latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
descendant of Judas, seems to have been pre-destined to become an active
opponent of Rome. With a group of like-minded individuals he made his
way to Masada and there stormed the royal armoury. Josephus tells us that
with the weapons he acquired here he armed his fellow countrymen and
other bandits and returned to Jerusalem with these as his lifeguard. Here he
put himself at the head of the uprising and undertook command of the siege
of the fortress of Antonia. 48 Because Menahem, in contrast to the leaders of
other rebel groups, set himself up as ‘tyrant’, he was overthrown by Eleazar,
later leader of the Sicarii in Masada. 49 Menahem’s monarchical ambitions, of
which he also made open demonstration through his costly regal garb, make
it plain that he was motivated by lofty political aspirations, and these prevent
him being described as a social bandit. 50
This series of portraits of Jewish leistai, taken from Josephus, could be
extended much further without significantly extending our knowledge of
the type of bandit with which we are confronted. Concerning the social
background of those involved, as well as what drove them to take part in
acts of violence, Josephus’ bland descriptions usually prevent us from learning
anything in any detail. In any case, all the bandits we have come across
looked to – sometimes very indistinct – political ends, which they pursued
resolutely. They cannot be shown to be social bandits according to
Hobsbawm’s model. The fact that Josephus categorises rebels from different
social backgrounds, variously motivated and with a multiplicity of goals,
globally as leistai is, inter alia, an expression of contempt, both Roman and
his own, for their breed. The term leistes brings out a common characteristic
which, indeed, those involved had made their own and which has already
been touched upon more than once: they used force to pursue political ends.
‘Pursuit of political ends’ is, of course, a neutral expression which no one
would use if, like Josephus, they were judging matters in a partisan fashion.
From his point of view, he was dealing with people who were acting illegally
in attempting to win themselves a position of power, i.e., with usurpers.
For ‘usurper’ Latin had latro, Greek leistes. In the many Jewish leistai we
should see usurpers, great and small, a usage which is not peculiar to Josephus,
but which was entirely normal in Antiquity.
This may be confirmed by a further observation. In his ‘Jewish Antiquities’
Josephus records a model instance of the development of a ‘robber band’
in the Middle East during the first century ad. The brothers Asinaeus and
Anilaeus were involved. In a recent publication Brent Shaw has widened our
understanding of the episode within the wider context of ‘tyrants, bandits
and kings’ in the works of Josephus. 51 Here we are interested in only one
particular aspect of the case. In his report on Asinaeus and Anilaeus, Josephus,
very unusually, does not restrict himself to his stereotype – that certain
leistai had gathered round themselves the poor, the destitute, slaves and
other riff raff to elevate themselves as tyrants, and with their following had
98