What Is Tacitus's Attitude Towards Barbarians

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

The Germania written by Tacitus served as an ethnography of Germans that lived in the lands beyond Roman control. Tacitus goes through every aspect of culture and in some cases compares Germans to Romans. He describes German culture as a whole in the first half of the reading, then moves on to discuss each individual tribe and their customs. Tacitus defines race in very broad sense, drawn from how he depicts Germans in contrast to Romans. We see that geography and culture play a large role, although they differ slightly from tribe to tribe, many maintain similar customs. Through the Germania, we see that Tacitus differentiates race on the basis of physical appearance, lifestyle, and regard for women.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

Tacitus believes that Roman Imperialism has a variety of attributes that include prosperity, cruelty, and jealousy. He is more so critical of conquests attempted by people he does not favor. Tacitus is a great source of the Roman imperialist results as he lived through emperor’s who were thought to be effective and others who were unsatisfactory to say the least. He favored the Trajanic regime that he was serving under while criticized Domitian’s reign undoubtedly. Overall, his opinion on imperial rule was mostly negative since it promoted the corruption of the ruler and the ruled, increased secrecy, paranoia, cruelty and moral downgrades in the emperors, and an increase in greed, hypocrisy, and cowardice in the subjects. While he talks

Tacitus’ Agricola, though it traverses a significant part of Rome’s conquest of Britain, is primarily about the man from whom the book takes it title. Tacitus used British conquest to show the reader Agricola’s many virtues, and he explained why Romans should strive to follow Agricola’s example. At the same time, however, Tacitus echoed Agricola’s virtues to Rome, which, before and during the writing of his book, endured several tyrannical emperors. Tacitus’ book, besides praising an individual, suggested hope for an improved future to many troubled Romans when the virtues of the empire had decayed, and freedom that they once loved had largely disappeared.

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

Tacitus believes that Roman Imperialism has a variety of attributes that include prosperity, cruelty, and jealousy. Imperialism can be a two-edged sword, bringing peace and prosperity during one reign, and fear the next. Tacitus is a great source of the Roman imperialist results as he lived through emperor’s who were thought to be effective and others who were unsatisfactory to say the least. He favored the Trajanic regime that he was serving under while criticized Domitian’s reign undoubtedly. Overall, his opinion on imperial rule was mostly negative since it promoted the corruption of the ruler and the ruled, increased secrecy, paranoia, cruelty and moral downgrades in the emperors, and an increase in greed, hypocrisy, and cowardice in the subjects. While he talks positively of Agricola’s victories over the Britanni, he has mixed opinions on other Roman conquests. He describes his father-in-;aw’s positive effect on integrating conquered peoples into society. Meanwhile, other talks of Roman greed and lust combined with extreme contempt for barbarian culture fills the pages of Agricola. Tacitus includes an enumeration of possible barbarian complaints of Roman rule with a declamation by a renowned Britanni leader, Calagus, that both describe the expansion of Roman influence as destructive rather than the spread of peace.

Imperial Rome, during the first century A.D. was expanding it's boundaries by adding new territories. They expanded into northern Europe and Britain and conquered or attempted to conquer various types of people. Based on my reading of Tacitus' The Agricola and The Germania, I have knowledge of the life and customs of the Britons, subject of the Agricola, and the Germans, subject of the Germania. This of course being the Romans, and more specifically Tacitus,' observation and view of these groups of people.

The language of Roman rule and power can be disputed endlessly, much like all else when trying to study ancient history. This is primarily a result of a multitude of interpretations that can be inferred from primary sources, which also tend to be biased, that we have available to us. Examining a source that is written from an individual’s perspective, and they trying draw conclusions about varying aspects of a certain society is especially tough and extremely subjective. Nonetheless, history remains an important field of study and reaps many benefits.

The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.

It is easy to see the pessimism in Tacitus’s Annals. Repeated descriptions of hypocritical, violent, and corrupt action seem to indicate Tacitus’s view that this was a wholly unjust period of Roman history. However, Tacitus is not so unilateral. Subtly he places characters and situations that invoke hope for the future. In examining Tacitus’s treatment of Thrasea, we can understand some of this reticent yet tenacious hope.

Edward Luttwak’s The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century A.D. to the Third gives a militaristic analysis of the tactics used by the Roman Empire while also highlighting parallels between Rome and contemporary U.S. military policy. Luttwak divides his book into three chapters, a chapter for each of the 3 identified systems; the first chapter discusses Rome’s use of mobile armies and client states to defend her borders. The second chapter shows border defense as was provided by small groups of marching legionary troops. The third and final chapter details the transition from an offense stance to a more

In Mary Beard’s book, The Roman Triumph, she explores one of the most interesting victory celebrations of the ancient world. Instead of having a small gathering, or even a raucous party, Romans brought what they had seized and carted it through the city. They even brought some people they had captured so that the crowd could know exactly who they triumphed against. This celebration gives historians a view into the Romans lifestyle. Roman triumphs also show what values were important to the Romans and where they found their significance. Using Mary Beard’s book I will demonstrate the nature of Roman triumphs by giving examples from Pompey’s triumph in 61BC, what these triumphs tell historians about the Roman world and why they are significant, and what they tell us about the values the Romans held dear.

After decades of confrontation between Romans and Germanic tribes, who were more commonly known as barbarians, alliances began to form between the two groups. When the barbarians allied themselves with the Roman Empire, they were not considered Roman colonies or citizens, but instead known as ‘foederati’. They received the benefit of the Roman Empire’s support, sometimes with land, food, or money, in exchange for the barbarian’s military service in the Roman armies. One of the most well-known barbarian foederati groups were the Goths, however, their position as allies of the Empire was never permanent, nor were the relations ever completely peaceful. Despite the usually temporary nature of these alliances, both the Goths and the Romans benefited for several reasons. When the Goths were part of the Foederati they stopped hostilities between themselves and the Empire, gained mutual security from the threat posed by Hunnic aggression, and their people benefited from the introduction of Romanic society.

The final centuries of the Western Roman Empire are remembered as some of the most tumultuous years in European history. What was once the mightiest state in the world bent beneath a myriad of tribal raids, economic failure and internal fragmentation. It is not in any way universally accepted by historians that it was solely the incursions of these so-called ‘barbarian’ tribes which saw the West ultimately crushed yet miraculously allowed the Eastern half of the empire to survive another millennium, in fact this outcome was probably due to a variety of factors. Yet it is clear the migration-fuelled assaults on the Roman world in the late 4th and 5th centuries had a far more devastating impact on the western provinces than those in the east. This essay will evaluate three key factors which explain to some extent the disparaging destinies between East and West Rome. Firstly, the slumping of the western economy in comparison with the Eastern Empire. Secondly, the internal strife which saw the west devolve into civil war and disjunction, weakening it to barbarian hostility. And finally, the external pressure as faced by both sides of the empire, as a succession of peoples from outside imperial Europe sought entry into the empire – peaceably or otherwise. It is likely a combination of all these elements as well as many others that led to the eventual usurpation of the old Roman heartlands by barbaric successor kingdoms.