Tacitus' Annales need to be read with a cautious and careful eye, as he is a master of adding layers to his account, and picking through his use of hearsay/rumour, his use of facts and archival reports, and his own interpretation is difficult.
As regards Germanicus in particular, we can read at least a partially contradictory account in the Annales - scholars may argue that Germanicus' role is played up as a foil to Tiberius, to contrast with the latter's "bad behaviour" (as judged by an assumed standard in imperial behaviour - Tacitus can be argued to be putting this forward throughout the Annales - apologies for merely referring to it without detail). On on the other hand, Germanicus' behaviour and success to failure ratio point to something slightly different: he is not the "glorious successor" that one might easily assume/Augustus was (maybe) hoping for.
So, all in all: CAUTION!
And another apology: I have not referenced my "scholars" or arguments here, but if I get a minute I will add that in.
Bookmarks