“Let there continue and endure, I
pray, among foreign peoples, if not affection for us, at least hatred for
one another, since, as the destiny of empire drives us on, fortune can
furnish us nothing greater than the discord of the enemy.”
In chapter thirty-three of Germania,
Tacitus described the internal strife among Germanic tribes rather
gleefully, remarking further that the extermination of the Bructeri tribe
was “a certain kindliness of the gods.”
At the heart of Germania lies the issue of Roman
assimilation of indigenous populations in the German provinces. At times he
praised the natives; at other points, he dismissed their abilities. Yet he
made it clear that Rome
would prevail over Germanic tribes.
In A.D. 90 – eight years
before Tacitus published Germania
– Rome separated Germania Inferior and
Germania Superior from the Gallic provinces, making them independent
entities and creating the potential for inclusion of Germanic groups into Rome.
Enveloping Germanic tribes into the Roman fold did not take place easily.
Disparaging Roman attitudes about indigenous populations impacted how these
groups were treated. Tacitus’s Germania and Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars serve as the most prominent examples of such
attitudes; these literary works were later reflected in Roman policies
regarding provincial groups.
Tacitus was both a product of
and influential commentator on Roman imperialism and provincial
populations, thus resulting in biased assertions within his writing. Born
in A.D. 55, he experienced “the first great crisis of succession in the
empire” in his early teenage years when Nero was deposed as emperor.
As a senator, Tacitus endured Domitian’s autocracy and Nerva’s short-lived
stint as emperor before Trajan came to power.
His stint as a senator placed him at the center of Roman imperialism. As a
Roman senator, he may have found it necessary to advocate imperialism, thus
resulting in his downplaying of German characteristics. Conversely, the
“autocratic nature” of Domitian’s rule may have inspired Tacitus to
compliment certain tribes, such as the Chatti, who were able to rise up in
revolt against Domitian.
Additionally, it is unclear whether or not Tacitus even experienced the
German provinces himself; Benario suggests his colleague Pliny the Elder,
as well as traveling merchants, may have supplied him with information.
This also would have forced him to view the experiences of others – already
tarnished by their own biases – through his pro-Roman perspective. In spite
of these biases, Tacitus’s Germania still
stands as the foremost primary source on Germanic tribes in the Roman
Similarly, Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars is one of the first
accounts of the Gallic provinces. Like Tacitus, Caesar describes provincial
tribes in painstaking detail. Caesar held his own inherent biases that
affected his portrayals of the Gallic tribes. For instance, Caesar was a
proconsular governor at the time of the Gallic Wars, and became the
dictator of Rome
twelve years later.
As a rising power in Rome,
it may be surmised that depicting Romans as the victors over provincial
tribes would be in his favor. Caesar’s attitude towards provincial
populations left its mark. Subsequent emperors began the invasion of German
territories, instilling their own unfavorable opinions of indigenous
populations, who assimilated to and absorbed great amounts of Roman
The issue of assimilation,
however, is more complex than Romans simply dominating indigenous
populations. As the first quotation from Tacitus reveals, Romans were
satisfied with either receiving the blessing of the native populations or
dividing individual tribes. Conquest did not seem to be the most prevalent
factor of their experience with provincial Germanic tribes. This opens
questions as to what exactly defined the German-Roman relationship. Did
assimilation of the tribes occur; if so, how did this manifest itself?
Examining Tacitus, as well as other primary sources, reveals that Rome and its Germanic
territories shared complex relationships that relied on an implicit ranking
system of provincial tribes. This system determined the extent to which
Romans and tribes participated in the process of assimilation to Roman
customs. Conflicts that resulted from disparities within the Roman
preferential treatment and hierarchical ranking system of Germanic tribes
contributed heavily to bouts of instability that disrupted, but ultimately
changed, processes of assimilation.
Previous scholarship views the
topic of assimilation rather narrowly. J.B. Rives asserts in his
translation of Germania
that “Tacitus relies on the reader to take Roman culture as the implied
point of comparison, and leaves the negative to stand on its own.”
Rives argues that Tacitus ranks the Germans as “better or worse” through
the comparison of Romans and Germanic tribes.
He then discusses the prevalence of the notion that the Germans did not
possess vices such as greed which resulted from civilized society.
Rives borrows certain elements from Germania to support his
argument, yet he notably relies on earlier chapters which discussed
Germanic tribes in more generalized terms. Even Rives’s discussions of
later chapters, which discuss specific characteristics of individual
tribes, rely on generalities. As a result, a weakness of Rives’s argument
is that it excludes a significant theme in Germania: ranking among
Herbert Benario’s translation
relies heavily on the idea of the “noble savage” mentioned by Rives.
Benario takes a much more liberal approach to Tacitus’s writing. He
willingly overlooks the anachronisms of Germania because he
regards Tacitus as an accurate historian whose descriptions of the Germans
are “confirmed by the findings of archaeology.”
As a result, Benario’s perception of the German-Roman relationship assumes
that Tacitus sees Germanic tribes as simpler than their Roman counterparts,
who had been corrupted by society.
Unlike Rives, who asserts that Tacitus compared the negative aspects of
Germanic culture to Roman customs, Benario seems convinced that Tacitus had
some esteem for the Germans. Benario’s examination of Germania is limited in
its ability to consider Tacitus’s biases, which were based on his political
experiences and disconnection from the German provinces.
