Julius Caesar and Tacitus - Essay Example

?How did the Roman choose to portray barbarians (particularly Gauls and Germans)? How realistic can we expect these portraits to have been, and what motivations do our authors have? In the classical world the distinction between so-called civilized peoples, such as the Greeks and the Romans, and the so-called “barbarians” was a fundamental part of the way that these two classical ruling nations viewed the world around them. It goes without saying that Roman historians took for granted the superiority of their own culture, and the military strength that guaranteed their dominance of the Mediterranean and lands to the north and west of their traditional homeland served to underpin this hierarchical view of the world. The Romans enjoyed a culture based on fine arts and literature, superior technologies and advanced training techniques for their military campaigns. As the empire extended ever further, there was increasing contact with those “other” tribes and nations and the Roman historians recorded their impressions from this rather one-sided perspective of the conqueror. This paper examines the way that two Roman authors, Julius Caesar and Tacitus, portray the barbarians and examines the very different motivations of these two writers and the consequent limitations of their respective approaches. The early account of the Germans which is given by Julius Caesar (100-44BC) in Book VI of De Bello Gallico [Gallic War] is presented as a contrast to the way that he perceives the Gauls. It is interesting that this great Roman leader comments first on religious matters and war, pointing out that the Germans do not have druids and sacrifices, like the Gauls, but instead have their own gods whom they can see and who help them in their warlike lifestyle.1 It is quite clear that Caesar accepts the different gods of these two barbarian peoples as actors in the battles that occur, and he accepts also their direct link with the sun, sky and natural world of groves and springs that go with these gods. There is no attempt to layer Roman ideas into these practices, but there is an implicit assumption that Roman ways are better. Caesar appears impressed by their dependence on animal products, rather than agriculture, and the way that leaders ensure loyalty by organising a rotation of lands and a focus on plundering neighboring tribes, since in his view this keeps them always ready for war.2 It is striking that Caesar notes also the generosity of the Germans in offering protection hospitality and food to those who visit them, because this reveals a fair-minded appreciation of German moral standards. He does not demonize his enemies, but seeks to portray them in a sympathetic light. One reason for this may be that his experience on campaigns and in the battlefields has taught him how difficult it is to maintain fitness and commitment in his fighting troops. Roman troops were motivated by monetary rewards and the promise of a happy retirement back in the warmer climes of their homeland, while the German warriors appear less materialistic and better trained for a life of fighting. For a general this must have seemed like a far better underpinning for the provision of fighting forces. When it comes to the Gauls, Julius Caesar reflects a common classical notion that those who are located furthest from the centre of the Empire in Rome are the most valiant and the greatest of the barbarians: “For Caesar this distance, combined with the Belgae’s close proximity and daily confrontations with the Germans, both offensively and defensively, had made them the bravest of the Gauls.”3 This traditional wisdom could not fail to have influenced his perception of the peoples that he encountered on his exploratory travels throughout the vast regions of Gaul. There is a strong possibility that he actually seeks out evidence to support these theories, and to stress that he values the barbarians more, the further away from Rome they are, thus at the same time extolling their powerful image but minimizing any possibility threat to Roman security. Caesar, as a military man, is concerned to talk up the power of his enemies, because this in turn enhances his own reputation when he reports his victories back to headquarters in Rome. Another example of the way that Julius Caesar both glorifies and subtly undermines the barbarian character is seen in the account of the revolt of the Veneti, which was a tribe of seafaring Gauls in the area which in present day is covered by Brittany in North Western France.4 The Veneti are depicted as a politically powerful and technologically adept people, but they are an exception to the usual image of the barbarians in that they are not described in terms of their bravery in warfare. On the contrary Caesar dwells at great length on their tactical exploitation of ships as a way of avoiding conflict and slipping away when it gets too dangerous. Caesar contrasts this with the bravery and virtue of Roman soldiers who are taught to stand their ground and fight. In an interesting article which analyses the descriptive language that Caesar uses, Erickson maintains that this is a deliberate bias that shifts attention away from the barbarians themselves, and towards the ships that they have built: “Emphasis on the strength of the enemy boats permits Caesar to develop a sharp contrast between the Veneti and the fighting qualities of his troops without taking away credit for the Roman defeat of a difficult foe.”5 When Caesar describes the toughness of the ships he does this to highlight the contrasting softness of the enemy. Seen in this light, the whole of Caesar’s depiction of the barbarians can be read as a superficial admiration for those features which reveal aspects of strength and toughness. In this respect the imperviousness that Germans show towards cold, and praise of their warlike upbringing are to be interpreted as a mere veneer, which covers an underlying inability to stand fast and withstand the rigors of battle which Romans, of course, take in their stride. In the words of Erickson “the text operates on the level of traditional Roman invective, allowing Caesar to rebuke an outwardly stern but inwardly effeminate enemy.”6 These insights into the particular preoccupations of Caesar the leader can explain also some of the implications that are contained in the whole episode of the conquering, capture and ritual humiliation of the greatest of all Celtic leaders, Vercingetorix. Once again, the depiction is not a simple historic narrative of fact, but a subtle imparting of bigger messages relating to Roman and barbarian values: “Caesar develops his (=Vercingetorix’s) character to personify complex issues involving Gaul, Rome and Caesar…”7 It seems, then, that Caesar’s depiction of the enemy, even when it contains elements of admiration and glowing praise, may be less positive than it first appears. The war general’s perspective colors his view, and makes him perceive everything in terms of dominance and subservience, following centuries