Agricola: the Significance in Military and Cultural Terms
What is the short term significance of Agricola in Roman Britain?
The understanding of the short term significance of Agricola in Roman Britain is heavily dependent on historical texts and what they tell us. According to these historical texts there is no denying that Agricola was of short term significance in military and cultural terms, but the degree of his significance comes into question according to each individual historian opinion. Most of the knowledge we have on Agricola comes from his son in law Tacitus. Leading to the inference that this would affect the general opinion on Agricola, as the only substantial information we have on him is faultlessly positive. It could be suggested that this unblemished depiction of Agricola would somehow influence the way in which his degree of significance militarily and culturally would be viewed, effectively causing his significance to be overestimated. This suggestion is supported by historians such as Russell and Laycock that suggest our understanding of Agricola’s short term significance is tainted by the picture painted of him for us by Tacitus.
Tacitus made his thoughts clear that Agricola was the best type of man from the beginning. He suggests that the tender care of his mother played a huge part in him being sheltered from the temptations of evil companions. Tacitus also put this down to the fact that Agricola had “sound instincts”1. He was described by Tacitus as someone that did nothing for show, a man that was not lazy and wanted to make himself known to the army. He would learn from the skilful and would associate himself with the bravest of men. He did not appear to be scared of anything, ideally the model soldier. He served his military apprenticeship to the satisfaction of “Suetonius Paulinus a hard working and sensible officer”2. Suggesting that from the beginning, Agricola was set up to be a model leader and of great significance to anywhere he went in terms of military operations. “Agricola
The understanding of the short term significance of Agricola in Roman Britain is heavily dependent on historical texts and what they tell us. According to these historical texts there is no denying that Agricola was of short term significance in military and cultural terms, but the degree of his significance comes into question according to each individual historian opinion. Most of the knowledge we have on Agricola comes from his son in law Tacitus. Leading to the inference that this would affect the general opinion on Agricola, as the only substantial information we have on him is faultlessly positive. It could be suggested that this unblemished depiction of Agricola would somehow influence the way in which his degree of significance militarily and culturally would be viewed, effectively causing his significance to be overestimated. This suggestion is supported by historians such as Russell and Laycock that suggest our understanding of Agricola’s short term significance is tainted by the picture painted of him for us by Tacitus.
Tacitus made his thoughts clear that Agricola was the best type of man from the beginning. He suggests that the tender care of his mother played a huge part in him being sheltered from the temptations of evil companions. Tacitus also put this down to the fact that Agricola had “sound instincts”1. He was described by Tacitus as someone that did nothing for show, a man that was not lazy and wanted to make himself known to the army. He would learn from the skilful and would associate himself with the bravest of men. He did not appear to be scared of anything, ideally the model soldier. He served his military apprenticeship to the satisfaction of “Suetonius Paulinus a hard working and sensible officer”2. Suggesting that from the beginning, Agricola was set up to be a model leader and of great significance to anywhere he went in terms of military operations. “Agricola