Is Tacitus a reliable source?I've become convinced there are no valid arguments against Tacitus. The people who don't like Tacitus never give a reason based on a specific detail of his writing that they disagree with.
The "reasons" given are always in the vein of "Tacitus was RoMaN" "He was a plagiarist" "Saxo says he just wrote what his bishop told him to"
1. Being Roman doesn't invalidate him. What he wrote was based on information collected from people who had written what they learned when they interacted with Germanics and traveled/campaigned in their lands.
2. The academic standard of the day was different and sources were handled differently back then so if he was a plagiarist then everyone else writing at the time was too
3. Saxo never actually said that. Also he was writing more than a thousand years after Tacitus (a pagan) died and also had a clear pro Christian bias in the Gesta Danorum (commissioned by a Danish Archbishop) so I fail to see how this fake quote is an argument or how Saxo is a more reliable source than Tacitus who applauded the virtues of the Germanics as opposed to the disdain Saxo seems to display at times for pre Christian culture.
I suspect the reason people take shots at Tacitus is because they want to believe the cool germanic barbarians didn't have rules. If Tacitus can be invalidated then we don't have a reason to believe the germanic people expected their boys to wait until the age of manhood before having sex, or that they punished dishonorable crimes like homosexuality.
Christians didn't invent morality. The Bible didn't introduce the first laws. Pagan cultures weren't anarchies. If we allow Tacitus to be thrown out these people will just continue to attack evidence and sources indicating pagans had structured and rules based societies until there is nothing left. Then they can make up whatever foolishness they want to and claim authenticity.
@Folk_Spirit