of Greek and Roman stereotyping. Tacitus (36-c116 AD), a Roman orator and historian, wrote his famous work Germania in AD 98 and this work has become one of the most valuable resources that have survived on the early history of this people. The Germanic tribes themselves favoured oral histories, and so much of their past history is lost to modern generations. Thanks to Tacitus, however, we have an extensive report on many aspect of their lifestyle and major achievements. He trained in the art of rhetoric, and his use of subtle techniques betrays a desire to influence and persuade as well as to report straightforward facts. Tacitus benefited from the earlier work done by Julius Caesar on the subject of the barbarians, since this work became a well-deserved classic text right from the time of its publication.8 Because of his own background, however Tacutus’s account of the Roman world is, however, biased in favour of cultural and military affairs, and there are distinct omissions and areas of weakness: “Roman historiography, on the whole is more aware of economic developments than Greek. But emperors did not really understand them, and they are conspicuously absent from Tacitus, who is, for example, very bad on German salt production.” 9 Tacitus reports on the various Germanic kings and leaders in terms of their loyalty to Rome, and leaves out the detail about their increasing economic dependence over time on Roman goods. Fortunately, there is evidence from archaeology which shows that the Germanic tribes in fact had extremely strong trade links with the Romans: “Although there is very little mention of trade in our literary sources, it is clear from the archaeological remains that Roman trade beyond the Danube was thriving; the need to protect this trade must always have influenced Rome’s dealings with the German Kings.”10 This kind of evidence sheds a new light on the writings of Tacitus because it portrays the so called “barbarians” as partners in business, and if not of equal status, then certainly in regular and profitable contact with Roman administrators and tradespeople. The Germania and to some extent also Caesar’s De Bello Gallico suggest that the principle relationship between the Romans and the Germanic tribes was one of opposition and conflict, where Germanic tribes were made to pay tribute in the form of both goods and services. In fact the situation is rather more nuanced: “… the economic aspects were almost certainly as important as the military”11 It appears that the Germanic peoples increasingly negociated friendly relations with Roman forces and over time there was considerable intermingling of peoples and customs. The widely scattered spread of coins found in archaeological digs along the north of the Danube, for example, suggests that German tribes used this currency in small amounts in their daily lives, and did not just hoard it12. This reveals that they may in fact have had a mind-set much more similar to Roman culture than Tacitus would have us believe. Tacitus reports that the Germans did not use Roman table ware except in the areas very near to frontier of Roman controlled territory.13 In fact this underrepresents the extent of contact and collaboration between Romans and tribes such as the Marcomanni and the Quadi, who not only used Roman goods, but adopted an increasing range of agricultural and industrial techniques thanks to the stimulation that came from friendship and trade with the Romans. One area of great interest to Roman historians was the view that was held of barbarian women. Tacitus notes that the women were often as fierce as the men, and that they were respected, even to the extent that men bring a dowry to their wife, and remain faithful to that wife throughout their lives.14 These details would arouse, in the minds of Roman readers, a distinct contrast with conventions in contemporary Roman society, and this points to one of the underlying functions of Tacitus’s text: to provoke reflection on the traditions of the Romans and stress how much more refined and laudable they are. Many of the adjectives used to describe the Germans are negative, for example children are described as “naked and filthy.”15 It is clear that neither of these two Roman writers consider the Germans and the Gauls in isolation. In every case the barbarian nations are described either explicitly (Tacitus) or implicitly (Caesar) in relation to the Roman civilization, or are compared one with the other (Caesar). What this means for later generations of scholars is that every judgement, and every selected observation about the barbarian peoples must be viewed with care. There is a considerable amount of hidden prejudice in both writers, and this is achieved through a mixture of judicious selection of materials, and a filter which judges Romans and barbarians by different measures. So it is that barbarians are brave and admirable, so long as they remain untainted by contact with the Romans. Once they meet however, the role of the barbarian is to submit, and become a mere statistic on the battlefield, thus retaining the respect of the Roman military at least, or an enslaved people, paying tribute to Rome and suffering ignominy as a result. Both of these options denigrate the barbarian and illustrate his inferiority in comparison with the Roman character. One suspects that the true barbarian character lies somewhere in between, making some uneasy and economically motivated compromises to enable a viable accommodation with their powerful Roman neighbours. By stressing Roman military prowess (Caesar) or cultural superiority (Tacitus), and collecting every tribe they encounter under a stereotypical label of “barbarian” these authors do not fully appreciate the diversities and strengths of the non-Roman peoples around them. It is a pity that there are no surviving Gaulish or Germanic records, given their oral culture, to redress the balance and explode the myths of Roman superiority through a selection of different events to relate and a more objective evaluation of the people involved. References Primary Sources Caesar, Gaius Julius. De Bello Gallico. [The Gallic Wars] Electronic text in English available at: http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/CaeComm.html Tacitus, Publius Cornelius. Germania. Electronic text in English available at: http://www.northvegr.org/histories%20and%20chronicles/tacitus%20germania%20in%20english%20and%20latin/001.html Secondary Sources Burns, Thomas S. Rome and the Barbarians, 100 B.C. – A.D. 400. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2003. Erickson, Brice. “Falling Masts, Rising Masters: The Ethnography of Virtue in Caesar’s Account of the Veneti.” The American Journal of Philology. 123 (4), (Winter 2002), pp. 601-622. Grant, Michael. Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation, NewYork: Routledge, 1995. Pitts. Lynne F. “Relations between Rome and the German ‘Kings’ on the Middle Danube in the First to Fourth Centuries A.D.” Journal of Roman Studies 79 (1989), pp. 45-58. Read More