Calgacus and Agricola Prepare for Battle

Two excerpts taken from opposing generals preparing to lead their men into battle against one another: Calgacus from Britain, Agricola from Rome. 

Top 12 of Rome's Greatest Battles - Ancient History Lists

The Agricola, Chapters 30-32, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Calgacus’ Speech To His Men

“The first battles, during which it was certain that the Romans were against us by varied fortune, were holding hope and help in our men, because the most noble of all of Britain, situated in the inner most shrines, were seeing no banks of servitude, we also were having eyes unviolated by the touch of tyranny. Our isolation and bend of rumor defended our remote places of the world and of liberty on that day: now the border of Britain is open, and everything unknown is magnified; but now there is no further tribe, nothing except rivers and rocks, and hostile Romans, of which you escape pride in vain through obedience and submission. The plunderers of the world, after they lack everything from laying waste to the world, search the sea: if the enemy is rich, they exact taxes, if poor, they exact homage, whom neither the East nor West will have glutted: these men alone out of everyone yearn for power and poverty equally out of affection. They call robbery, massacre, and plunder power under a false name, and where they make solitudes, they call peace … unless if you think that the Gauls and Germans and, it shames me to say, the majority of the Brits are held by faith and affection, although they shed blood for a foreign tyranny, nevertheless are longer enemies than slaves. There is fear and terror, weak chains of affection; which when you remove them, those who will cease to fear will begin to hate.”

“Priōrēs pugnae, quibus adversus Rōmānōs variā fortūnā certātum est, spem ac subsidium in nostrīs manibus habēbant, quia nōbilissimī tōtīus Britanniae eōque in ipsīs penetrālibus sitī nec ūlla servientium lītora aspicientēs, oculōs quoque ā contāctū dominātiōnis inviolātōs habēbāmus. Nōs terrārum ac lībertātis extrēmōs recessus ipse ac sinus fāmae in hunc diem dēfendit: nunc terminus Britanniae patet, atque omne ignōtum prō magnificō est; sed nūlla iam ultrā gēns, nihil nisi flūctūs ac saxa, et īnfēstiōrēs Rōmānī, quōrum superbiam frūstrā per obsequium ac modestiam effugiās. Raptōrēs orbis, postquam cūncta vastantibus dēfuēre terrae, mare scrūtantur: sī locuplēs hostis est, avārī, sī pauper, ambitiōsī, quōs nōn Oriēns, nōn Occidēns satiāverit: sōlī omnium opēs atque inopiam parī adfectū concupīscunt. Auferre trucīdāre rapere falsīs nōminibus imperium, atque ubi sōlitūdinem faciunt, pācem appellant … nisi sī Gallōs et Germānōs et (pudet dictū) Britannōrum plērōsque, licet dominātiōnī aliēnae sanguinem commodent, diūtius tamen hostēs quam servōs, fide et adfectū tenērī putātis. Metus ac terror est, īnfirma vincla cāritātis; quae ubi remōverīs, quī timēre dēsierint, ōdisse incipient.”

 

Publius Cornelius Tacitus, The Agricola, Chapter 33,  Agricola’s Speech To His Men

“It is the seventh year, comrades, under the virtue and auspices of the Roman people, you all conquer Britain by our faith and duty. With so many expeditions, with so many battles, whether the enemies are adverse by fortitude or hardly adverse by patience and work, it is necessary to that nature of things, neither I regret the soldiers nor you regret your leader … For so that to have surpassed so much of the journey, to have escaped the forests, to have crossed the estuaries when the foe is ahead is beautiful and honorable, thus the most dangerous things for the fleeing men are most prosperous today: indeed a similar knowledge of the places or similar abundance of resources was for our men, but there are men and weapons and everything in these places. That which pertains to me, now it is my long standing conviction that flight is safe for neither the army nor the leader. Accordingly as a honorable death is more preferable than a shameful death, thus safety and glory are allowed in this place; it would not be indignified to have fallen at the limit of the land and of the world.”

