Roman History 

The historical source that is taken is Galgacus: on Roman Imperialism. As this is written in the form of a speech on an empire and how it functions, it can be called a primary source. There are several opinions and ideas that area related tot his speech which can be deemed as secondary sources. .The narrator has used the examples of occurrences and other witnessed sources to identify the position of the Romans. Galgacus was known as the first Caledonian who had fought the Roman army of Gnaeus Julius Agrocila. This happened at the battle of Mons Gaupius which had taken place in northern Scotland. The source contains the speech that is given by Tacitus, the historian of Agricola mentioned that he is the most distinguished and the most powerful among the chieftains.

The context of this document highlights the situation of war and criticizes the Roman Empire. Along with that it mainly attempts to focus on freedom of the Britons from the imperialist company of Romans. The speech contains a vivid explanation of the entities that are held captive by the imperialist Roman Empire. The idea of freedom is thus seen to be of central focus in this context. The idea of freedom was viewed as a past object and they wanted to break free in order to get over the present tyranny and retrieve their glorious past .The context contains a speech which focuses on the treatment and consequences that the people of Agricola and the Britons will have to face as the Romans decide to barge in. On the same line of thought, the speech celebrates Britons. Thus the main theme of the document revolves around the quality and strength of the Britons and the cruel treatment of the Roman Empire. The historian mentions that the nature or the environment around us is designed in the manner that it is supposed to treat every individual as humans. This can be seen from the speech “Nature has willed that every man’s children and kindred should be his dearest objects”. The narrator who has written the speech provides a clear contrast which shows the difference between the imperialism of the Romans and the Britons .With respect to war and political turbulence, the speech has brought out the importance of relationships and families in the lives of an individual. It has portrayed the Roman Empire to be insensitive who do not understand such humanly bonds and relationships. They are compared to be leaders and rulers who do not understand the importance of friends and families in the lives of people.

Considering its reliability, it is seen that the historian Tacitus had chronicled the occurrences of the past to make the coming generations understand about the barbarianism of the Roman Empire. The historian Tacitus mentions that “If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them”.  It vividly describes the picture of both the societies and Tacitus was known to experience the political sphere of the Roman society and imbibe the knowledge of the Agricola. This had equipped him to prepare this speech and expose the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the historian, Tacitus is known to provide unreliable information as his works are inspired by secondary sources which do not provide any concrete reliability. Although there is no such known statement regarding this speech, the historical records of this historian is not seen to be trustworthy.

This speech has shed light upon the idea of roman men and their political agenda of helping out the allies. Rome was known to establish connections by providing other states with military protection from their enemies and also supporting them with forces for war.  The topic deals with the exposure of the roman leaders and the indictment of their empire. The Romans were compared to the robbers of the world and the vivid description of the roman rulers signifies the specific period of roman imperialism which had affected a lot of different people. Along with that this period is said to be highlighting the period of roman imperialism.  It started from 31BC to AD 476.  This period saw the end of roman republic and the death of Julius Caesar. This period witnessed the death of Julies Caser which led to Augustus caser to come to power. Augustus creaser was seen as an efficient ruler who had reformed always and wanted to contribute to the development of the structure of the city. However, Augustus Caser had also died during this period which made the city face slight disruption and the development came to a sudden pause. This speech shows the period which had led to the decline of Rome. The constant outflow of treasures due to the internal and external wars and crippling condition of the economy and deterioration of infrastructure had ultimately contributed to end the imperialistic empire. It had finally collapsed in AD 476 and the eastern empire continued to function as the Byzantine Empire had ended in AD 1453. The narrator also focuses on the greed of the Romans as they aim to procure gold and silver. The narrator throws light upon their inhumane treatment that is inflicted towards others as the Romans plunder and decide to snatch such previous items from others. On the other hand, these precious objects can make someone wealthy, but they do not protect a nation or the country men.  It says that the Romans do not contribute to develop the country or the towns as the rulers are not efficient they are dishonest and oppressive which affects the people of the town. The narrator has mentioned at the end of the speech that they should be warned. They should carefully plan out their purpose and strategies in the battle for their prosperity instead of attacking other places. They should aim to build the nation internally instead of aiming to capture other places.