Ah, I see

Many apologies to the few readers I have for the lack of posts last week. History biscuit is being swallowed by a monsoon of essays and since we all know they cannot be trusted to write themselves, posts had to be postponed.

Updates will resume as scheduled on Monday but until then, take a look at the interesting discovery made this weekend.

For those too lazy to leave this page, it is the discovery of a submerged Greek city/town of extraordinary planning and organisation. This is made all the more interesting when you find out that it is over 5000 years old, dating to the time of Homer and before Plato.

- history biscuit

Tacitus on Romanisation

Tacitus’ text, Agricola, provides an insight as to what Tacitus himself considered romanisation to be. However whether he meant it as a policy of the empire or an inspired tactic of Agricola is unknown. The text is a biography of Agricola, a Roman general who led his armies through Britain. It is not a coincidence that Agricola happens to be Tacitus’ own father in law and Tacitus may be using the biography to glorify his recently deceased relative. Since the readers of his text at the time would be educated Romans most likely involved in politics and the senate, his chances of benefiting from a more iconic view of Agricola are high. This casts a sceptical shadow on the entire work, mainly the contributions of Agricola to the conquest of Britain and especially the excerpt describing what seems to be a systematic romanisation of the inhabitants of Britannia.

Before addressing romanisation it is necessary to discuss Tacitus’ account of Agricola’s adventures and the issues surrounding his work. Primarily, it is impossible for even Tacitus to know the facts of what transpired in Britain. He is not a primary source; he did not witness Agricola’s explorations and battles and had to rely on potentially biased stories and oral information from people who were there or claim to know what happened. The result is that his works are the only sources of evidence for pieces of information so it is impossible to confirm or contradict his account. It is apparent that he himself is unsure of all the facts in that in the excerpt he does not give any specifics to Agricola’s location but tries giving certain hints to periods without giving the full date (such as “first year in office” ¶¶20). In his description of Agricola as a militarily mighty leader (“he would allow the enemy no rest” ¶¶20) Tacitus merely claims “many states” were subdued and conquered but then goes on to say “the following winter passed without disturbance” (¶¶21) so it is a surprise he does not name a few specific places which were acquired the autumn or summer before. Therefore we already cannot take Tacitus’ information as fact since he is not entirely reliable.

One characteristic of ancient texts that must be examined is the tendency for classical historians to focus on conveying moralistic ideals to readers even if doing so compromises the accuracy of the document. In the excerpt Tacitus uses various hints and diction to portray Agricola as an inspired, responsible, cunning role model and beacon of morality. There are certain obvious moral lessons: the fact that he preferred “penitence” to punishment (¶¶19) and “praised good discipline and kept the stragglers in order” (¶¶21) give the sense that Agricola is a strict but wise leader. His wisdom is reinforced in the line “he knew everything but did not always act on his knowledge” (¶¶19) as a hyperbole used to show that Agricola knew when to refrain from action. Tacitus also shows him as taking personal responsibility in that “he would himself chose the position of the camp and explore the estuaries and forests” (¶¶20). Finally Agricola is shown as a cunning ruler who seemingly tricked the entire conquered population into cooperation (“honourable rivalry took place of compulsion … this they called civilisation when it was but a part of their servitude” ¶¶21). He continues this outside the excerpt in describing him as a modest general who, after accomplishing a massive victory, “did not use his success for self-glorification … nor the repression of the conquered people” (¶¶ 18). At the beginning of the entire text Tacitus sets off glorifying Agricola’s ancestry, claiming Agricola’s grandfathers were “Imperial procurators,” his father was “distinguished for eloquence and philosophy,” and his mother was “a lady of singular virtue” (¶¶ 4). It has been observed that Tacitus “takes every opportunity to cast Agricola in favourable light” to the extent where he attributes almost all first century Roman forts in northern England to Agricola when archaeological evidence shows more and more originated in an earlier or later period. Therefore it seems obvious that Tacitus is glorifying Agricola rather than providing an accurate history in the particular excerpt. Tacitus could be using the text as a means to build up Agricola in order to gain any potential political benefits from being related to him. All these influences and flaws apply to his concept of romanisation as well.