septimus annus est, commīlitōnēs, ex quō virtūte et auspiciīs populī Rōmānī, fide atque operā nostrā Britanniam vīcistis. Tot expedītiōnibus, tot proeliīs, seu fortitūdine adversus hostēs seu patientiā ac labōre paene adversus ipsam rērum nātūram opus fuit, neque mē mīlitum neque vōs ducis paenituit … Nam ut superāsse tantum itineris, ēvāsisse silvās, trānsīsse aestuāria pulchrum ac decōrum in frontem, ita fugientibus perīculōsissima quae hodiē prosperrima sunt; neque enim nōbīs aut locōrum eadem nōtitia aut commeātuum eadem abundantia, sed manūs et arma et in hīs omnia. [33.6] Quod ad mē attinet, iam prīdem mihi dēcrētum est neque exercitūs neque ducis terga tūta esse. Proinde ut honesta mors turpī vītā potior, ita incolumitās ac decus eōdem locō sita sunt; nec inglōrium fuerit in ipsō terrārum ac nātūrae fīne cecidisse.

 

Throughout Calgacus’ and Agricola’s speeches, Tacitus communicates to the reader both an outsider’s criticisms of the Roman empire and a Roman leader’s perspective on the empire’s conquest. In presenting these two perspectives, Tacitus is able to critique the Roman rule he lives under and accomplish his goal of paying tribute to Agricola, whom Tacitus portrays as the perfect Roman.

In his speech, Calgacus frequently refers to the Romans as an evil and dishonorable empire that has oppressed generations of tribes throughout Europe, and will do the same to the Brits if they don’t fight back against the Romans. In detailing Calgacus’ speech over the course of three chapters, Tacitus himself is able to critique the cruelty of the Roman empire. In chapter 30, Calgacus introduces the Romans to his listeners as the “plunderers of the world” (raptores orbis), immediately displaying the different perspective he and the Brits have on Rome and its conquests.

Calgacus also refers to the Roman “tyranny” (dominatio) twice in his speech; such a choice not only compares the Romans to tyrants, but also reminds the reader of the reign of Domitian. With Domitian’s violent years as emperor occurring just a few years before the Agricola was published, Tacitus uses this diction to give a more concrete example of when the Roman empire was just as cruel as Calgacus claims them to be. Calgacus then uses rhetorical devices to highlight the malignant deeds of the Roman empire. When he writes “si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi,” Calgacus employs an anaphora, whose repetition further emphasizes Rome’s need to always demand some form of retribution from their enemies: when Rome is rich, it demands tributes, when poor it demands homage.

Similarly, Calgacus uses asyndeton when he writes “auferre trucidare rapere.” By placing three infinitives one after another without any conjunctions, Calgacus calls attention to the multitude of Rome’s crimes and shows that the army is forever robbing, massacring, and plundering their enemies. Furthermore, throughout Calgacus’ speech, yet particularly in chapter 31, he refers to the Brits and those under Roman rule as slaves, even comparing the Brits to the newest, mocked slave in a family (ac sicut … petimur). This word choice provides a stark contrast to the Roman empire’s perception of those they conquered, as they believe peace results from their conquest while the conquered consider themselves no more than slaves. While these criticisms come from Calgacus, the multiple references to Domitian suggest that Tacitus may be injecting some of his own opinions about the empire and agree with some or many of the claims Calgacus puts forth. 

