04-05-2010, 06:51 PM
Quote:But if he was singling out the Batavians and Tungrians because of there relative "barbarity", what was his purpose? What was the need of setting such a contrast between the legions and the auxilia? They certainly aren't portrayed in a bad light. Indeed it seems almost the whole credit for winning the battle goes to them. It would almost seem as if he was discrediting the legions,which I doubt he would do given that he was a Senator and a member of the upper class. Was he trying to show how good a general Agricola was by the fact didn't spill "Roman" blood? Or was it that he mentions them simply because the Batavian Revolt was recent memory, and it would bring the Batavians into a good light showing them playing such a key role in the victory and thus erasing the stain of their revolt?
My point was that ancient historians could well have mentioned particular incidents and details more for their rhetorical significance than their historical accuracy! The 'Agricola' in particular was intended as a piece of propaganda - it has been suggested that it was deliberately intended to mirror Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic War, thereby suggesting that Agricola was as good a general as Caesar, and would have been honoured as such if it wasn't for that pesky Domitian... We shouldn't be too uncritical of the text - Tacitus mentions the Batavians and Tungrians alone in the battle, and probably they did play the major part, but there might have been other reasons too.
The speech of 'Calgacus', delivered just before the battle, mentions that the Roman army is 'compounded of the most different nations': "Gauls, and Germans, and (I blush to say it) even Britons, who, though they expend their blood to establish a foreign dominion, have been longer its foes than its subjects[...] Terror and dread alone are the weak bonds of attachment; which once broken, they who cease to fear will begin to hate." (Agricola 32). In other words, Roman domination is weak, and the various nations of auxiliaries have no true bond to Rome.
'Calgacus' almost certainly never existed, and the speech is the work of Tacitus himself. Clearly, as a patriotic Rome, he believed no such thing - so he has to counter this statement and prove it false. In the battle which follows, we see the Batavians and Tungrians (those 'Germans' mentioned by Calgacus?), culturally and militarily very close to the Britons themselves and very recently in open rebellion against Rome, making mincemeat of the Britons and giving Agricola a great victory. This not only proves Calgacus himself wrong (with Roman training and equipment, 'barbarians' can fight as vigorously and as enthusiatically as Romans), but also proves the power of Roman dominion over subject peoples - Agricola wins his battle without having to use his citizen legionaries!
Incidentally, the mention of British auxiliaries suggests that at least some of Agricola's 8000 infantry may have been native British levies from further south, or even from neighbouring allied tribes.
- Nathan
Nathan Ross