Jane Webster takes another
approach to the topic of assimilation in her article “Creolizing the Roman Provinces.” She asserts that Romanization is a limited term
because it implies that provincial cultures were influenced by their elites
incorporating elements of Roman culture. She instead offers the term creolization, a “bottom-up” approach
that indicates a merger of cultures rather than a replacement of cultural
Webster views Romanization in terms of culture rather than legality or
This perspective sets her apart from Benario’s advocacy of the “noble
savage” concept, which implies an inherent difference in the capabilities
of Germans and Romans. Webster’s argument is significant due to her emphasis
on non-elite populations. In the study of German-Roman relationships, this
supports chapters of Tacitus’s Germania that addressed individual tribes.
Similarly, parts of Tacitus’s Histories,
such as his explanation of the Batavian Revolt, dealt with tensions between
local populations of Germanic tribes that extend beyond the influence of
the provincial elites those definitions of Romanization address. Webster’s
emphasis on localized populations limits her argument, however, in that it
does not discuss the provincial elites in great detail, which still held
some influence over assimilating Germans.
On a similar vein as Webster,
Greg Woolf describes assimilation as a gradual process of acculturation
(albeit for the Gallic population rather than the Germans). He states,
“[R]ather than conflict, competition or interaction between two cultures,
we have to do with the creation of a new imperial culture that supplanted
earlier Roman cultures just as much as it did the earlier cultures of
Woolf almost takes a consensus approach to the idea of assimilation in that
he does not acknowledge either party (Romans or Gallics) to be necessarily
responsible for the cultural exchange that took place in the Gallic
provinces. While this is a strong point in that it does not assume
unilateral influence from either the elites or the locals, it also does not
define active players. In some ways, Woolf seems to view Romanization as a
broad natural development of culture. This argument does not offer much to support
Tacitus’s characterizations of indigenous tribes and their relationships to
These four secondary analyses
provide a wide range of perspectives on the German-Roman relationship,
assimilation, and Tacitus’s Germania. Each examination shares a common flaw of
generalizing the characteristics of Germanic tribes. Tacitus distinguishes
not only the tribes themselves, but the desirability of their traits as
well. As a result of these generalizations, historians also tend to assume
that assimilation applied equally to all tribal groups. This study attempts
to not only identify and discuss the assimilation of individual tribes
mentioned by Tacitus, but to draw upon a case study that exemplifies the
differences between the tribes and the consequent tensions which arose.
This study takes these
attitudes into account in its first chapter, “Assimilation.” This will
attempt to define “assimilation” as an equitable process in which certain
Germanic tribes could be “Romanized” to the fullest capacity that “barbarians”
could reach. The following chapter, “The Ranking System” delves into the
works of Caesar and Tacitus to explain not only the general harsh attitudes
towards provincial residents, but to distinguish how a “ranking system” of
these tribes existed. In particular, Tacitus’s Germania will be used
as the basis of this “ranking system.” The third chapter, “Manifestation of
Assimilation,” will discuss how this system connected to the process of
assimilation by highlighting urban and economic development. Chapter four
examines whether or not Rome
successfully assimilated some tribes versus others, and the resulting
impact on Roman imperialism. This analysis will attempt to develop
conclusions on the effects of assimilation and the ranking system on
imperial stability in the German provinces in the first century A.D.
Chapter 1: Assimilation
“Assimilation” is a term that
holds a vast number of definitions. Within the context of this essay,
“assimilation” has two main facets: bilateralism and equity. The first concept
to address is bilateralism. By recognizing “assimilation” as a bilateral
process, this study excludes the notion that one side imposed its culture
on the other (often understood as Roman imposition on German culture).
Woolf argues in “Beyond Romans and Natives” that it cannot be denied “that
Roman imperial culture was created in the context of the extension of the
domination of one state over its neighbours,” but that this did not
necessarily mean suppressing indigenous culture.
While Romans attempted to rule their German provincial populations, they
did not aim to eradicate the native culture(s).
Webster’s assertions about
‘creolization’ factor into this definition as well. Local, non-elite
populations, rather than provincial elites or Romans, comprise the central
group of Webster’s article. Perhaps one of the most significant points that
Webster argues is that “creolization processes take place in the context of
asymmetric power relations.”
While this indicates domination on some level, it is significant to
consider the differing levels of domination. Romans sought out particular
Germanic tribes, granting them certain privileges based on their inherent
traits as indigenous peoples. The Batavians, noted for their bravery, serve
as an example of this.
Roman provincial administrators did not award the same type of special
privileges to less-favored tribes. This leads to the point that
‘assimilation’ did not result in a universal process for the Germans.
If Romans hoped to dominate,
but not erase native culture, then what does this indicate about
‘assimilation’ as a bilateral and equitable process? It is significant to
note that Romans did not seek to make Germanic tribes “equal,” which would
imply that Germans had the capabilities to develop to the same extent as
the Romans had. Rather, they sought to assimilate tribal populations in an
equitable fashion. Germanic tribes could be ‘Romanized’ insofar as
‘barbarians’ could be developed; however, they did not intrinsically
possess the capabilities to become equal to Romans. Even under this concept
of ‘assimilation,’ Romans remained selective in which tribes they chose to
Chapter 2: The Ranking System
Much evidence for these
notions descends from Julius Caesar’s Gallic
Wars and Tacitus’s Germania, which show Roman perceptions of native
groups. While primarily a depiction of Caesar’s conquest of Gaul, his work describes
the Germanic tribes who fought in the Gallic Wars. Some of these tribes
were seen again in Tacitus’s portrayal of the Germans. Caesar’s work
explicated a Roman literary approach to describing “barbarians” that
Tacitus expands on in Germania. Furthermore, each ancient author
reflected on a social ranking system that was prevalent in Roman provincial
government from Caesar’s reign throughout the first century A.D.