Calgacus also highlights the division among and weakness of the Roman army in his speech. Across our readings throughout the year, the Roman army has always been portrayed as a formidable force that can conquer anything in its path; however, similar to the different perspective Calgacus offered on the Roman empire’s cruelty, he also offers a new angle on its weaknesses. He begins by explaining that Rome’s perceived strength in numbers is a fallacy, as the army is composed of many foreign tribes who are not truly loyal to Rome. When Calgacus notes that the Gauls, Germans, and Brits “spill blood for a foreign tyranny” (dominationi … commodent), he emphasizes the lack of loyalty that the tribes feel towards Rome, which is merely a foreign tyranny, rather than an illustrious empire. He builds on this claim when he later argues that the tribes are held by fear and terror (metus ac terror) rather than affection of the Roman empire. As a result, Calgacus states that those same tribes “will cease to fear and begin to hate” (timere … incipient) the Romans; in this clause, Calgacus uses parallel structure to highlight the contrast between the fear that the tribes used to endure, and the hatred they will experience. Throughout Calgacus’ extended speech, Tacitus presents to the reader the outsider’s perspective of the Roman empire: that the empire savagely makes slaves out of its subjects, controls them with fear, and, despite its appearance of strength, at its core lacks loyalty and unity. However, Tacitus then provides Agricola’s speech as rebuttal to the negative, foreign perceptions of the empire. 

As a contrast to Calgacus’ speech and the criticisms he voiced against the Roman empire, Tacitus presents Agricola’s speech to give an example of the benevolent, honorable leaders that make Rome far greater than what Calgacus depicted them as. Tacitus first shows Agricola’s honorable nature when Agricola refers to all the Roman soldiers as “commilitones,” or fellow soldiers. This word choice suggests that Agricola inspires great faith and unity in his men, as calling them “fellow soldiers” implies that Agricola, too, is a dutiful member and active participant in the army, rather than someone who merely gives orders. Such an implication also responds to Calgacus’ claim that the Roman army lacks loyalty and unity: while the entire Roman empire may not showcase similar valor, Agricola certainly does. In addition, Agricola employs rhetorical devices to emphasize his arguments, with the first of which building his claim that loyalty is robust in the Roman army.

When Agricola states that “neque me militum neque vos ducis paenituit,” he uses an anaphora to liken himself to his men. The goal of this phrase, literally, is to remark that he trusts his army, and his army trusts him, and the identical word positioning in the phrase further reveals the similarities and trust between Agricola and the army. Agricola also uses another anaphora when he states “tot expeditionibus, tot proeliis” in order to highlight the previous experience and success the Roman army had in battles like the one they are about to enter. The repetition of “tot” calls the reader’s attention to this phrase and heightens Agricola’s point about Rome’s history of many victorious battles. Finally, towards the end of chapter 33, Agricola yet again reinforces the necessity of loyalty and valor to his men and all readers: he claims that “an honorable death is preferable to a life of shame” (honesta … potior). Such a remark reiterates Agricola’s steadfast devotion to valor and adds to Tacitus’ narrative that Agricola is one of the most honorable men Rome has ever seen.

Throughout Calgacus and Agricola’s speeches, Tacitus compares the barbarian perception of the Roman empire’s cruelty and disloyalty to the Roman perception of the empire’s honor and strength. By detailing Calgacus’ speech for three chapters, Tacitus explains with incredible detail all the empire’s flaws. While these flaws are highlighted through the voice of Calgacus, Tacitus seems to share many of Calgacus’ beliefs, in particular those about the empire’s cruel history. Agricola rarely addresses the Roman empire’s barbaric nature in his speech, and Tacitus even includes subtle references to Domitian, the most apt example of such cruelty. However, in presenting Agricola’s speech, Tacitus dispels many of Calgacus’ claims that the Roman army lacks loyalty and unity, largely because Agricola himself shows such great valor that inspires loyalty. This intentional structure reveals to the reader that Tacitus admits to some of Calgacus’ criticisms of the empire being true, yet still believes in Agricola’s spectacular nature as a leader who unifies his men. As a result, Tacitus is able to use these speeches to both acknowledge the shortcoming of the Roman empire, with its history of violence, and praise Agricola as one of the few truly good influences on the empire.

 

Matthew Abati is a rising high school senior at Milton Academy just outside of Boston. He has been a Classics lover since middle school.

The Fight You Can’t Win

Archilochus told us, long before Pat Benatar in 1983 AD, that love is a battlefield.