Romanisation was originally considered an active imperial policy; a process when conquered people became Roman through a mixture of coercion and their own initiative. Older views expressed by Haverfield include the idea that the West lacked an ancient culture and was therefore more easily romanised compared to the East, that the strong culture of Rome “planted” in them the desire to become Roman. These in part rise from Tacitus’ passage: “Agricola gave private encouragement and public aid to the building of” (¶¶21) as it goes on to list many roman-style buildings, giving a sense of a systemized romanisation. However modern scholarship agrees on the idea that there was no policy and that romanisation romanisation “>was driven by native rival elites’ initiative; they wanted access to Roman material and culture to increase their own power and prestige. This change in historiography is partly due to the fact that Tacitus’ statement of a romanisation policy is unique and no other such evidence exists to support such a large scheme. Tacitus may not be referring to an imperial policy but a personal one of Agricola’s. However this view is disproved by Hanson who shows that the only archaeological evidence of Agricola’s involvement is in Verulamium but that credit for the community there goes to a previous leader Frontinus, claiming that by the time Agricola arrived the town was already a thriving romanised community. Millett claims that areas where romanisation was successful were those where native elites benefited from an alliance with Roman power and then emulated Roman ways to their population whereas romanisation failed in areas where “through either warfare or continued military occupation, Roman presence was socially disruptive” (the northern parts of Britain). In other words, where cooperation prevailed the native elites could maintain their position in society which enhanced their desire for Roman goods. It is possible that Tacitus included the information regarding romanisation simply as another means to enhance Agricola’s influence and power.

Therefore the excerpt was simply a means of propaganda used to promote not only Agricola but Tacitus’ personal moral views. As an author creates characters to symbolise or send messages in a story, Tacitus used (or ‘created’) Agricola for the same purpose. Hence it is difficult to determine what is true and what is fiction. Similarly it is problematic to rely on his account of romanisation: that Agricola (or the Empire) tricked their subjects into becoming Roman. Tacitus is, simply, an unreliable source with regards to romanisation; he had heavy and obvious biases, he had a stronger focus on sending moral lessons rather than accurate facts, and finally he was not present at any of the events which he is vaguely recording. Archaeological evidence is even contradicting his claims. Therefore despite the fact that Tacitus is a useful source to understanding Roman views, perspective, and way of life, he is entirely misleading as to the concept of romanisation. Tacitus’ works led earlier historians to believe Rome actually had a policy of romanisation. Today we know that romanisation was driven by native initiative and desire to acquire Roman material and culture to improve their own society and way of life.

- history biscuit

PS. history biscuit now has twitter

---

Rebellious Europe in the Seventeenth Century

Historian Geoffrey Parker explains the reason for seventeenth century rebellions as such: “it was, in that undemocratic age, the only mean by which the people could register their discontent with government policies.” Although concise, it oversimplifies the many revolts of the time and implies a lack of various, complex causes. Most seventeenth century revolts were the combination of grievances taking root as far back as the mid-1500s plus contemporary issues that led to the abuse of power of monarchs. It should also be noted that most of these revolts (or can they be called separatist movements?) took place in provinces that were recently united with the ruling nation, meaning that the sense of nationalism and loyalty to the throne would not exist, making it easier for the oppressed populations to be susceptible to ideas of revolution.

Religious oppression was a big cause in some subject states. The Bohemian Revolt (which is claimed to have caused the Thirty Years War) was sparked by the religious intolerance of the Holy Roman Empire and emperor Matthias. Catholics were allowed to close down Protestant churches, non-Catholics were refused civic office, and petitions to Matthias were ignored and even declared illegal in this matter. Ukraine had similar problems, being Orthodox in a staunchly Catholic Poland. Orthodox lands were seized and the acceptance of a Uniate church was enforced with various harsh measures. The Ukrainian Chronicle of the Eye-Witness of the 1640s stated

children have been killed … women and daughters have been subject to abuse … they enrich themselves at our expense, [inventing] various taxes from Orthodox weddings and … christening children

This prompted the Khmelnitsky Rebellion which managed to convince the new Polish king to make some concessions and promises to the Orthodox population (which he never fulfilled). Finally, in Britain, Charles I attempted the imposition of a Book of Prayer in Scotland to undermine the Scottish Presbyterian Church. The complications from this resulted in war and contributed to the problems that led to the English Civil War.

However not all revolting states were victims of religious oppression. France had started levying all kinds of taxes to support her involvement in the Thirty Years War and to sustain herself, as her economy was failing. Parker’s book, Europe in Crisis, explains her taxes were excessive in certain provinces such as Normandy, where taxes were fourteen times heavier than in Provence and eleven times heavier than in Languedoc. Similarly, to support her armies, Spain had a habit of inflicting forced loans on Portugal and Catalonia. Spain had in fact demanded more taxes than could reasonably be met, provoking numerous rebellions in Basque Spain, Portugal, and Catalonia. In England, Charles I had been warring with Scotland and imposed taxes on his subjects to raise the money for it without having to call together Parliament (as they did not get along very well). Both England and France tried to raise money by selling titles and offices, resulting in the inflation and decline of prestige of the aristocracy. Overall, there was no appeal against over-taxation, leaving the poor defenseless in the face of high tax demands.

