What Is Tacitus Effect On Germania

Tacitus was a first century (CE) Roman aristocrat, civil official and historian. He wrote one of the oldest recorded descriptions of the barbarian tribes of antiquity who lived along the northern frontier of the Roman Empire, next to the province of Gallia, that encompassed present-day Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, northern France and parts of Germany. Tacitus’ written work On the Origin, Location, Customs, and Inhabitants of Germany, more commonly known as Germania, included his own firsthand knowledge of the Germanic peoples as well as information from earlier oral and written accounts. Germania, on the surface, appears to be an ethnographic work, and served as a primary source for its historical period, as it included detailed descriptions

of late first century (CE) Germanic tribes.
Tacitus wrote his treatise on the Germanic tribes in 98 CE. At the time, very little was known about the fringe peoples that occupied the Roman Empire’s northern border. Tacitus wrote Germania in response to heightened interest from Roman officials about the barbarian tribes living in the region bordering the Rhine and Danube Rivers in what is now eastern Germany. It was these Germanic peoples that constituted most of the migrants and invaders entering the Roman Empire at the time.
However, there’s been much debate among historians if Germania, and the ethnography contained within it, was a truly correct depiction of the Germanic tribes of Tacitus’ time. Certainly, Germania fits the ethnographic model of the period, but has probable exaggerations, generalizations, factual inaccuracies, and stereotypes that make some historians question the document’s historical accuracy and validity. Other historians see great value in Germania as it’s one of the very few sources from early Medieval Europe to survive from antiquity into the modern era. Germania isn’t a true ethnography, in the classic sense, of the Germanic tribes bordering the northern boundary of the Roman Empire. Rather, Tacitus’ analysis and commentary in Germania draws from secondary oral and written accounts of the Germanic barbarians. The central theme in Germania is the inherent contrast that Tacitus presents between the noble and pure institutions of the Germanic tribes and the corrupt and decrepit institutions of the Romans. At times, it reads more like a treatise about ethics and morality than a true ethnography, as there is a consistent undercurrent of sociopolitical commentary that Tacitus injects into Germania about Roman culture, government, and society.
Tacitus’ purpose in writing Germania isn’t known for certain. He probably wrote his treatise for multiple reasons. It’s possible that Tacitus wrote Germania, more than anything, to advocate for a return to the strong virtues of the old Republic, using the Germanic peoples as an example of proper moral conduct by which he wanted his Roman brethren to abide. Moreover, Tacitus claimed to admire and respect these first century (CE) Germanic peoples, depicting their lives and characters as purer than those of his Roman brethren. In Germania, Tacitus often idealized the customs, practices, and traditions of the Germanic tribes because they paralleled the institutions that he revered in the early Republic, which had become corroded with age. However, Tacitus’ attitude towards the Germanic barbarians was complex, as he presented some unfavorable characterizations of them, as well.
In Germania, Tacitus idealized the Germans as simple, pure and noble folk, whose lives were uncomplicated and less corrupted than those “tainted” by civilization. This condescending Roman idealization of barbarians as “simple but pure” is clear throughout the text. This idea of “simple but pure” is quite like the 18th-century racist propagandizing of the “noble savage,” used to justify slavery and genocide. Tacitus praised the Germanic peoples for their simple lifestyle, warrior courage, chastity and monogamy within marriage while equally disavowing their tendency for drunkenness and idleness. Tacitus particularly admired Germanic commitment to chastity and monogamy, as well as their marriage customs and matrimonial law. Tacitus, in his descriptions of the Germanic peoples, subtly hinted to his fellow Romans that they practice the chastity, monogamy and marriage customs of the Germanic tribes. Clearly, monogamy, marriage and family life were Tacitus’ most favored aspects of Germanic society when he wrote: “Their marriage code is strict, and indeed no part of their manners is more praiseworthy." Tacitus suggested that the Germanic peoples owned an innate, morally upright character within them, going so far as to imply that in the Germanic peoples, their "good habits are here more effectual than good laws elsewhere.”
Tacitus presented the Germanic tribes as people that held themselves to very high ethical and moral standards. Tacitus’ praise for Germanic ethical and moral standards seemed almost too strong. Whether Tacitus’ testimony of the Germanic peoples and their strict, morally upright conduct was true or not can certainly be debated. Clearly, Tacitus admired the strong ethical and moral ideals he claimed he saw, but never actually saw, in the Germanic tribes. He wished his fellow Romans practiced these same ideals with equal fervor, as well. Seemingly, Tacitus wrote Germania with multiple purposes in mind: (1) to endorse and encourage proper ethical and moral behavior in Roman society, (2) to record an ethnography of the barbaric German societies existing along, and just within, Rome’s northern boundary, and (3) to assess the military threat these tribes posed to the Roman Empire.
Tacitus documented Germanic institutions that both paralleled, and contrasted Roman institutions, of which he was a part. For instance, Tacitus wrote that, much like in his Roman Empire, Germanic kings ascended to power because of their nobility, and the tribe chose military leaders because of their fighting excellence. Also, Tacitus wrote that Germanic kings’ power was neither arbitrary nor infinite, and that Germans admired leaders for their ability to lead by example, and not merely for their power. Other Germanic practices contrasted greatly with Roman customs. For instance, Tacitus wrote that wives, instead of husbands as was the Roman custom, received dowry from their betrothed partner, and asserted that men, instead of women, displayed their matrimonial worth through wealth. Another example of the differences Tacitus documented between German and Roman society was when he wrote that Germanic people refrained from the potential impropriety that occur with “allurements of public shows or the stimulants of feastings” implying that sexual immorality was rampant in Roman society, particularly among elite, wealthy Romans.
One major problem with Tacitus’ Germania was the many generalizations, simplifications, and stereotypes he made about the Germanic peoples themselves throughout the text. First, Tacitus wrote that all Germans share several physical characteristics in common, namely blue eyes, red hair, large frames and a lack of stamina. These generalizations of Germans’ physical qualities were surely false because Tacitus couldn’t account for every German when he described them. Second, Tacitus described how “in every household, the children grow up naked and filthy, with those stout frames and limbs which we so much admire.” This “fact” that Tacitus asserted would be logistically impossible to obtain, as it would require considerable effort and resources to assess the cleanliness of hundreds of German households, and the physical state of the children within each one. Third, Tacitus wrote that Germans had no understanding of loans and compounding interest, which was “a more effective safeguard than if it were prohibited.” However, earlier in the text Tacitus noted that the border population of Germans used precious metal (gold and silver) for commercial purposes, bartered and handled Roman coins as well. It’s difficult to accept Tacitus’ assertion of total German ignorance of monetary loans as fact, given that first century (CE) Germans had a monetary system in place, even if it was a simplistic one. Finally, Tacitus described with admiration, the “…distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves” of the Germanic peoples, due to geographic isolation from other foreign nations. Also, Tacitus noted that their customs were totally Germanic in origin. Again, the reader wonders about the validity of these assertions, given that these Germanic peoples were seminomadic in nature, moving in and out of, and along the frontier territories of the Roman Empire. It’s difficult to imagine that early Germans didn’t intermingle with other tribes and ethnicities, making Tacitus’ claims of Germanic “racial purity” somewhat dubious.
Another major problem with Germania is the ethnographic approach Tacitus used to describe the Germanic tribes.

