Comparing Herodotus And Tacitus
Herodotus and Tacitus, great writers of their time, reflect on their thoughts about their own civilizations and what views they had on the civilizations of their enemies at the time of their writings. While these men lived almost 500 years apart, and in different parts of the world, their writings both seem to express both displeasure and acceptance of other civilizations customs and ways of life.
Herodotus, a Greek, focused his writings the Persians, the Greek enemy at the time. Since Herodotus is Greek, he has a profound belief in the Gods and the proper way to respect and give praise to them. When Herodotus is writing about the Persians, it can be sensed that he has a great distain for them because of the way they worship in his eyes. The customs which I know the Persians to observe are the following: they have no images of the …show more content…
Gods, no temples nor alters, and consider the use of them as a sign of folly.
This comes, I think, from their not believing the Gods to have the same nature with men, as the Greeks imagine (Herodotus 1). When reading this, it seems the tone is that of unbelief , especially since the Greeks as a whole believe in an intimate relationship with the Gods, as well as that belief to be public and communal. To these Gods the Persians offer sacrifices in the following manner: they raise no alter, light no fire, pour no libations, there is no sound of flute, no putting on of chaplets, no barley cake... (Herodotus 1). Herodotus also goes on to tell of the Persians human sacrifices which by the tone make him sick. ...The man who wishes to sacrifice brings his victim to a spot of ground which is pure of pollution, and there calls upon the name of the god to whom he intends to offer He cuts the victim in pieces, and having boiled the
flesh, he lays it out upon the tenderest herbage that he can find. (Herodotus 1-2). From reading these I gather that Herodotus was shocked and appalled when he found out about this practice. Based on the Greeks and their views of the Gods, this was not taken well by Herodotus, since the Greeks used Oracles, such as the ones at Delphi, and the Divine Oracles. They did not offer up humans to the gods.
On the other hand, it is a little easier to see that Herodotus did respect, if not almost adore the Persians code of no lying and no debt. Herodotus, I believe, found this code is one that all could live under, since coming from a Greek state that had been fighting internal social-political class warfare. A society in which the rich and upper class had all the advantages, and where corruption was prevalent in the government, especially the senate. They (the Persians) hold it unlawful to talk of anything which it is unlawful to do. The most disgraceful thing in the world, they think, is to tell a lie: the next worst, to owe a debt. (Herodotus 3). I believe Herodotus; in his writings, saw a group of people who were trying to live as honorably as possible by living as pure as possible. He grouped his writings together to also tell of how the Persians would never defile a river with the secretions of their bodies, nor wash their hands it, nor will they allow others to do so. This to me shows a profound respect of the Persians by Herodotus in light of the fact that even the lowest Persian will follow these rules or unwritten laws because as a culture or civilization everyone basically goes by the same set or rules. In the Greek society there were so many different rules and laws for different people. Different classes had different sets of rules to follow. By this, I think that Herodotus was seeing that this enemy they had be fighting for years had the ability to treat everyone as equals, no matter what their social or political status was. This to me shows that Herodotus, while still thinking that the Persians were not up to the level of the Greeks, had traits that he would like to be instilled in all Greeks.
Tacitus on the other hand was a Roman, who at the time of the writings was engaged in a war with the Germanic peoples. As the Romans expanded their empire they were running into new peoples, such as the Germans. Tacitus in his writings speaks of the German peoples living conditions. Based on the writings and the tone of it, the Germans were not up to the level of civilization that Tacitus was himself accustomed to. He spoke of the following, they live scattered and apart, just as a spring, a meadow, or a wood has attracted them (Tacitus 7) He finds that since the German people live in the woods, they must be a barbaric people who are not comparable to the Romans, but are only sub-humans compared to the latter. Their village they do not arrange in our fashion, with the buildings connected or joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, , or because they do not know how to build. (Tacitus 7) From this I can take that Tacitus himself that the Germans are either dumb or inept, unable to complete the basic tasks of building a stone hut, or a simple building. By these statements Tacitus assumes that the German people are not intelligent and there for no match for the Romans. This same line of thinking can also be found when Tacitus speaks of the Germans when not in battle. Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness , giving themselves up to sleep and feasting... He then goes on to state They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace. (Tacitus 7) Again this is more evidence of the same type of thinking. The thinking that the German peoples are that of a lower race, not up to par of that of the Romans, since the Romans had a great Army, created art, worshipped their gods and so much more. How could the Germans compare, especially since the German live in mud huts in the woods? The following statements were in my view, the opinions that not only Tacitus had, but all of the Roman Empire, based off this little bit of information they had of their enemies encampments and living conditions.
However Tacitus does not only bash the German people for their ways. In his writings he seems to have certain affection for the way the German operate in their own military style. On the whole, one would say that their chief strength is in their infantry, which fights along with the cavalry; admirably adapted to the action of the latter is the swiftness of certain foot soldiers, which are picked from the entire youth of their country, and stationed on the front line.(Tacitus 3) The best way that I can describe this section of writing is that since the Romans are a people who pride themselves on their army, Tacitus, upon noticing how the Germans fight earned his respect. Knowing that these people lacked, in the Romans eyes, the ability to create homes, their military ability must have been something that took them all by surprise. Another line from the reading resonates with me due to my experiences, but I do believe it would also resonate with Tacitus and the Romans, being a strong military force. The bodies of the slain they carry off even in indecisive engagements. To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes; nor may a man thus disgraced be presented at the sacred rights, or enter their council.(Tacitus 3) With these two sentences I can see that Tacitus has a respect for these people because they have honor and will never leave a man behind in a battle, a code that I myself have lived under in combat, and can generate the same type of feelings.
In closing what I see the most out of the two writers is this. They lived 500 years apart in different parts of the world. Each had preconceived notice about their enemies and their ways of life. After seeing how the whole civilization acted or the traits they showed by their actions, you could say that will each man still thought of these people as their enemies. However one could say that each man achieved a certain level of respect despite of what the popular opinion was at the time.
Bibliography:Herodotus, The History (c. 430 BCE)http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persdemo.htmlI. On the Customs of the Persians (Book I, chapters 131-140)II. The Early History of the Persian Empire (Book III, chapters 80-89)Cornelius Tacitus, Germania [Germany and its Tribes], c. 100 CE http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html
Herodotus, a Greek, focused his writings the Persians, the Greek enemy at the time. Since Herodotus is Greek, he has a profound belief in the Gods and the proper way to respect and give praise to them. When Herodotus is writing about the Persians, it can be sensed that he has a great distain for them because of the way they worship in his eyes. The customs which I know the Persians to observe are the following: they have no images of the …show more content…
Gods, no temples nor alters, and consider the use of them as a sign of folly.
This comes, I think, from their not believing the Gods to have the same nature with men, as the Greeks imagine (Herodotus 1). When reading this, it seems the tone is that of unbelief , especially since the Greeks as a whole believe in an intimate relationship with the Gods, as well as that belief to be public and communal. To these Gods the Persians offer sacrifices in the following manner: they raise no alter, light no fire, pour no libations, there is no sound of flute, no putting on of chaplets, no barley cake... (Herodotus 1). Herodotus also goes on to tell of the Persians human sacrifices which by the tone make him sick. ...The man who wishes to sacrifice brings his victim to a spot of ground which is pure of pollution, and there calls upon the name of the god to whom he intends to offer He cuts the victim in pieces, and having boiled the
flesh, he lays it out upon the tenderest herbage that he can find. (Herodotus 1-2). From reading these I gather that Herodotus was shocked and appalled when he found out about this practice. Based on the Greeks and their views of the Gods, this was not taken well by Herodotus, since the Greeks used Oracles, such as the ones at Delphi, and the Divine Oracles. They did not offer up humans to the gods.