Other issues compounded the problems in each country (France had poor harvests, Portugal had trade issues, Poland was enserfing the Cossacks, and Charles I of Britain was warring with Parliament) but it can therefore be seen that the various revolts of the 1600s were a culmination of several factors common among the European nations. Religious differences between ruling and subject states led to polarisation of the provinces, religious repression, and an eventual outbreak of conflict. Economic exploitation of subject states to support either the monarchy or, more commonly, international wars also lead to widespread discontent and revolt. Finally, other infringement of rights and inadequate representation increased revolutionary sentiments.

- history biscuit

Obliterating the ‘Dark Ages’

To start off this little history journal, I decided to pick a more general yet still pertinent topic. The purpose of this post is to discredit the notion of the ‘Dark Ages’ as a term used to refer to medieval times.

Why is this important? Well, it is still common to hear the phrase ‘dark ages’ as it has penetrated into the recesses of our thinking on the subject. If you were to ask an ordinary person about the medieval period, they would think of it as a ‘dark’ time of philosophical/ideological, technological, and mental backwardness, deviating from the advancement and enlightenment of the classical period. It is seen as a time of ignorance, decay, chaos, barbarity, and lacking in sophistication. However, we have reached a historiographical turning point in which historians are rebelling against traditional perceptions of the middle ages and finding it a period of discovery and, to a certain extent, enlightenment.

When considering their argument, they have a point. The ‘dark ages’, in my opinion, were a transitional period between the classical and the modern, not a period of incredible stagnation or total rejection of classical mentality but perhaps an attempt to advance or build upon the classical heritage.

We only really came to use the term ‘dark ages’ to refer to the lack of much written evidence and recorded history from which to gain knowledge on the period. However, this is not exactly the case. When studying medieval history we have to use many different types of research methods, similar to when studying ancient history. We have to use archaeology, of which there is a fair amount of evidence that can provide insight into the daily lives of the people. The myths and tales of the ‘dark ages’ are almost dismissed entirely as potential sources of history in the frustration to evaluate their validity. Yet with ancient history we are more ready to grasp and study their myths as a valid means of discovering classical mentality. Why do we not try the same with medieval tales with less focus on their historical accuracy and more focus on their cultural relevance?

It seems ancient history relies heavily on archaeology while modern history relies heavily on written evidence, hence the medieval period requires the study of both. Therefore the main reason for using the term ‘dark ages’, as a reflection on the lack of evidence to study, no longer applies.

As for the other reasons, dealing mainly with culturally-induced preconceptions of the middle ages as an ideologically backwards period, how can we think of this period as such when so many of our modern institutions and cultural, even national, characteristics were conceived in the middle ages? The legacies of this time include universities, law enforcement, juries, the concepts of punishment and compensation, and the idea of chivalry and the warrior ethos to name a few. It was also an age of faith in which millions converted to Christianity, Islam was on the rise, and the Catholic Church split. How can this be considered a period of ignorance when so much was being contemplated? The study of logic was desirable and the rapid rise in religious conversions must be the result of personal reflection and the seeking of enlightenment. All these things are not characteristics of a backwards society lying in darkness. As John Arnold stated, “people tend to look down as they look back” which is surely the case here. In retrospect we can call this a relatively slower advancement compared to modern times however at the time the idea was the continuation of the Roman Empire (though naturally it is debatable the extent to which they were successful).

To finish, I think a quote from Arnold’s very recent text (2008) What is Medieval History sums up the argument nicely:

“They believed the earth was flat, didn’t they? (No, that’s a later myth). They burnt witches, didn’t they? (No, that’s mostly the seventeenth century). They were all ignorant, weren’t they? (No, there were universities across Europe from the thirteenth century, and the beginnings of experimental science, among other things). They never left home, hardly knew the world around them, right? (No, there were trade networks connecting Scandinavia, Central Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa). But, surely, they behaved barbarically: constant local violence, waging wars against people they didn’t like, torturing people, executing criminals? (And none of this happens today, even in developed western democracies?).”

Hence the term ‘dark ages’ must surely no longer apply.

- history biscuit

Welcome

Soon to come:

three updates a week.

In the meantime, amuse yourselves with this: