|
|
Post by Dominique Martin on Dec 15, 2016 3:48:31 GMT
So I'm not sure if this is how Agricola really was, or if Tacitus wasjust describing him as such because he was his son in-law, be he seams like a great military personnel. Though we don't get to see as many strategical moves like we do with Caesar, it still gives us bits of his personality and his thought process. Not only did he win battles but he started temples and courts of justice. This indicates his sense of law, truth and morals. Tying this into previous threads, it's not that Roman didn't have morals but maybe they just weren't shown very effectively?
|
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Dec 16, 2016 15:21:11 GMT
You're getting there. They did have morals, and they have been shown very effectively in MOST of the texts we have read thus far, but the morals of the Romans were certainly different than those which we take for granted in our own day. I urge you to approach the text with a more open mind: this is a pre-Christian world, and the Romans were probably the greatest of the pre-Christian civilizations, including their sense of right and wrong, and their drive to be "great."
For example, according to Tacitus, and others, what is "the good?" How doe we measure the quality of a man? Who are the good guys and bad guys, and why? Be sure to supply evidence to support your argument.
|
|