Germania is not an unbiased study or presentation of Germanic ethnic groups, but rather Tacitus’ attempt to exploit Germanic “noble” culture to sustain his own outrage at Rome’s lack of moral rectitude. At the beginning of Germania, Tacitus wrote in true ethnographic fashion, describing the climate and geography of Germany and its effects on the Germanic populations. He also discusses their military strategy in battle in detail, as Romans perceived these Germans as a grave threat to their security. But later in the text, detached observation of these Germanic populations gives way to unnecessary praise and adulation. It’s pretty obvious, from reading the latter part of the text, that Tacitus’ main interest was critiquing Roman culture instead of advancing knowledge about early Germanic

peoples.
Despite its shortcomings, Tacitus’ Germania offers the reader important insights into early barbarian culture in Western Europe, such as the first century (CE) Germanic tribes.

The early Germans, like other barbarian tribes, were essentially seminomadic groups of peoples, loosely held together by kinships that were presided over by chieftains and kings. They were warrior societies that greatly valued heroism and sacrifice in battle, and loyalty to your kinsmen. Barbarian warriors didn’t tolerate cowardice on the battlefield; deserters that fled the battlefield were put to death. These were male-dominant cultures where women and girls were subordinate to men and boys. Gender roles were strict: women and girls took care of the home, produced needed offspring and were cheerleaders for men on the battlefield. Men labored outside of the home, and spent much time preparing and training for war. Men occupied all the positions of power within the tribe. These tribes greatly valued and protected women of child-bearing age, out of necessity. Life was harsh, external threats were everywhere (like the Romans), and life expectancy was short. So, many children were needed to support and ensure a stable population. Obviously, daughters were needed for their ability to produce offspring. Sons were needed to serve in combat, and to get married and continue the male

lineage.
Tacitus effectively recorded the existence of these early tribes, and their societal customs using information learned from earlier oral and written accounts. Germania exists as a reliable source for reconstructing Germanic society because Tacitus’ wrote it during the period when these barbarian tribes existed. Thus, historians consider Germania as a primary source because it’s one of the few records of first century (CE) barbarian tribes that occupied the border regions of the Roman Empire. Despite its ethnographical and historical shortcomings and Tacitus’ underlying critiques of contemporary Roman society injected throughout the text, Germania remains one of the most important primary sources of early Medieval Europe to survive to the modern era.