latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
the base of operations for Roman offensives, being measures from which
Trajan later benefited. As F. Millar has shown, from the reign of Vespasian
the Roman presence in the eastern border region was consistently and systematically
strengthened, intensifying civil and military control over the
region. 124 A link between imperial eastern policy and Parthian reaction may
be understood in a notice in Cassius Dio’s account of the second false Nero,
where Artabanus’ motive in aiding the usurper is annoyance at Titus. 125
That high-ranking Parthians concerned themselves officially with dubious
pretenders is explicable in terms of their deploying these ‘Neros’ as a threat
to impress upon the Flavians that the basis of peaceful relations was political
negotiation. This aside, internal feuding over the Parthian throne may also
have played a part, 126 though this is difficult to ascertain. As far as we are
concerned, it is noteworthy that the Parthian Empire was twice seduced by
false Neros.
Excursus: three troublemakers of the late Republic
The cases dealt with so far, from the period of the early Principate, fall
within a pattern of incidents of vengeance for victims of political disaster
which, mutatis mutandis, also characterises three occurrences of the late
Republic. I have deliberately postponed discussion of these, contrary to their
chronological order, and have accorded them less importance than my other
examples by placing them at the end of this chapter. This is because they
lack not only a dynastic background, natural enough in a Republican context,
but also, any personal relationship between avenged and avenger. In
the cases looked at so far, this was either explicit or highly likely and was
decisive in stimulating the avenger to action. What we have here, therefore,
is not personal vengeance but mischief carried out under an assumed name
with the wrongful aim of obtaining political power.
The first case is that of a certain Equitius. 127 He first stepped on to the
political stage in 102 bc when he claimed to be a son of Tiberius Gracchus.
The tribune of the people, L. Appuleius Saturninus, infamous for his many
street fights, discovered in Equitius and his charismatic personality an ally as
faithful as he was unscrupulous. The main political issue of the day was the
providing of Marius’ veterans with land and the founding of new colonies.
Equitius, of course, did not operate under his own name, which we know of
only through a later author. 128 The inhabitants of the city of Rome had a soft
spot for the name of Tiberius Gracchus: their expectations were aroused
by the political programme that was associated with it. The mob asked no
questions and accepted Equitius as a descendant of the Gracchi. No one
really knew who he was and where he came from. 129 He was a man ‘without
nation, testimonial or family’. 130 That he was termed a freedman131 or, occasionally,
even a runaway slave, 132 need not correspond to the truth, since it
could be just a simple and effective means of disparaging him by his enemies.
154