Although Caesar’s Gallic Wars focused on the campaign
in Gaul, he devoted several chapters to
the Germanic tribes with which he dealt: the Suebi, Ubii, Tencteri, and
Caesar’s distinctions between these indicated how he ranked each tribe. He
began Chapter IV of Gallic Wars
by describing the warlike nature of the Suebi. His judgment of the Suebi
seems neutral until they are compared to the Ubii, which he described as
“somewhat more civilised than the other folk of the same race.”
He then attributed this to their border with the Rhine River,
their trade relationships, and adoption of Gallic customs.
Meanwhile, he stated that the Suebi did not trade other than what they
captured in war; they did not trade even for “draught-horses,” preferring
instead their “inferior and ill-favoured” horses.
Caesar made a tacit distinction between the “civilized” tribe that traded
and lived on the Rhine versus the tribe
that relied upon war for its livelihood.
Caesar mentioned the Usipi and
Tencteri in lesser detail. Like the Ubii, the Suebi harassed and forced
them out of their lands.
Unlike the Ubii, they did not swear allegiance to Caesar. Rather, at one
point in the Gallic Wars, they joined another Germanic group called the
Sugambri, which pushed Caesar to invade their territory.
He was mainly interested in forcing them to surrender.
Caesar wrote little more of the Usipi and the Tencteri, but it is evident
that they did not strike the same chord with him as the Ubii had.
Like Caesar, Tacitus ranked
Germanic tribes based on differences between the groups and their
similarities to Rome.
highlighted the concept of the “ranking system” in greater depth than the Gallic Wars. Tacitus described the
characteristics of approximately thirty tribes.
In doing so, he asserted that Germanic tribes were more civilized than
other barbaric groups, despite being beneath Roman standards. He observes
in chapter eighteen that they are “almost alone of the barbarians” in practicing
This raises a significant issue in Germania:
considered Germans to be better than most indigenous groups yet would
always be considered “barbarians.”
Tacitus further supported this
point by comparing Germanic tribes to Gallic tribes. In chapter
twenty-eight, he claimed that the Nervii and Treveri wished to declare
Germanic ancestry because it would separate them from their fellow
“unwarlike” Gallic tribes.
It is evident that to be German was an aspiration held by less favored tribal
groups. Tacitus’s explanation of the Nervii is significant because this
tribal group was also described by Caesar in Gallic Wars. This suggests that Caesar could have possibly
influenced Tacitus’s writing and delineation of the ranking system. Such influence
speaks to the prevalence of the ranking system in Roman imperial culture. A
comparison of the two works indicates a strong possibility that Tacitus
drew upon Caesar’s distinctions between tribal groups to further support
his own analysis of indigenous tribes.
These aspirations connect to
the concept of the ranking system by distinguishing not only among Germanic
and non-Germanic groups, but among Germanic tribes. Tacitus identified
several tribes which he considered to be more favorable. The Ubii was the
first tribe Tacitus described. He observed that they had become a Roman colonia and even renamed themselves
By the time he wrote Germania,
the Ubii had long held loyalties to Rome.
Caesar referred to the beginning of this relationship in Gallic Wars. The Ubii gave Romans
permission to settle in their lands in exchange for protection from the
From this point forward, the Ubii were loyal to Rome
and consequently received special accommodations from Rome.
The Batavi were another tribe
upon which Rome
bestowed special privileges. Tacitus commended the Batavi for their bravery
and military prowess. The Batavians served as a special war unit for Rome in exchange for
not paying tributary taxes.
This symbiotic relationship benefitted Rome as well as the Batavi. It is
notable, however, that the Batavian Revolt occurred in A.D. 69, about
thirty years before Tacitus wrote Germania. Yet
he still gave the Batavi a favorable review, despite their past treachery.
This suggests that some tribal groups were extremely important to
maintaining Roman imperialism. For a continuously expanding Roman empire, a strong group such as the Batavi was
too valuable for a senator such as Tacitus to disparage in his writing.
Additionally, Tacitus mentioned the Mattiaci, who possessed a similar
relationship. He noted this tribe for its “greater energy,” a compliment
considering that a few chapters prior, he had dismissed the Germans for
their weak work ethic and propensity for drunkenness.
Perhaps because of what these tribes could offer as benefits to Rome, they received
more favorable outlooks from Tacitus.
Like the Batavi, the Chatti
possessed superior martial skills. Tacitus drew some parallels between the
Chatti and Roman methods of war. He noted how the Chatti trusted their
generals more than their armies, which was considered a Roman
He also observed the Chatti’s physical traits: “hardier bodies, sinewy
limbs, a threatening countenance, and greater liveliness of mind.”
Tacitus may have used this section to criticize Domitian as well. As he did
with the Mattiaci, he distinguished between typical weak Germanic groups
and stronger tribal groups. The Chatti’s bravery, Romanesque qualities, and
stronger physical traits led Tacitus to rank them higher than other groups.
Similarly, Tacitus discussed the Usipi and the Tencteri, although he
primarily emphasized the Tencteri. This Germanic tribe’s forte was
horsemanship; Tacitus likened this ability to the Chatti’s infantry skills.
Tacitus considered the Chatti and Tencteri’s martial prowess to be their
Caesar had mentioned the
Tencteri as well, albeit in much less detail. In the Gallic Wars, it is evident that Caesar viewed the Tencteri as a
stepping stone to victory, provided he could make them surrender. Tacitus,
however, esteemed the Tencteri for their martial abilities. The
differentiating opinions of these two authors demonstrates the increasing
significance of assimilation, rather than conquest, of Germans in the first
century A.D. Caesar aimed to control the Gallic territories through
conquest. The Roman provincial administration depended on assimilation to
gain power over the Germans in their territories. This distinction is
significant as it shows a slight shift in attitudes toward the tribes. It
did not necessarily mean that Tacitus had broken from the condescension
Caesar espoused. Rather, it shows that the Roman ranking system had
gradually grown more prevalent, allowing writers such as Tacitus to analyze
which tribes could best benefit Rome.
In chapter thirty-eight,
Tacitus described the Suebic tribes. He mentioned the Semnones first; his
description indicates a moderately high level of respect for them. While he
dismissed their religious rituals as barbaric, he noted that their
prosperity made them an esteemed group by Roman standards.
Romans certainly could have used a prosperous tribe for their own economic
gain. Tacitus then described the Hermunduri, whose trading activities (which
extended well beyond the Rhine) made them
distinctive among German tribes.
Tacitus commended the Chauci
for their nobleness and peaceful nature.
The Chauci served as a stark contrast to the next tribe mentioned, the
Cherusci, a poorly-ranked tribe. Unlike the Chatti or the Chauci, which
were noted for their higher physical and intellectual abilities, the
Cherusci were called “lazy and stupid.”
Tacitus noted that their weakened state could be attributed to their
unwarlike temperament. While the Chauci were peaceful, they had a standing
army to eliminate threats. Tacitus did not mention such an arrangement for
the Cherusci. It is evident that some level of martial skill was necessary
for a tribe to be ranked highly by Tacitus.
It is perhaps more significant
to consider the historical context that surrounded the Chauci and Cherusci.
In the Battle of Teutoburger Wald, Arminius – a Cheruscan – led his tribe
(accompanied by the Bructeri, Chatti, Sugambri, Tencteri, and Usipetes) in
a successful uprising against the Roman troops in his territory in A.D. 9.
The Cheruscan victory showed powerful martial abilities that Tacitus did
not acknowledge. By comparing their example to that of the Chauci, however,
it is evident that Tacitus did not only consider strong martial skills to
be favorable. In the case of the Chauci, they had strong battle skills, but
preferred peace (and thus did not rise up against the Romans). The
Cherusci, who dared to use their strong skills against Rome, could not receive the same ranking
as the Chauci from Tacitus, for they lacked “moderation and honorable
behavior,” which were “attributes of the more powerful.”
In chapter thirty-three
Tacitus wrote about the extermination of the Bructeri – a cohort of the Cherusci
– by neighboring Germanic tribes. “[W]hether because of hatred of their
haughtiness or the attraction of booty or a certain kindliness of the gods
toward us…More than sixty thousand fell, not by the arms and weapons of the
Romans, but, more magnificent still, to delight our eyes,” stated Tacitus.
He considered it a blessing from the gods that the Germans were killing
each other, as it helped the Roman Empire
assert authority over those territories. The Bructeri was clearly a tribe
which was not esteemed, at least in the eyes of Tacitus.
Tacitus used chapter
thirty-four to discuss the Frisii. He observed that the ocean that bordered
that region was difficult to navigate, as Drusus Germanicus had attempted
and failed to accomplish.
This reveals a negative perception of the geographic area. While he does
not say much about the character of the Frisii, it is evident that Tacitus
dismissed their region (due to its non-navigable nature) as being useless
to the Romans. The Frisii exemplify the resounding issue of geographic
proximity for Roman assimilation.
Two tribes that may be considered poorly ranked by Tacitus
were the Marcomanni and the Quadi. He began the passage by complimenting
the Marcomanni and the Quadi on their bravery and strength. On the surface,
it may appear as if Tacitus thought highly of these tribes. Towards the end
of the chapter, however, he noted that they relied on Rome for financial support. He stated
that “they are no less powerful for that,” which may be interpreted as
saying their reliance on Rome
did not detract from their sovereignty.
It is perhaps more significant, however, to consider that Tacitus may be
making the point that all of their power stemmed from Roman support. They
were not less powerful because Rome
gave them the financial support that facilitated their success. With this
perspective in mind, it is clear that Tacitus may not have viewed the
Marcomanni or the Quadi as favorably as it initially appears.
Tacitus went on to describe the Aestii, another poorly
ranked tribe. This tribe was located near the Suebic (Baltic) sea. It
becomes evident that Tacitus looked down upon the Aestii in his description
of their collection of amber. He observed how amber would wash ashore, but
the “barbarians” never investigated its origin or assigned any value to it
until the Romans arrived.
He immediately attributed their ignorance of amber to their nature as
“barbarians,” then assumed that it was the Romans who made their
commodities worthwhile. This shows a fairly negative judgment of the Aestii
In the last chapter of Germania, Tacitus
depicted some outlying Germanic tribes. He portrayed these groups perhaps
in the darkest light. The Fenni, he noted, had “astonishing savagery,”
because they did not establish homes, create advanced weaponry, develop
agriculture, or even spiritual beliefs (“without concerns in their
He also described the Hellusii and the Oxiones, which he claimed “have the
faces and visages of men, the bodies and limbs of wild beasts,” yet he
acknowledged that these were mere rumors.
Chapter forty-six shows that Tacitus viewed some tribes – the least “Roman”
of the Germans – as “barbarians” and nothing more.
Several things can be surmised
from these distinctions. It is notable that each tribe Tacitus ranked
highly held some semblance of Roman values. Tacitus repeatedly commended
tribes such as the Batavi and Chatti for their bravery – an indication of
Roman emphasis on this quality. Similarly, he favored tribes that offered
some sort of benefit to the Roman Empire.
The Batavi provided specialized military units for wartime. The Hermunduri
had an extensive trading network beyond the Rhine
that likely benefitted Roman interests. In the case of less favored tribes
like the Bructeri, it may be guessed that their tribe offered little in
terms of military service or loyalties, particularly considering many of
these tribes lay outside of direct Roman control (see fig. 2).
