latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
were, as Valerius Maximus put it, ‘of the lowest birth’. The explanation for
this lies in the especially intimate relationship between masters and slaves,
which programmed slaves in general, and slaves of rulers in particular (whose
privileged status was directly bound up with the political fate of their
masters), to become the avengers of their owners.
Our sources locate the following of the imposters for the most part among
those who had come down in the world: adventurers, subversives, deserters
and runaway slaves – in short, among the scum of society. In line with the
elitist viewpoint of senatorial historiography, this also included the plebs
urbana, which had given support to the three agitators of the late Republic.
Insofar as these reports peter out in such mass categorisation, they have little
to offer that is solid regarding the real background of the respective adherents.
Since, by and large, our authors take a semi-official line in what they
say, they are inclined to caricature those who followed pretenders in order
to criminalise and marginalise them. Whatever their social background,
they are condemned by their having supported a political gambler. The false
Agrippa is an exception here since, according the Tacitus, he eventually
counted senators and equestrians among his backers. However, given Tacitus’
clear authorial strategy at this point, this report is suspect. The false Alexander
enjoyed the backing of whole population groups and of civil and military
officials. Evident in this case, and likely elsewhere, pretenders of this type
collected around themselves followers from every level of society. Thus, however
different may have been the motives of their individual supporters, they
were all bound together by the opportunity to express protest against a
current regime, i.e., to practise political resistance.
In the event, although no imposter precipitated a new political crisis or
even dramatically aggravated one that was already in existence, the ways in
which the authorities they challenged reacted were distinguished by wavering
helplessness more than by firm decision. The regular workings of the
state could do nothing against the false Gracchus: he was, on the contrary,
like his supposed father, killed in a riot. Mark Antony had ‘Marius’ grandson’
executed without trial. Tiberius dared not proceed openly against the
false Agrippa Postumus, but to avoid a public fuss had him done away with
by covert methods. The first false Nero evidently stirred up so much unrest
that, as proof of his death, his head was put on a stake and exhibited in
Rome. There was never an immediate or smooth settlement of the situation.
The imposters had known only too well how to exploit the potential for
protest of politically discontented groups.
Reduced to a common denominator, the avengers discussed here appear
as a typical phenomenon of political crisis under the late Republic and the
early Empire. Their designation as latrones, and that of their followers as
gangs hungry for booty, should therefore be seen as political invective.
160