The case against Tacitus is that he was not an impartial historian. He was not from a neutral state, he was a Roman watching a battle in which the Roman army was involved; he was not impartial in his relationship to the Roman commander, Agricola was his father-in-law and the higher he was promoted the more honour the family would receive and the greater the chances that Tacitus would be promoted. He was not impartial to the prestige of the Emperor but saw himself as a loyal citizen of Rome, a faithful servant of the Emperor. How could he therefore give an impartial, unbiased account of what happened ? If Tacitus was in a modern court of law the judge would warn the jury about the obvious bias of the eye witness and then let the jury make up its own mind. The defence lawyer might even ask that the testimony be ruled inadmissible because of the partiality of the witness.

Visit the | Caledonian 1 | page for info on the Roman invasion of Scotland.