Former political connections
of tribes such as the Bructeri are significant as well. The Bructeri
supported Arminius and the Cherusci in the Battle of Teutoburger Wald in
A.D. 9, a decision that resulted in vengeful campaigns by Tiberius a few
Tacitus remained biased toward the Bructeri years after the battle. The
Cherusci serve as another example. Peter S. Wells has stated that prior to
the Battle of Teutoburger Wald, Rome
favored the Cherusci and Arminius as their representative.
Tacitus, however, failed to note their military skills, despite the fact that
they had defeated the Romans. This conveys a sense of shame that Rome had been defeated
by “barbarians.” Tacitus’s solution was to diminish the reputation of the
Cherusci by portraying them poorly.
Another element which factored
into Tacitus’s ranking system was geographic proximity to Rome. Tacitus depicted tribes which lived
closer to Rome
(see fig. 1), such as the Ubii and the Chatti, in a much better light.
These tribes were also located along important rivers, such as the Rhine
and the Main. The Rhine
was the border of Roman Germanic territories; beyond that, as seen in
Figure 2, there were fewer identified tribes and no urban settlements. This
indicates that the Romans had less involvement in Germanic territories
outside of their control. As a result, tribes located farther away from the
Roman borders, such as the Marcomanni or the Cherusci, did not rate the
same judgment. The Batavi were the notable exception to this
generalization; however, as previously mentioned, they had a special
relationship with Rome.
Figure 2 provides a more extensive map of tribal groups, including the
Frisii and Bructeri on the northern border (the North
Sea). Again, Tacitus linked physical distance from Rome with ignorance of
Roman customs and values.
While physical distance is
important for Tacitus’s ranking system, his emphasis on martial, political,
and social customs is perhaps more significant. Many of his highly ranked
tribes, like the Batavi and the Chatti, possessed important martial
expertise that compared to Rome’s
military abilities. Tacitus described the Chatti’s Romanesque assets:
keeping ranks, setting up battle strategies, entrenchment, among other
He preceded this statement, however, by stating, “Inasmuch as they are
This raises an important point about his asserted ranking system. While he
compared and contrasted Germanic tribes, it was always under the
understanding that Germanic qualities could approach Roman levels, but could not necessarily equal them, as they were considered
“lower” as “barbarians.”
Tacitus commented on weak
German political structures. In chapter seven of Germania, he stated
that while Germanic tribes chose kings based on nobility, they did not have
absolute power; in fact, only priests could inflict punishments on people.
He supported this point in chapter forty-two, when he discussed how the
Marcomanni and Quadi’s king relied on Rome
for support, as well as in chapter forty-four, when he described one of the
Suione tribes, whose kings were strict but not oppressive.
The extent of liberty within the various tribes was significant to Tacitus,
if not Rome
as a whole. In the case of the Marcomanni, they could only retain
sovereignty because Rome
granted it to them. He justified Roman rule of the “barbarians” by examining
the political structure of the tribes.
Tacitus distinguished Germanic
tribes and Romans by social customs as well. In chapter eighteen, he
detailed Germanic marital customs. He stated, “[O]ne would praise no other
aspect of their civilization. For almost alone of the barbarians they are
content with one wife apiece with only a few exceptions.”
He praised one of their social customs, yet noted that they were
exceptional among their own class of “barbarians.” Germanic tribes were
again separated from comparison with Romans.
Tacitus’s ranking system is
complex, consisting essentially of two levels of comparison and contrast:
German-German and German-Roman. While he distinguished between individual
tribes based on their proximity and characteristics, he also made several
overarching comparisons and contrasts of Germanic tribes to Romans.
Martial, political, and social customs provided significant points for
Tacitus to assert his perception of Germanic tribes as “barbarians” which
were of a lower status than Romans. At certain points in Germania, he commended
the Germans – perhaps as a way to criticize Roman customs – yet constantly
reverted to claiming they could only be superior among “barbarians.” His
ranking system reflects the actual practices of assimilation that Roman
provincial administrations instated. An examination of urban and economic
development shows how ranking factored into which areas of the provinces
could be assimilated and which could not. Moreover, it becomes evident that
disruption in the provinces can be attributed to Tacitus’s ranking system
that divided Germanic tribes.
Chapter 3: Manifestation of
The examination of economic
and urban development in Germanic territories reveals a significant
correlation to Tacitus’s ranking system. Certain tribes, such as the
Hermunduri, operated unregulated trade within their regions between Romans
and other tribal groups. Meanwhile, cities such as Colonia Claudia Ara
Agrippinensium (modern-day Cologne)
reflect the type of urban development that Romans facilitated for favored
Germanic tribes within Roman territory. The ranking system used by the
Roman provincial administration affected which groups received economic and
urban development. This, in turn, would lead to conflict between Germanic
tribes over assimilative processes.
Roman administration of its
provinces began under Caesar Augustus. After suffering defeat in the Battle
of Teutoburger Wald, Augustus saw expansion by conquest as dangerous, and
chose instead to set up permanent legionary posts throughout the provinces
(several of which were in place by A.D. 14).
By the onset of Tiberius’s rule, there were four permanent legions in lower
Two were spread out over modern-day Cologne,
Xanten, and Mainz;
the other two cannot be located with any certainty.
Roman military organization thus became an influential part of provincial
administration, especially in its incorporation of local German
populations. Legions consisted of roughly five thousand men led by a
legate, the commander, and the tribune, his officers.
In addition to legions, Romans recruited local men to join the auxiliary
forces. After retirement (usually around twenty-five years of service),
auxiliary soldiers earned Roman citizenship.
This indicated the desire, on some level, to draw in and assimilate local
Civil administration was
equally important in assimilating the Germanic tribes. As noted, Augustus
wished to avoid strict military conquest, particularly in a territory where
Germans outnumbered Romans. Thus, Roman administrative leaders sought to
ally with provincial elites, who could then advocate Roman interests to
their local populations.