His martial metaphor for love–or rather, for the lover struck down by Eros–is possibly the earliest such which survives. He sketched, for posterity as it were, the battlefield consequences of losing to Eros: inability to stand, lifelessness, wound, and pain:

Archilochus Fragment (193 West)

I lie here wretched with longing,
And lifeless,
Pierced through my bones
With bitter pains.
The gods’ doings, this.

δύστηνος ἔγκειμαι πόθῳ
ἄψυχος, χαλεπῇσι θεῶν ὀδύνῃσιν ἕκητι
πεπαρμένος δι᾽ ὀστέων.

By the Hellenstic period, what might have been fresh in Archilochus’ hand was now a well-worn trope.

Here is Rufinus employing the martial metaphor. In his light and clever epigram the lover contemplates resisting Eros, but with defeat a foregone conclusion (and Archilochus having articulated what defeat entails) he simply surrenders:

Rufinus (Greek Anthology 5.93)

I’ve strapped reason around my chest,
Armor against Eros.
He won’t defeat me: it’s one against one,
Mortal engaging immortal.
But, if he’s got Bacchus as his helpmate,
What can I, a man alone, do against two?

ὥπλισμαι πρὸς ἔρωτα περὶ στέρνοισι λογισμόν,
οὐδέ με νικήσει, μοῦνος ἐὼν πρὸς ἕνα:
θνατὸς δ᾽ ἀθανάτῳ συστήσομαι. ἢν δὲ βοηθὸν
Βάκχον ἔχῃ, τί μόνος πρὸς δύ᾽ ἐγὼ δύναμαι;

Image from Geoff Winningham’s Friday Night in the Coliseum.
Outclassed, alarmed, defeated…like a man who takes on Eros.

Larry Benn has a B.A. in English Literature from Harvard College, an M.Phil in English Literature from Oxford University, and a J.D. from Yale Law School. Making amends for a working life misspent in finance, he’s now a hobbyist in ancient languages and blogs at featsofgreek.blogspot.com.

Modeling Alexander’s Victories with Risk Pieces: Using Games to Teach Ancient Military History

I have long been a fan of Classics and classical history, and though I ply my trade as a Homerist, I have been fascinated with ancient battles and military tactics. In teaching courses on Ancient Greek history, however, I have found many students confused by the issues that attend evaluating narrative descriptions of battles and even less prepared to critique either the presentation of the battles or the tactics themselves.

Battle Of Granicus
Battle Of Granicus

Continue reading “Modeling Alexander’s Victories with Risk Pieces: Using Games to Teach Ancient Military History”

The Battle of Frogs and Mice, Part 10: Carnage; Murine Aristeia; Gods Intervene

In our last episode, the Mice and Frogs joined battle…the fight rages on!

“Platelicker then killed blameless Mudbedder
as he sprung at him with his shield. Then darkness covered his eyes.
When Greenstalk saw this he dragged Smoke-hunter by the foot
overpowered him, and drowned him in the pond as he reached out his hand.
Crumbthief defended his dead friend
and hurled at Greenstalk through his stomach into his liver–
then he fell forward then his soul descended to Hades.
Cabbage-treader saw this and threw a lump of mud at him;
it smeared his face and blinded him a little bit.
When he was enraged by this, he grabbed a heavy rock
Lying on the ground, a burden to the earth, with his stout hand
and he struck Cabbagetreader with it below the knees. His right greave
was completely shattered and he fell from high to the dust.
Croakerson defended him and went straight at the other guy
striking him in the middle of the stomach. The sharp reed
pierced into him and all of his guts poured out
around the spear as it was withdrawn by the strong hand.
When Holedweller saw this from the banks of the river,
He retreated from the battle to stop, since he terribly worn out.
He rushed into the ditches in order to flee the sheer destruction.
Breadmuncher struck Bellowmouth on the top of the foot.
And as he was pressed down he fled driven into the pond.
And when Greenstalk saw him falling half-choked
He went through the champions and hurled his sharp-reed.
He didn’t break the shield and the tip of the spear held fast.
Shining Oregano didn’t hit the four-measured, blameless helm
As he imitated Ares himself
Who alone prevailed through the engagement among the frogs.
And he rushed at him. But when he saw him, he didn’t wait for
The strong heroes, but he dived into the depths of the pond.

There was a child among the mice who stood out from all others
Pieceplunder, the dear son of blameless Grater the Bread-councilor.
He was on his way home; he had ordered the child to refrain from war.
But he was threatening to eliminate the race of the frogs
as he stood nearby desiring to fight with force
First, he split a nut along its middle into two halves
and set them on both his naked hands as defense,
then everyone feared him and scattered around the pond.
He would have achieved his goal since his strength was so great
if the father of men and gods had not taken note.
Kronos’ son pitied the dying frogs;
He spoke this kind of speech as he shook his head.
“O friends, I really see a wonder with my eyes
Pieceplunder worries me not a little as he crosses as
a thief among the frogs. But quickly then
Let’s send war-rousing Pallas and Ares too
who will restrain him from battle though he is mighty.”

So Zeus spoke and Ares responded with a speech:
“Son of Cronus, neither the power of Athena or Ares
Is able to ward steep destruction from the frogs.
Let’s all go as allies. Or maybe you should
brandish your arms. Whoever is best will be caught in this way
As when you killed the stout man Kapaneus
and great Engkelados and fierce tribes of the giants.”

231 Λειχοπίναξ δ’ ἔκτεινεν ἀμύμονα Βορβοροκοίτην,
232 ἔγχει ἐπαΐξας• τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσε κάλυψεν.
233 Πρασσαῖος δὲ ἰδὼν ποδὸς εἵλκυσε Κνισσοδιώκτην ,
234 ἐν λίμνῃ δ’ ἀπέπνιξε κρατήσας χειρὶ τένοντα.
235 Ψιχάρπαξ δ’ ἤμυν’ ἑτάρου περὶ τεθνειῶτος
236 καὶ βάλε Πρασσαῖον κατὰ νηδύος ἐς μέσον ἧπαρ,
237 πῖπτε δέ οἱ πρόσθεν, ψυχὴ δ’ ᾿Αϊδόσδε βεβήκει.
238 Κραμβοβάτης δὲ ἰδὼν πηλοῦ δράκα ῥίψεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν,
239 καὶ τὸ μέτωπον ἔχρισε καὶ ἐξετύφλου παρὰ μικρόν.
240 ὠργίσθη δ’ ἄρ’ ἐκεῖνος, ἑλὼν δ’ ἄρα χειρὶ παχείῃ
241 κείμενον ἐν δαπέδῳ λίθον ὄβριμον, ἄχθος ἀρούρης,
242 τῷ βάλε Κραμβοβάτην ὑπὸ γούνατα• πᾶσα δ’ ἐκλάσθη
243 κνήμη δεξιτερή, πέσε δ’ ὕπτιος ἐν κονίῃσι.
244 Κραυγασίδης δ’ ἤμυνε καὶ αὖθις βαῖνεν ἐπ’ αὐτόν,
245 τύψε δέ οἱ μέσσην κατὰ γαστέρα• πᾶς δέ οἱ εἴσω
246 ὀξύσχοινος ἔδυνε, χαμαὶ δ’ ἔκχυντο ἅπαντα
247 ἔγκατ’ ἐφελκομένῳ ὑπὸ δούρατι χειρὶ παχείῃ•
248 Τρωγλοδύτης δ’ ὡς εἶδεν ἐπ’ ὄχθῃσιν ποταμοῖο,
249 σκάζων ἐκ πολέμου ἀνεχάζετο, τείρετο δ’ αἰνῶς•
250 ἥλατο δ’ ἐς τάφρους, ὅππως φύγῃ αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον.
251 Τρωξάρτης δ’ ἔβαλεν Φυσίγναθον ἐς ποδὸς ἄκρον.
252 ἔσχατος δ’ ἐκ λίμνης ἀνεδύσετο, τείρετο δ’ αἰνῶς
253 Πρασσαῖος δ’ ὡς εἶδεν ἔθ’ ἡμίπνουν προπεσόντα,
254 ἦλθε διὰ προμάχων καὶ ἀκόντισεν ὀξύσχοινον•
255 οὐδ’ ἔρρηξε σάκος, σχέτο δ’ αὐτοῦ δουρὸς ἀκωκή•
256 οὐδ’ ἔβαλε τρυφάλειαν ἀμύμονα καὶ τετράχυτρον
257 δῖος ᾿Οριγανίων, μιμούμενος αὐτὸν ῎Αρηα,
258 ὃς μόνος ἐν βατράχοισιν ἀρίστευεν καθ’ ὅμιλον•
259 ὥρμησεν δ’ ἄρ’ ἐπ’ αὐτόν• ὁ δ’ ὡς ἴδεν οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν
ἥρωας κρατερούς, ἀλλ’ ἔδυνε βένθεσι λίμνης

