latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
representative of Roman public opinion. In John’s case, next to his political
opposition to Rome his personal hostility to Josephus played a crucial role
in his degradation. Judge and condemned man were from the same level in
society; on the judge, Josephus, however, pressed the charge of being a
quisling. So Josephus, the apologist, sat at once on the bench and in the
dock. His verdict was that the accused, John, was a ‘bandit’. In this way he
defended himself against the unspoken reproach of his former comrade,
who could at least claim that he had never changed sides and had always
remained true to his cause.
The personal dimension which formed Josephus’ opinion of John of Gischala
is lacking in the case of the other Jewish rebel to whom he gives special
attention, Simon bar Giora. 103 Simon appears for the first time in Josephus’
account at the start of the Jewish War, attacking Roman troops under the
governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus. 104 Like John of Gischala before him,
Josephus deals with Simon in great detail, appropriate to his importance in
the conflict. 105 He tells us that Simon came from Gerasa, was not as cunning
as John, but was his superior in strength and courage. Originally, he had
‘acted’ the ruler in the toparchy of Acrabatene, in the north of Judaea, but
was expelled from here by the high priest Ananus. He then joined the
Sicarii, who held Masada. They had received him with some reluctance, but
then repulsed his attempt to become their leader. Josephus reckons that
Simon’s aim was tyranny. When he learned of the death of Ananus, he left
Masada and set up a gang in the mountains, promising slaves freedom and
freemen prizes, in this way gathering around himself all the rascals of the
locality. 106 This could have been Tacitus speaking: among other things, his
‘bandits’ are characterised by their frequent resorting to the mobilisation of
slaves and the scum of society. 107 But Tacitus’ bandits are not the only ones
to share this feature. Hirtius, the continuator of Julius Caesar’s ‘Commentaries’
on the Gallic War, accuses the hostile leader of the Senones, Drappes,
of gathering around himself depraved scoundrels ( perditi homines), of inciting
slaves to flee to freedom (servis ad libertatem vocatis), of sending for the exiles
from every tribe (exulibus omnium gentium adscitis) and, finally, of recruiting
bandits to his ranks (receptis latronibus). 108 Given these analogies, it is likely
that similar tales of Simon bar Giora’s activities were devised simply to
complete the horrifying picture being painted by Josephus. They can hardly
be testimony for the authentic, ‘quasi-royal’ measures that O. Michel wishes
to see in them. 109 Contrary to Michel’s view, Simon’s revolutionary machinations
are very much in line with Josephus’ picture of a Hellenistic/Oriental
tyrant or, specifically in respect of the last, of a bandit leader destroying the
social order. 110
Josephus’ account of the career of Simon ‘the bandit’ is so conventional
that it is interchangeable with that of many another robber of the Roman
period. He begins with Simon’s aiming at tyrannical rule and, generally,
‘greatness’. 111 Whatever the precise meaning of this, ‘tyrant’ signals that this
104