Through this, Roman officials hoped to keep provincial interests in line
with their own.
A significant figure in
setting up this system was Germanicus, Tiberius’s son. Tacitus observed
that Germanicus viewed German tribes as the only enemy available to
conquer, which resulted in his continuous offensives on them.
Germanicus’s military leadership resulted in the suppression of the
Cherusci, Chatti, and other tribes inhabiting the Elbe River
These wartime triumphs placed Romans into contact with outlying German
tribes. As a result, Germanicus’s victories facilitated the spread of Roman
fortifications throughout the Elbe region, which had not yet been fully
consolidated into the Roman Empire’s
Military and civil
administration did not always peacefully coexist. Germanicus faced some of
this conflict in his role as a general. His military campaigns, while often
victorious, created some political tensions. As a result, Tiberius
relocated Germanicus to Syria,
where Piso (the governor) could serve “as a check on Germanicus’
Meanwhile, back in the German territories, the civil administration
attempted to control tribes through assimilation, a process that did not
yield immediate results, particularly for the military officials, who
wanted Germanic tribes to immediately comply.
The struggles between the
civil and military administrative elements translated to conflicts between
provincial groups as well. The Roman military initially sent auxiliary
soldiers to posts far away from their home regions, although this policy
ceased over time when it proved irrelevant.
Drummond asserts that this policy lessened “the shock of Roman occupation”
and made soldiers become “ethnically more diverse.”
Based on Tacitus, however, it must be considered that conflict likely
existed among the Germanic tribes. The placement of not only neighboring,
but potentially rival tribes in developing cities opened the possibility of
strife for Rome.
Could Roman officials have
been that ignorant of differences among Germanic tribes? Economic and urban
development suggests that Roman officials, like Tacitus, drew distinct
lines among tribes that fit Roman ideals and those who did not. More
importantly, Roman officials distinguished between tribes that could or
could not benefit Roman interests. Economic and urban development – which
in turn influenced cultural development – serve as starting points for
analyzing how a ranking system transformed the process of assimilation, and
how this eventually led to conflict within the German provinces.
Germanic tribes which carried
on a more consistent economic relationship with Rome typically corresponded with the
tribes Tacitus ranked well. The Hermunduri are an example of such a
relationship. Tacitus noted that their commercial associations extended
outside of their region, which reached as far as the Elbe River.
Archaeological evidence supports this point, as Roman items have been
discovered as far as Denmark,
which has two implications: that Roman goods made it as far as the Elbe, and that the Frisians facilitated trade as
The Hermunduri’s territory included the Elbe; this means a trade
relationship likely existed (despite being beyond Rome’s immediate control). This would
have benefitted Rome
immensely, especially because of the Hermunduri’s connections with outlying
groups. Brooches found in Hermunduri territory showed “Gallic and Danubian
influences,” indicating a wide-ranging trading system that involved the
Hermunduri as middle-men.
Furthermore, the Hermunduri had defeated the Chatti in a battle for the
salt-producing river that divided their lands.
Production of a commodity like salt would have been in the interests of the
Roman Empire. Because of the favorable
economic status of the Hermunduri, the Roman Empire
granted special privileges to them.
Olwen Brogan, as mentioned,
viewed the Frisians as an economically-important tribe as well. In spite of
this, the Frisians did not earn the same privileges as the Hermunduri.
Tribute and military presence are evidence of this. Drusus fortified their
region and established a tributary system.
The Frisii remained loyal until AD 28, when Rome imposed harsher tribute
requirements, thus pushing the Frisii to fight against and defeat the
reasserted its rule in AD 47, which resulted in much tighter military
control of the region.
The Frisii, although economically viable to Rome, witnessed different treatment than
Tacitus did not explicate
whether or not the Hermunduri paid tribute to Rome; however, as “firm Roman friends,”
it might be surmised that they did not pay tribute.
Like much of the Germanic territories, Roman fortifications were present,
but did not seem to exact much control over the Hermunduri. The Hermunduri
became military allies rather than imperial subjects, and fought on behalf
of the Romans in a war against the Iazyges, Marcomanni, and the Quadi.
Their economic and military statuses are a stark contrast to that of the
These minor details about the
Hermunduri’s economic and military privileges lead to a significant point about
a ranking system within the Germanic provinces. The Hermunduri, who were
notably geographically closer to Rome
(see fig. 2), received special trading privileges. They were pitted in a
war against other Germanic tribes. These examples highlight Roman opinion
concerning different tribes. The Hermunduri, whose trade and military
knowledge benefited Rome,
held a higher status than other tribal groups such as the Frisii,
Marcomanni, and Quadi.
Urban development demonstrated
the ranking systems between tribes as well. The Hermunduri notably acquired
a Roman city under Hadrian’s rule.
Other provincial cities had been established much earlier. Colonia Claudia
Ara Agrippinensium, or Cologne,
was perhaps one of the most developed and well-known Roman coloniae. Developed early as a
military base in the Ubian territory, it became a Roman colonia in A.D. 50, then elevated to
the capital of Germania Inferior in A.D. 85.
Maureen Carroll asserts that Romans established towns such as Colonia Claudia
Ara Agrippinensium under Augustus’s plan to redistribute population groups
in German territories.
The demographics of these groups are significant because of their statuses
under the Roman hierarchical system. The largest Germanic group that inhabited
Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium was the Ubii, one of the groups Tacitus
The junction of the Ubii and
the Roman development of Colonia Claudia Ara Agrippinensium relates to the
ranking system not only in Roman treatment of the Ubii, but how this colonia impacted other tribes. The
relocation of the Ubii indicates that Rome
found this tribe to be of some benefit to them. Whether it was based on the
privileged status bestowed upon the tribe by Caesar, when he received their
loyalty and help in the Gallic Wars, or for other reasons, the Romans chose
to preserve the Ubian tribes.