260 ῏Ην δέ τις ἐν μυσὶ παῖς Μεριδάρπαξ ἔξοχος ἄλλων,
261 Κναίσωνος φίλος υἱὸς ἀμύμονος ἀρτεπιβούλου•
262 οἴκαδ’ ἴεν, πολέμου δὲ μετασχεῖν παῖδ’ ἐκέλευεν•
263 οὗτος ἀναρπάξαι βατράχων γενεὴν ἐπαπείλει•
264 ἀγχοῦ δ’ ἕστηκεν μενεαίνων ἶφι μάχεσθαι
265 καὶ ῥήξας καρύοιο μέσην ῥάχιν εἰς δύο μοίρας
266 φράγδην ἀμφοτέροισι κενώμασι χεῖρας ἔθηκεν•
267 οἱ δὲ τάχος δείσαντες ἔβαν πάντες κατὰ λίμνην•
268 καί νύ κεν ἐξετέλεσσεν ἐπεὶ μέγα οἱ σθένος ἦεν,
269 εἰ μὴ ἄρ’ ὀξὺ νόησε πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε.
270 καὶ τότ’ ἀπολλυμένους βατράχους ᾤκτειρε Κρονίων,
271 κινήσας δὲ κάρη τοίην ἐφθέγξατο φωνήν•
272 ῍Ω πόποι ἦ μέγα θαῦμα τόδ’ ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ὁρῶμαι•
273 [οὐ μικρόν με πλήσσει Mεριδάρπαξ ὃς κατὰ λίμνην ]
274 ῞aρπαξ ἐν βατράχοισιν ἀμείβεται• ἀλλὰ τάχιστα
275 Παλλάδα πέμψωμεν πολεμόκλονον ἢ καὶ ῎Αρηα,
276 οἵ μιν ἐπισχήσουσι μάχης κρατερόν περ ἐόντα.
277 ῝Ως ἄρ’ ἔφη Κρονίδης• ῎Αρης δ’ ἀπαμείβετο μύθῳ•
278 οὔτ’ ἄρ’ ᾿Αθηναίης Κρονίδη σθένος οὔτε ῎Αρηος
279 ἰσχύει βατράχοισιν ἀμυνέμεν αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον.
280 ἀλλ’ ἄγε πάντες ἴωμεν ἀρηγόνες• ἢ τὸ σὸν ὅπλον
281 κινείσθω• οὕτω γὰρ ἁλώσεται ὅς τις ἄριστος,
282 ὥς ποτε καὶ Καπανῆα κατέκτανες ὄβριμον ἄνδρα
283 καὶ μέγαν ᾿Εγκελάδοντα καὶ ἄγρια φῦλα Γιγάντων.