We recently released a video paying homage to the powerful and inspirational speech said to have been delivered before the battle of Mons Graupius by Galgacus, renowned chieftain of the Caledonii. The speech is one that echoes through time, and its eternal wisdom calls to us today as much as it likely did to the mighty and Noble Caledonii to whom it was delivered two thousand years ago.
Among historical communities there is much debate as to the authenticity of the speech. This controversy even extends to the existence of Galgacus and the battle of Mons Graupius itself. Tacitus, being the only direct reference to the events that day, has lead many to simply dismiss the whole event or at least parts of it as mere fantasy. Given only one source, what truth can we ascertain? Can we really say with any certainty what occurred that day? Did this inspirational event ever take place, that, from the mouth of a noble Caledonian Chieftain came one of the greatest battle cries of history?
In this piece I will take a look at the claims above, and try my best to answer three main questions
Did the battle even take place?
Did Galgacus exist?
And if he did, did he really author such words?
Before we do so though, it is important we get a little back story on Tacitus’ famous work, Agricola.
PREFACE
The books full title is “On the Life and Character of Julius Agricola” and much as you would expect relays the life and deeds of this prestigious citizen. In the book it is clear that Tacitus, who by virtue of marrying Agricola’s daughter was his son-in-law, has a great admiration for Agricola. The book is at times both touching and beautiful in its veneration of Agricola’s life.
The story of Agricola’s life though is only one aspect of the book, the second being the backdrop upon which his life unfurled: the Roman Empire. It is clear Tacitus believes his father-in-law to have been done a great disservice by Rome. Namely that his great actions and admirable character had been diminished by tyrannical leaders, even suggesting a possible assassination of Agricola. The book thus becomes a rather fascinating indictment of Rome’s corruption.
Whilst Tacitus is sure to praise the current emperor Trajan, he makes little effort to hide his contempt for the tyranny and debased state of Rome. Tacitus believes that Rome was once a place of heroic and noble ideal that admired and rewarded greatness, but had in more recent times abandoned its admiration of all that was “good” in favour of jealousy and greed. This backdrop places Agricola as a “forgotten hero” of the Empire, whose greatness was underplayed and who may of even been murdered to remove him as a possible challenger to the Roman “throne”.
I will save a full review of this book for another time, but this short backstory is important to understand if we are to make an honest assessment of the claims within of Galgacus and the Caledonii.
DID THE BATTLE EVEN TAKE PLACE?
First we must assess why there is no other record of the battle, I mean such a prominent victory in northern Britain, should have inspired more accounts, right? Well, if Tacitus is correct in that this man’s greatness was seen as a threat to the Roman elite, then this could easily account for the lack of reports. Annoying an emperor in Rome by praising a political opponent was very rarely a shrewd move if you valued your freedom and head, that is. This is backed up by the fact that there are so few accounts of Agricola’s life even though he amassed many Roman honours. Of course this does not prove the claims of the war to be true, it just gives us motive as to why it may have been obscured.
There is no doubt that Roman writers tended to embellish victories. Often we read of accounts where almost no losses were taken on the side of Rome, whilst they amass almost super human level casualties upon their foes. This is no different In Tacitus’ recounting of the battle of Mons Graupius, . This does not however mean no battle took place, just that it might be lacking in certain details, such as the real casulatie numbers and extent of the Roman victory.
Given that Agricola’s most famous achievement was conquering Wales and the northern reaches of Britain, I would find it almost impossible to believe he never once came face to face in open battle with the most notorious stalwart to Roman domination, the Caledonii. They are well recorded in later times as a constant thorn in Rome’s side. A Roman general marching northward with dreams of Conquest and Glory would have certainly come up against their ferocious nature. Even if Tacitus’ account is a little “over the top”, and the exact manner of the battle is not accurately portrayed, I would find it very hard to believe no such battle ever occurred.
DID GALGACUS EXIST?