On the other hand, it is a little easier to see that Herodotus did respect, if not almost adore the Persians code of no lying and no debt. Herodotus, I believe, found this code is one that all could live under, since coming from a Greek state that had been fighting internal social-political class warfare. A society in which the rich and upper class had all the advantages, and where corruption was prevalent in the government, especially the senate. They (the Persians) hold it unlawful to talk of anything which it is unlawful to do. The most disgraceful thing in the world, they think, is to tell a lie: the next worst, to owe a debt. (Herodotus 3). I believe Herodotus; in his writings, saw a group of people who were trying to live as honorably as possible by living as pure as possible. He grouped his writings together to also tell of how the Persians would never defile a river with the secretions of their bodies, nor wash their hands it, nor will they allow others to do so. This to me shows a profound respect of the Persians by Herodotus in light of the fact that even the lowest Persian will follow these rules or unwritten laws because as a culture or civilization everyone basically goes by the same set or rules. In the Greek society there were so many different rules and laws for different people. Different classes had different sets of rules to follow. By this, I think that Herodotus was seeing that this enemy they had be fighting for years had the ability to treat everyone as equals, no matter what their social or political status was. This to me shows that Herodotus, while still thinking that the Persians were not up to the level of the Greeks, had traits that he would like to be instilled in all Greeks.
Tacitus on the other hand was a Roman, who at the time of the writings was engaged in a war with the Germanic peoples. As the Romans expanded their empire they were running into new peoples, such as the Germans. Tacitus in his writings speaks of the German peoples living conditions. Based on the writings and the tone of it, the Germans were not up to the level of civilization that Tacitus was himself accustomed to. He spoke of the following, they live scattered and apart, just as a spring, a meadow, or a wood has attracted them (Tacitus 7) He finds that since the German people live in the woods, they must be a barbaric people who are not comparable to the Romans, but are only sub-humans compared to the latter. Their village they do not arrange in our fashion, with the buildings connected or joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, , or because they do not know how to build. (Tacitus 7) From this I can take that Tacitus himself that the Germans are either dumb or inept, unable to complete the basic tasks of building a stone hut, or a simple building. By these statements Tacitus assumes that the German people are not intelligent and there for no match for the Romans. This same line of thinking can also be found when Tacitus speaks of the Germans when not in battle. Whenever they are not fighting, they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness , giving themselves up to sleep and feasting... He then goes on to state They themselves lie buried in sloth, a strange combination their nature that the same men should be so fond of idleness, so averse to peace. (Tacitus 7) Again this is more evidence of the same type of thinking. The thinking that the German peoples are that of a lower race, not up to par of that of the Romans, since the Romans had a great Army, created art, worshipped their gods and so much more. How could the Germans compare, especially since the German live in mud huts in the woods? The following statements were in my view, the opinions that not only Tacitus had, but all of the Roman Empire, based off this little bit of information they had of their enemies encampments and living conditions.
However Tacitus does not only bash the German people for their ways. In his writings he seems to have certain affection for the way the German operate in their own military style. On the whole, one would say that their chief strength is in their infantry, which fights along with the cavalry; admirably adapted to the action of the latter is the swiftness of certain foot soldiers, which are picked from the entire youth of their country, and stationed on the front line.(Tacitus 3) The best way that I can describe this section of writing is that since the Romans are a people who pride themselves on their army, Tacitus, upon noticing how the Germans fight earned his respect. Knowing that these people lacked, in the Romans eyes, the ability to create homes, their military ability must have been something that took them all by surprise. Another line from the reading resonates with me due to my experiences, but I do believe it would also resonate with Tacitus and the Romans, being a strong military force. The bodies of the slain they carry off even in indecisive engagements. To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes; nor may a man thus disgraced be presented at the sacred rights, or enter their council.(Tacitus 3) With these two sentences I can see that Tacitus has a respect for these people because they have honor and will never leave a man behind in a battle, a code that I myself have lived under in combat, and can generate the same type of feelings.
In closing what I see the most out of the two writers is this. They lived 500 years apart in different parts of the world. Each had preconceived notice about their enemies and their ways of life. After seeing how the whole civilization acted or the traits they showed by their actions, you could say that will each man still thought of these people as their enemies. However one could say that each man achieved a certain level of respect despite of what the popular opinion was at the time.
Bibliography:Herodotus, The History (c. 430 BCE)http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persdemo.htmlI. On the Customs of the Persians (Book I, chapters 131-140)II. The Early History of the Persian Empire (Book III, chapters 80-89)Cornelius Tacitus, Germania [Germany and its Tribes], c. 100 CE http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/tacitus1.html