latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
explicitly states, Simon even had himself proclaimed king. Thus he too
should be classified not as a social bandit but rather as a usurper.
A further leistes, likewise connected with the troubles following the death
of Herod I, deserves our attention. Josephus tells of a man called Athronges, 31
a shepherd of supposedly colossal physical size and strength, who had himself
proclaimed king by his ‘band’, and may thus also be regarded as a
usurper. The giant herdsman of superhuman strength was a cliché, of which,
for example, the author of the Historia Augusta was particularly fond in
stereotyping semi-barbarian rulers. 32 Professed bodily powers were of course
associated with corresponding spiritual deficiencies. But Athronges appears
to have been more than a daring but stupid herdsman. He organised his
followers into four regiments under the command of his four brothers.
According to Josephus, these four ‘bands’ covered the whole of Judaea in
their plundering missions though their victims of choice were Romans or
Jews loyal to Herod Antipas. 33 Since the latter were synonymous with sections
of the local aristocracy and since both aristocrats and Romans could be
seen as exploiters and oppressors of the impoverished rural population,
Athronges’ movement may be ascribed a political motivation. Josephus cites
as the most dramatic engagement of this group its attack on a Roman cohort
which was transporting grain and weapons to its mother legion. Arrius, the
centurion commanding the unit, lost his life in the assault. His comrade,
Gratus, who had already proved himself in the fight against the usurper
Simon, managed to put Athronges’ men to flight, though without defeating
them. It took time for these regiments to be defeated, one by one.
Josephus ends his report of the series of leistai that had disturbed the land
after Herod’s death with a summary that confirms that all leistai pursued
political ends. This is expressed in his observation that absolutely anyone
who knew he had the backing of some insurgent group or other had himself
proclaimed king. 34 They all exploited the political insecurity associated with
the change of ruler following the death of Herod I 35 to set themselves up as
local men of power. Poverty and distress among the peasantry will have
certainly been one of the driving forces behind the insurgency movements, 36
but only one among many. These cases do not fulfil the specific criteria of
social banditry. The men concerned are leistai only because Josephus describes
them as such.
After the period of troubles caused by pandemic banditry, between the
death of Herod and the provincialisation of Judaea (4 bc–ad 6), Josephus’
reports of ‘bandits’ cease for a while. 37 With the end of the reign of Agrippa
I in ad 44, i.e., once again in a situation in which there was major change in
the governance of the land, there begins a new series of references to leistai,
of which the following serve as examples.
In 44 or 45, the procurator C. Cuspius Fadus ordered the execution of an
archileistes named Tholomaius, who for a long period had plundered the
border region of Idumaea and Arabia. Besides, thanks to his hard-line policy,
96