latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
5 Maternus and the Bellum Desertorum
Among the vicissitudes of Commodus’ reign the author of the Historia Augusta
(HA) records a bellum desertorum, a ‘deserters’ war’, 101 but fails to give more
than this bare mention. Herodian, on the other hand, pays great attention
to an uprising under Commodus, nowadays fittingly referred to – using the
HA’s term – as the Bellum Desertorum. 102 Its ringleader was a deserter called
Maternus, who had assembled a band of deserters and other miscreants.
With this he first terrorised the western provinces and then finally devised
a plot to assassinate Commodus, which was thwarted at the last minute. All
this represents the barest summary of the facts presented by Herodian, in a
narrative packed with dramatic detail. Dio must also have dealt with the
incident, but this part of his text has failed to come down to us. However,
since his ‘History’ served as Herodian’s major source, 103 we may assume that
the latter’s treatment of the revolt of Maternus derives from it.
Scholars have, for various reasons, given the uprising great attention. For
many decades it was regarded as the forerunner of the Bagaudic movement
in late antique Gaul and Spain. 104 Recently, this interpretation has been
revitalised by reference to archaeological discoveries, both old and (relatively)
new. 105 G. Alföldy, following E. Hohl, has provided a penetrating
analysis of the Herodian account. 106 Alföldy’s findings are influenced by a
basic scepticism concerning Herodian’s reliability, for which he has also
made a case elsewhere. 107 He concludes, pessimistically: ‘Herodian’s only
authentically important contribution to the War of the Deserters is that he
gives the name of its leader, Maternus.’ 108 In studies of Roman robbers and
bandits Maternus figures prominently thanks simply to the detailed report
we have of him. Here, as a result of his attempt at usurpation, he is usually
seen as an imperial challenger109 and like Bulla Felix, classed – incorrectly –
as a ‘noble’ bandit. 110
Here Maternus is also categorised as a usurper, even though we have no
idea whether his bid to overthrow Commodus and make himself emperor is
an authentic historical phenomenon or just something dreamt up by Herodian
or his source. What matters, as in the case of Bulla Felix, is not the historical
personality but the stylised figure. In this sense, Maternus was indeed an
imperial challenger. However, unlike Bulla he will not turn out to be a
‘noble’ bandit – to be set against the emperor as the embodiment of princely
virtues. He represents the common bandit, driven solely by lower, selfish
passions, such as the lust for booty and power.
The dating of the events which involved Maternus depends essentially on
whether one believes that in his revolt we are dealing with a movement that
developed over a number of years and spread over a wide area, or with a
single eruption that was limited in extent and time. In the latter case, the
incident is to be dated to 185/186. The chronological indicators derive first
from Herodian, whose report on Maternus immediately follows that on the
124