Moreover, the special status granted to the Ubii as inhabitants of Cologne did not extend
to other tribes. Tribes such as the Tencteri had to pay tariffs and remain
under police watch while in the city.
This demonstrates a clear distinction between Germanic tribes.
Another consideration of the
urban development in Ubian territories is that the Romans planned Cologne. Carroll
debunks the idea that a legionary fortification preceded the urban center
at Cologne, arguing that the layout
(essentially in a grid pattern) and building remnants are evidence that Cologne was indeed an
urban, not military, base.
City planning is significant because it demonstrates the Roman desire to
inculcate Germanic provincials with Roman ideals. Within an urban center
the Ubii would see symbols of Roman civilization such as architecture, as
well as individual adoption of Roman status symbols like monuments.
The impact of Ubian assimilation to Roman culture became increasingly
obvious over time.
It is significant, however,
that although the Ubii stand out as the most prominent example of a
Romanized Germanic group, the tribe preserved some elements of its culture.
They included indigenous gods in their sculptures around the city; their
pottery methods indicate a method dating to before Roman contact, although
some pieces show the use of new techniques.
This mixture of native culture with Roman inventions demonstrates the dual
nature of assimilation. The Ubii accepted Roman culture, yet the Romans did
not attempt to erase elements of their culture, such as their deities.
The Ubii present an
interesting case study of assimilation because they eventually rejected
their Germanic origins in favor of Roman associations. The Ubii’s imminent
acculturation to Roman customs became further cemented after Augustus
allowed some of the Ubii to become Roman citizens.
Tacitus noted that they called themselves Agrippinenses.
Through advanced urban development, which can be attributed to their
favored status among Germanic tribes, the Ubii witnessed greater amounts of
assimilation than other tribes. Consequently, the Ubii participated in an
equitable, rather than equal, form of assimilation.
The cases of the Frisii,
Hermunduri, and Ubii present a trajectory by which Tacitus’s ranking system
and assimilation can be considered. The Frisii – the outermost group of
these tribes – were developed the least and held in stricter military
control. The Romans did not utilize military rule over the Hermunduri; in
fact, they allied with the Hermunduri in battle. Instead, the Romans
optimized the economic benefits of the Hermunduri. This tribe developed a colonia, albeit much later than Cologne. The Ubii – considered
to be the closest to Rome,
both geographically and characteristically – enforced urban development
early on. In their case, elements of Roman and Ubian culture blended
together to form an assimilated population that eventually considered
itself “Roman.” This demonstrates differing levels of assimilation and
treatment of Germanic tribes in accordance with Tacitus’s depictions of
these particular Germanic groups.
Despite the differing levels of ranking for Germanic
tribes, the process of assimilation remained an equitable process. Germanic
tribes remained under the control of Roman administrative officials. While
achieving Roman status through economic or urban development, the Germanic
groups were still not considered to be completely Roman. Even in the case
of the favored Ubii, Rome
only granted some of the population citizenship rights. Germanic groups
were assimilated to the extent that barbarian groups could be transformed,
yet remained beneath equality with Romans.
The desire of Germanic groups to attain such privileges,
however, is what is perhaps more significant. This demonstrates how
assimilation became a bilateral process. For example, Roman symbols of
status such as tomb monuments were so important to tribal groups that both
citizens and non-citizens would mimic them.
As a result, Germanic groups lobbied for recognition by the Roman Empire. When some tribes were assimilated and
others were not, conflict brewed and eventually erupted among the Germanic
tribes on the Roman frontier.
Chapter 4: Competition and
Disruption in the Provinces
The examples of the Hermunduri
and the Ubii show that Roman and local attempts at assimilation did
successfully bind some Germanic tribes to Rome. Accordingly, other tribes such as
the Frisii became alienated from Rome.
The Frisii broke their loyal ties with Rome
during the Batavian Revolt, which serves as potentially the clearest
example of how the Roman ranking system, reflected in Tacitus’s writing,
exacerbated tensions within the Roman Empire.
The Batavian Revolt followed
the arrest of Julius Civilis and Julius Paullus, representatives of
Batavian provincial elites. While Paullus was executed, Galba released
Civilis, although Vitellius and the army called for his execution. Upon his
return to the Batavi, he threw his support to Vespasian. He formulated the
rebellion under this guise. When Vitellius ordered a draft of both young
and elderly Batavi soldiers, Civilis seized the opportunity to rebel. He
summoned local tribes – the Frisii were among these notified – for support.
He then led a series of attacks on several German coloniae.
Civilis targeted the Ubii and
the Treveri first, because they had abandoned their fellow Germans. The
Batavians plundered Ubian territory more harshly because they “had forsworn
its native country, and assumed the Roman name of the
The Batavian offensives on other Germanic tribes demonstrate how
assimilation contributed to tensions within the empire. While the Batavians
received special privileges based on their martial skills, their territory
did not witness the same type of urban and economic development as Ubian
territories. Additionally, Rome
did not seek to assimilate the Batavi into their fold; as noted, large
portions of the Ubian population earned citizenship. This did not
necessarily apply to the Batavi.
Tacitus’s treatment of Civilis
in the Histories reflects the
Roman distinction between the Batavi and the Ubii. Tacitus observed that
Civilis possessed political talent, a rarity among barbarians.