This question is a little more difficult, but I believe an examination of the evidence can help us make a reasonable assumption. According to Tacitus, Agricola was not only a great military general, but a “peoples leader”, who would whenever possible use praise and persuasion over military might to acheive his aims. His personable nature and his very real presence in the northern most confines of Britain, means Agricola would have been well acquainted with local leaders, if not by direct association, then through the mouths of others. If a chieftain by the name of Galgacus did exist, he would certainly know of him and by association so too would Tacitus. As for knowledge of local leadership, given his father-in-law’s position in Roman occupied Britain, there would be no authority higher than that of Agricola, which only adds validation to Tacitus’ word.
There is also the point that whilst Agricola would have been the highest authority on such matters, he would not have been the only one. Many other Roman officials would of also been well acquainted with local leadership, which only adds to the truth of Tacitus’ claims that such a man existed. If Tacitus did indeed just make up this chieftain, then surely others would know. Thus making up such a claim would only invalidate anything Tacitus said and undermine his attempt to highlight Agricola’s noble deeds, something I doubt such a gifted and respected writer would do. It would serve no purpose at all to make up the character Galgacus, when using a real one would not only be easy for Tacitus, but also help back up his other claims.
Again although we cannot know exactly, we are left in a situation where it makes much less sense for it to be a falsehood than for it to be the truth.
IS THE SPEECH BY GALGACUS AUTHENTIC?
This is of course the most controversial aspect of the claims made by Tacitus regarding the Caledonii and Galgacus. The Speech, like much of Tacitus’ work Agricola, is a damming indictment of Rome. It lays bare with brutal honesty the nature of empire, its lack of noble ideal, its universal plunder and its cruel egotistical rulers. The first question then that would come to mind, is did Tacitus word his disdain for modern Rome through the mouth of a foreign leader, thus avoiding accusation of his own contempt? Whilst this is plausible, given that Tacitus uses equally as strong accusations in other parts of his work, where the words can not be mistaken for anyone’s but his own, it would make it a rather pointless endeavour to conceal his personal disdain in such a way. This does not however rule out him using the speech to back up his own concerns: a foreign leader mimicking his accusations would only add validation to his claims. It would also show that the nature of Rome had become such that foreign nations no longer held Rome in a state of awe but in one of contempt. Serving to highlight the problems with Rome, not just from an idealistic position, but also from a tactical one.
All of this could easily make us dismiss the speech as nothing more than personal propaganda against Rome. Yet, like that with the question of the existence of Galgacus, if any Roman knew what was said that day, it would be Agricola and thus Tacitus. Agricola, as a thorough general would have also been well aware of what the Caledonii were saying about Rome. Agricola lead a significant military campaign in Britain, and according to Tacitus had made as many friends as enemies, even turning defeated tribes into firm allies, whose men now marched in his army. This means that even if the exact wording may have been made a little more colourful by Tacitus, the sentiments that lie within could certainly be the genuine feelings of the Caledonii.
We also have the nature of the Caledonii themselves to consider. There can be little argument that the Caledonii held their freedom in the highest regard. After Agricola had come and gone, they continued to harass the Roman forces in the North. In spite of Rome’s overwhelming might, within the Caledonii raged a furious fire that never dwindled, in victory or defeat. Hadrian’s wall was built to pen them in, this though was not enough. After constant harassment, Roman emperor Antonius Pius built a second wall further north, in an effort to further destroy Caledonian resistance. This though was no immovable object, and the unstoppable force that was the Caledonii made its legacy short lived. Later efforts to reconquer it all ended in vain. The Caledonii never fully succumbed to the might of Rome, and never showed fear in its presence.
SUMMARY
This nobility of character and admirable nature of the Caledonii, whether exact wording or not, is for me at least, reflected with beauty and accuracy by the words Tacitus places in the mouth of Galgacus. The words pierce the ages and after hitting our ears ring in our hearts. Forcing us to remember them, the noble and defiant Caledonii. No matter the brutality or apparent might of Rome these men stood tall and proud at every asking. The speech speaks like an epitaph of a great people, that once was and can be again. Serving as a memory, a memory most needed in our time, to remember that their blood still pumps in the hearts of our men, and their spirit still takes breath in our lungs.