early first century AD, the Roman Empire was subject to autocratic rule and the old Republic was long dead. Augustus had been ruling for forty years and most of that time he was loved and praised by the Senate and the people of Rome. Throughout his reign, Augustus had the one lingering problem of finding a successor to take over the role of Emperor. He had chosen 3 different heirs in his time of rule; however, they all passed before they had the chance to inherit Augustus’ esteemed power. His fourth choice, Tiberius, was the one to succeed Augustus. He was often referred to, by Augustus, as an outstanding general and the only one capable of defending Rome against her enemies. The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis will be proven through this essay by analyzing factors such as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire, his relationship with the senate, his financial control, the effect of Sejanus over his rule and why were his last years as Emperor referred to as a ‘reign of terror’ by Tacitus.
Gaius Verres was the quaestorian governor of the Sicilian province when his greed finally began to surface when Sthenius of Thermae came to Cicero’s home telling the horrors of what this ruthless governor had been up to. Sthenius claimed that Verres had been swindling Sicilian’s out of their most cherished objects such as bronze statues and anything made of precious metals. This crooked governor was giving out his newly ...
Dio, Cassius. "Roman History - Book 50." 17 June 2011. University of Chicago. 31 October 2011 .
8. Edmondson, J. C., and MyiLibrary. “Augustus”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 4 May 2014.
Tacitus stood against self - indulgence and extravagant displays of wealth as he saw these as being major flaws of the aristocracy and nobility. Although Tacitus was far more interested in moral behaviour, he saw these flaws as the basis for Rome's decline at the time of Nero. An example of this decaying Rome was in Ad60 when the people of Pompeii and Nuceria assaulted each other at the gladiatorial event. Nero passed the investigation onto the Senate, who subsequently made the c...
One fact in a chart compiled by various sources is that Rome went through twenty-two rulers in a fifty year period. This fact shows that the people of Rome were especially stubborn, violent, and unaccepting during the fifty year period. This is not an ideal environment for everybody, from the poor to the rich. Clearly the violence of the Roman people was present. In addition, Ammianus Marcellinus states that, “The Hun’s exceed any definition of savagery...so wild...completely ignorant.” This very interesting statement shows that the people of Rome liked to describe their enemies as animals so it is easier to kill them. To them it is easier to kill an animal then it is to kill a human. The harsh and violence everybody now contains in Rome truly shows in this horrible description. In the end, Rome’s moral decline ended the all-mighty Roman empire because of the do-what’s-expected-of-me attitude and the harsh environment
In opposition to these things Titurius kept shouting, when it would become too late, greater bands of forces of the enemy, after having been joined to the Germans, when some disaster having had occurred in a neighboring camp, they should have assembled. The opportunity was short for deliberating. He believed Caesar had set out for Italy: for neither have the Carnutes have taken the measure of killing Tasgetius, nor have the Eburones, if he had been present , they would have come to the camp with such great disdain of us. He did not regard the enemy as an authority: the Rhine was close by, the death of Ariovistus and our previous victories were the Germans, for the purpose of producing great grief; Gaul was burned, after having received great
He supports his argument with the example of Hannibal, who commanded an army made up of men from different nations fighting far from their homes. His soldiers always obeyed while regarding him “admiration and fear” (537). Though Hannibal was very accomplished ruler, Machiavelli argues that without cruelty, Hannibal’s virtu alone would have been insufficient. In contrast, he compares Hannibal to another leader called Scipio, whose army rebelled against him because of his “excessive leniency, which meant his soldiers had more freedom than is compatible with good military discipline” (538). Consequently, he was accused of corrupting the Roman army, criticised for not avenging the death of the inhabitants and for insubordination. Machiavelli concludes that “as far as being feared and loved is concerned, since men decide for themselves whom they love, and rulers must decide whom they fear, a wise ruler should rely on the emotion he can control, not on the one he cannot. But he must take care to avoid being hated, as I have said”