This ability did not extend to the rest of the Batavi. In contrast to his
description of Civilis as a barbaric traitor, Tacitus did not explicitly
name any Ubian leaders – an indication of the tribe’s collective loyalty to
Ubian leaders stepped beyond the boundaries of their “Roman” image, thus
making it irrelevant for Tacitus to mention their names. This is
significant, because Tacitus drew a clear line between Civilis’s non-Roman
behavior and Ubian loyalty (a Roman trait).
Chapter 5: Conclusion
The Roman ranking system of
Germanic tribes led to periods of instability that undermined Roman control
by disrupting the process of assimilation within the provinces. Conflicts
between the Batavi and the Roman Empire
lay at the heart of the Batavian Revolt. Civilis undoubtedly sought an
opportunity to avenge the perceived injustices (such as his arrest and
near-execution) committed against him by Roman officials.
His initial attacks centered
on nearby Roman legions. Civilis’s main target, however, became other Germanic
tribes, principally those who received special privileges from Rome. This suggests
that the ranking system could be detrimental to the empire by dissolving
its stable relations among the Germanic groups within its control. The
Batavi, for instance, could not be used by Roman generals during the
revolt, forcing Rome
to lose one of its most powerful units. More importantly, after the revolt,
clamped down on its administration in the Batavi region. Trajan rebuilt
Batavodurum (which had been destroyed by Rome during the revolt), renamed it Ulpia
Noviomagus, and allowed a market to operate in town.
While Rives suggests that Trajan favored the Batavi, the Roman desire to
control them through assimilation also reflects a fear that emanated from
the Batavian Revolt. The Romans had to respond to the Batavi attacks on the
Ubii by granting them similar privileges: economic, urban, and cultural
development. While the Romans regained control over Germanic tribes, it
also signified a weakness in the ranking system: it could separate
provincials and strike at the foundation of Roman imperialism.
The ranking system reflected
in Tacitus’s writing eventually became less significant for Romans in the
face of an expanding empire. Tacitus identified characteristics such as
strong war skills and prosperous economies as reasons for some tribes to be
treated more favorably than others. These traits allowed Rome to control, to some extent, how much
they could assimilate a tribal group. For instance, in the case of the
could grant favors – such as planned cities – to keep their loyalty. The
Ubii, in turn, embraced many aspects of Roman culture, and even ultimately
shifted to the use of Romanized names. The Batavi had to struggle to gain
the same recognition.
Groups such as the Bructeri
indicate, for the purposes of this essay, how Romans ranked outlying
tribes. Tacitus ranked many of them poorly, but with some justification –
these tribes did not always fall under Roman control. Moreover, they did
not necessarily provide any political or economic gain for Rome. The Ubii and
Batavi, however, fell under the Roman-controlled system of assimilation.
These tribes are a prime example of the ranking system, reflected in Germania,
at work. Rather than assuming that Rome
viewed all Germans as “noble savages” as Benario had, Roman-German
relations must be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the story of the
Batavian attack on the Ubii, it is evident that jealousy among the tribes
was at play. Similarly, viewing assimilation as a contest of Roman versus
German values, as Rives suggests, is limited as well. It is clear that
conflict resulted from inequitable political, social, and economic
treatment of Germanic tribes.
As a result of the ranking
system articulated by Tacitus and set in place through Roman policy, the
Germanic provincials faced varying levels of assimilation under Roman rule.
This hierarchy contributed to strife among Germanic groups within the
empire, thus weakening Rome’s
attempt to assimilate certain groups. The economic and urban development
(which segued into cultural development) of different Germanic tribes
demonstrates the concept of the ranking system. Through the case study of
the Batavi and the Ubii, however, it becomes evident that this hierarchy
could backfire on Rome.
While the Batavian Revolt gave Germanic tribes the opportunity to eliminate
each other, the outcome of the rebellion forced Rome to appease the Batavi. This tribe
was not necessarily one that Rome
intended on assimilating in the same manner as they had the Ubii. This
changed how assimilative processes were conducted, leaving a significant
impact on the Roman Empire’s further
development of provincial groups.
Source: Peter S.
Wells, The Battle
That Stopped Rome (New York: Norton, 2003), 156
Source: Maureen Carroll, Romans, Celts, & Germans: the German
Provinces of Rome
(Stroud: Tempus, 2001), 30.
Julius. Gallic Wars. Translated by
H.J. Edwards. Cambridge: Harvard University
Tacitus. Annals. Translated by J.C. Yardley. New York: Oxford
Translated by Herbert W. Benario. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Tacitus. Histories. Translated by Alfred John
Church and William Jackson Brodribb. Online edition at
Adkins, Roy. A. Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. New York: Oxford
W. Tacitus' Agricola,
and Dialogue On Orators.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991.
Olwen. “Trade Between the Roman Empire and
the Free Germans,” The Journal of
Roman Studies 26, no. 2 (1936), 195-222.
Campbell, Duncan B. Roman Legionary Fortresses. Essex: Osprey Publishing, 2006.
Maureen. Romans, Celts, &
Germans: the German Provinces of Rome.
Stroud: Tempus, 2001.
Steven K. and Lynn H. Nelson. The
Western Frontiers of Imperial Rome.
Armonk: Sharpe, 1994.
Philip. Julius Caesar. New York City: Simon
and Schuster, 2008.
John D. Nerva and the Roman
Succession Crisis of AD 96-99. London:
W. The Emperor Domitian. Florence: Routledge,
Rives, J.B. Germania. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Jane. “Creolizing the Roman
Provinces,” American Journal of Archaeology 105,
no. 2 (2001), 209-225.
S. The Barbarians Speak: How the
Conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe. Princeton: Princeton University
S. The Battle
that Stopped Rome.
“Beyond Romans and Natives,” World
Archaeology 28, no. 3 (1997), 339-350.