Publius (Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and senator who wrote several historical documents, including some discussing ancient Britain. In approximately 98 CE, Tacitus wrote a particular document called, “Galgacus: On Roman Imperialism,” which focused on a speech supposedly delivered by Galgacus, a Briton military leader. If Tacitus in fact did write this speech celebrating the Britons and calling them to fight for freedom, why would he use Galgacus’s name? Firstly, Tacitus was a Roman senator who witnessed imperialism’s negative impact so he imagined this speech to criticize the Roman Empire’s barbarism without incriminating himself. Secondly, this speech celebrates the Britons while demonizing the Romans, which again, would be dangerous to claim as one’s own. Finally, by being a historian, Tacitus was interested in recording the past, so through this speech, Tacitus preserves a history that would have been lost otherwise. Clearly, from the reasons behind using Galgacus’s name and the words he uses, Tacitus did write this speech, and an analysis of the work will show this. Analyzing the words Tacitus uses will also highlight his authorship, but they also provide readers with an insight into both societies.
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...
... middle of paper ...
...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?
Bibliography
Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. “Galgacus: On Roman Imperialism.” Life of Cnaeus Julius Agricola,
29-33. Accessed January 16, 2012.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/tacitus-galgacus.asp.
Claudius’s Decision to Invade Britain in AD43 as Motivated by a Desire to Emulate Julius Caesar
...ation and well being of a country, people, and republic. “‘This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar; he, only in a general honest thought and common good to all, made one of them’”(998). Although a seemingly menacing traitor to his country at first, Brutus makes the journey to a sympathetic and noble tragic hero in the end.
Despite being an immediate bestseller, shortly after publishing, Edward Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire became unpopular with large groups of the British reading public. The abridged edition consecutively presents the stories behind the Empire’s leadership and course of action. Gibbon revivifies the complex and compelling period of the Romans by detailing the prosperous conditions of the empire, the decline, and the aftermath of the fall. At the same time, Gibbon efficiently scrutinizes the declining virtue of the Roman people. Gibbon made an argument that the intellectual inflexibility of the Roman Empire had declined into “barbarism” and “Christianity,” which ultimately attributed to the fall of the Empire. Many ideas in international politics may have the best foundations for evidence but quickly go out of style. The ideas behind Gibbon’s Decline did just that. Many authors attribute the decline of the Roman Empire to military and economic characteristics rather than virtuous leadership and characteristics. Because Gibbon takes a humanist approach in describing decline, he undermines legitimate factors that modern political scientists would evaluate. Gibbon wrote in a paradigm that has little value for modern political science and as such, is a really bad idea. His idea- the decline of the Roman virtue having consequences beyond structural factors- is, in effect, an idea that should not be used for anything except teaching the definition of virtue and reviewing history. Because of the paradigm going out of style, The Decline would not have survived with merit had it not been for the intriguing anecdotes and tales of the many characters.
...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.
3. I often waged war, civil and foreign, on the earth and sea, in the whole wide world, and as victor I spared all the citizens who sought pardon. As for foreign nations, those which I was able to safely forgive, I preferred to preserve than to destroy. About five hundred thousand Roman citizens were sworn to me. I led something more than three hundred thousand of them into colonies and I returned them to their cities, after their stipend had been earned, and I assigned all of them fields or gave them money for their military service. I captured six hundred ships in addition to those smaller than triremes.
However, all the Roman authors' works are subject to bias, either pro-Roman (as in Caesar and Strabo) or of flattery (as in Tacitus, who was writing a eulogy). Caesar's first paragraph in his account of the first invasion of Britain, for example, states that the Celts had been sending reinforcements to the Gauls on the continent during Caesar's Gallic campaigns. The full truth of this statement is unknown, however it is unlikely that the Celts would have been interested in sending men out to Gaul, as it would have been harvest time during that period, and the Celts were primarily a farming people. Roman authors tended to share the same opinions concerning the geography of Britain as each other.
...r, despite the ridicule, the plebeians continue to celebrate Caesar, supporting his ultimate rise to power. This suggests that although powerful roman citizens may disagree, the common peoples’ opinion outweighs all. Another instance when power of speech is portrayed is during Brutus and Mark Antony’s speeches after Caesar’s death. After Brutus’ speech, a citizen yells, “Let him be Caesar” (3.2. 20-2), which could of swayed other plebeians to back behind Brutus. The words of one citizen could influence other’s opinions.
Edith Hamilton does a great job in translating the works of many different authors of Roman literature, discussing each author's stance on literature as well as their similarities with other Roman authors. Edith Hamilton starts the book in the preface by saying: “I have considered them alone in writing this book. It is in no sense a history of Rome, but an attempt to show what the Romans were as they appear in their great authors, to set forth the combination of qualities they themselves prove are peculiarly Roman, distinguishing them from the rest of antiquity.” (9) I interpret that to mean that you cannot get an accurate reconstruction of history without the personal letters and writings of the day to show us the quality of people of whom we are learning about. The book shows us how the Romans felt about being Roman.
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,
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.
Gaius Julius Caesar, born 100 B.C.E. in Rome to the impoverished patrician Julian Clan, knew controversy at an early age. Nephew to Populare Gaius Marius, he was earmarked by the Optimate dictator Sulla for prosciption after his refusal to divorce his Populare wife, Cinna. Fleeing Rome, and not returning until after Sulla’s resignation in 78 B.C.E, upon his return he gained a position as a pontificate, an important Roman priesthood. Slowly but surely throughout his lifetime he worked his way up the political ladder, eventually becoming Consul, and finally Dictator Perpeteus – Dictator for life. One of the most influential political and military leaders of all time, Caesar was also a highly intelligent man and an exceptional orator. However, acquiring this absolute power was no mean feat, and Caesar had well equipped himself through previous expeditions with all the resources necessary to gain power in Ancient Rome.
...s statement was made by Antony, in reference to Caesar, after the conspirators murdered him. The interesting idea behind this statement is that Antony’s opinion is later altered into believing that Brutus is the noblest Roman, instead of Caesar. It took the valiant sacrifice of Brutus’ life, which was made in attempt to save Rome, to persuade Antony, but it was then that he understood why Brutus murdered Caesar. Antony’s revulsion toward Brutus was simply blinded by anger and remorse for his dead friend, Caesar, for him to realize that what Brutus was doing was actually best for Rome.
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.
Across cultures, continents, and worlds, the majority of things within the scope of our very own humanity can be boiled down to two things: those who are dominant, and those who get dominated. Within these statuses lie stories of power struggles, rebellion, the rising and falling of those with influence, and the interconnection between a being with power and the people under his ruling. Through the visual works catered to this subject, we will discuss themes such as the power of immortalization, divinity amongst humans, what it really means to be a ruler, and many other details making up the ever-present, multifaceted relationship between rulers and their subject. With the assistance of the Blanton Museum of Art, I will be able to showcase
One of these important virtues necessary for rule is the ability to move a large crowd with impressive orating skills. This ability is seen particularly by Brutus in his first speech, as he manages to move the Roman crowd from fear at the assassination to disdain of the now late Julius Caesar. As Brutus spoke to the masses, he made sure to cleverly weigh his loyalty to Caesar to his loyalty to Rome, as he claims, “not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (III, ii, 23-24). He even more cleverly sets the crowd with himself and against Caesar as he dares those loyal to Rome to challenge his judgement: “Who is here so vile that will not love his country? If any, speak, for him have I offended. I pause for a reply” (III, ii, 33-36). Thus, while playing on the crowd’s loyalties and using his love for Rome and...