Agricola and Germania Essay Example

corruption and governed by greedy, authoritarian leaders who exerted tight control over every aspect of Roman life. These leaders were profoundly rooted in the inflexible belief that their fate was to conquer the world - a mission they pursued tirelessly.

Tacitus dissuaded the relentless hunger for power. A segment from Calgucus's address exposes Rome's avarice, "Their greed is fueled by the riches of their adversary, and their ambition by his indigence…Their lies label looting, slaughtering and plunder as "empire": they fabricate ruination and name it peace"(Tacitus, 20). The Romans had no regard for the impoverishment of other people; they sought after any territory they could acquire, irrespective of its state. Tacitus employed Calgucus's discourse as a tactic to evade potential problems.

Calgucus, a prominent figure in the British military, delivered his speech at Mount Graupius, thus relieving Tacitus of the task of creating this portrayal of Rome. Nonetheless, its inclusion is evidently understandable to contemporary readers. To Tacitus's mind, if Rome could be credited with anything positive, it was Agricola. Tacitus viewed Agricola as a superior general and governor whose precedent all subsequent leaders should emulate. "His achievements outshone most: it would be offensive to appreciate his integrity and self-control considering the magnitude of his virtues" (Tacitus, 7).

Tacitus portrays Agricola as an exemplary leader, demonstrating how, even amidst Rome's perils, it was always more beneficial to strive for betterment and righteous conduct over pursuing destructive extremes. "Never before or since has Britannia found itself in such a perilous or unstable condition: massacred veterans, scorched colonies, deserted armies... Yet all these elements served to instill in the young Agricola new abilities, new

experiences, and a renewed ambition, his soul engulfed by the fiery desire for military honor" (Tacitus, 4).

Contrary to numerous rulers of Rome, Tacitus was not greedy or tyrannical. Throughout the despised rule of Domitian, Agricola upheld his honor and respectability until his end. Alongside political criticism, social critique was also hidden in the Agricola. They skillfully persuaded people to become part of the Roman empire by introducing Roman societal traditions into Britannia.

The Romans made significant contributions in terms of constructing temples, public squares, and standardized houses. Their emblematic toga began to appear everywhere, illustrating a sense of standardization. This they innocently termed as 'civilization', yet it was essentially a subtle form of subjugation (Tacitus, 15). This transposition of their societal norms onto other cultures eased Rome's expansion, especially noted during Agricola's rule. The Romans exerted control over nations that were not necessarily essential to them. Progressing to Germania, which Tacitus outlined with more critical social commentary compared to his account of Agricola, highlighting the cultural disparity between Germania and Rome. He characterized Germania as an empire that functioned solely based on its freedom.

Germania's monarchs did not possess total dominance over German residents. "Yet, the potency of the kings isn't limitless or random. Regarding the chiefs, it's their leading conduct, not their command, that earns them particular esteem" (Tacitus, 38). On the other hand, Roman citizens were under the illusion of their own liberty despite the Emperor being the source of all Roman empire's power. Moreover, the Germans treated their enslaved better compared to the Romans.

In the ancient city of Rome, the wealthy class had sufficient financial resources

to purchase a large quantity of slaves for household tasks and farming responsibilities. Infamously, Roman slave owners were known for their severe and uncompassionate treatment towards slaves, frequently depriving them of basic necessities. Their rationale behind such inhumane behavior was based on their abundant access to slave labor; they deemed it more economical to buy new slaves rather than upkeep those already in their custody. Conversely, Germanic lords practiced a more considerate treatment towards their enslaved population as a tactic to discourage potential uprisings.

In Germania, hospitality was extremely important, and it was deemed unethical to refuse anyone at your door. The host was expected to serve the highest quality meal possible to his guest (Tacitus, 45). German slaveholders treated their slaves similarly to tenants, which turned out to be more beneficial than the Roman approach. The Roman slaves ultimately instigated revolts against their masters, leading to significant unrest in Rome.

Tacitus juxtaposed the contrasting marriage practices of Rome and Germania, critiquing the former. He commended marriage in Germania, describing it as rigorous and praise-worthy. In Germania, monogamy was predominant with men typically taking only one wife in their lifetime. The dowry, following the nuptials, transferred from husband to wife contrary to Roman practices. In contrast, Roman husbands commonly engaged in extramarital relationships and received dowries from their wives rather than bestowing them. Furthermore, Tacitus attested that Germania's societal norms granted wives greater respect compared to Rome. Additionally, the secured foundation of marriage was more evident in Germania, characterized by a lower frequency of divorces compared to Rome.

Despite his profession as a historian, Tacitus demonstrated certain deficiencies. Evidently, he lacked an

emphasis on geographical awareness or military history. This lack of geographical comprehension notably affected the latter half of Germania. Instead of using maps that accurately mapped populations to general topographical locations, Tacitus seemed to avoid them (Tacitus, xlii). Additionally, the absence of military history in Agricola deprived readers of greater insight into why Agricola's achievements were so extraordinary if more historical context had been included.

Tacitus was well-equipped as a historian with several strengths. His personal connection to his father-in-law offered him considerable insights, enabling him to amply detail Agricolas' journey from his ascent to demise. In addition, his extensive understanding of Germania has made the German culture more accessible and respected by today's readers. They can also easily comprehend why some parts of the text were prohibited in the past, due to the advancing civilization in Germania. As a biographer, he exhibited both strong and weak areas.

Tacitus's close connection with Agricola gives him the unique advantage of highlighting lesser-known facets about Agricola, aspects that may be missed by those without such deep insights. His thorough concentration on Agricola enables readers to understand and acknowledge Agricola's achievements more easily than Tacitus himself might grasp them, even though the limited military history could initially seem hard to understand. Nonetheless, Tacitus's favoritism towards his father-in-law threatens the impartiality of his narrative since he does not reveal any faults of Agricola in his account.

The assertion that any compassionate individual has no more than a single shortcoming renders Tacitus less believable. This misperception arises because Tacitus views Agricola solely in a favourable light, leading one to wonder what part of the story is missing.

Rather than backing his claims with valid evidence, Tacitus erroneously assumes his credibility is intrinsically accepted by the reader. This approach represents a significant flaw. Taking everything into account, both Agricola and Germania were just in applauding Agricola's accomplishments while critiquing the societal and political aspects of the Roman empire.

While the central emphasis of Agricola was to critique Rome's political framework, Germania's primary focus was to examine Rome's societal structure. However, both Agricola and Germania offered evaluations on Rome's politics and society, with one being more prominent than the other in each work. Due to restrictions, Tacitus expressed his criticisms indirectly through the speeches of British chief Calgucus, the stories of Agricola and comparing Rome to Germany. Ironically, Tacitus has also been the subject of critique for his various strengths and weakenesses in biography and history writing.