latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
at the time was in the hands of the Metelli and the Servilii Caepiones, who tried to
impair the Scipionic pre-eminence in Spain as part of their struggle against Scipio
Aemilianus at Rome’.
107 Ibid. 162.
108 Flor. 1.33.15: aliter vinci non posse. (Trans. Forster, Loeb)
109 A. Schulten, s.v. Sertorius no. 3, RE II A, 1929, 1746–53. Wieser, Kleinkrieg
(n. 41), 105–30. Ch. F. Konrad, A Historical Commentary on Plutarch’s Life of Sertorius,
diss. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 1985.
110 Val. Max. 7.3.6: proscriptione Sullana dux Lusitanorum fieri coactus; cf. App. Civ.
1.108.505ff.
111 Sertorius’ aims were clearly very Roman: Plut. Sert. 22.5.
112 Plut. Sert. 12.5; 13.3. Plut. Pomp. 17.2.
113 Plut. Sert. 21.5.
114 Strab. 3.4.6 p. 159. On the locality see E. Hübner, s.v. Dianium 2, RE V, 1905,
340f.
115 Plut. Sert. 7.3; cf. 9.1.
116 Schulten, ‘Sertorius’ (n. 109), 1751.
117 App. Civ. 1.112.522. Plut. Sert. 13. Val. Max. 7.3.6.
118 Plut. Sert. 13. Plut. Pomp. 17.2.
119 Plut. Sert. 18.1: leistrikes mallon e stratiotikes hegoumenon dynameos.
120 Ibid. 14.1: anti leisteriou megalou stration epoieto ten dynamin.
121 Plut. Pomp. 20.2; Plut. Sert. 26.3–6.
122 Here, surely, Sallust: Schulten, ‘Sertorius’ (n. 109), 1752f.
123 App. Civ. 1.112.520.
124 App. Civ. 1.110.514. Plut. Sert. 11.2–4. Val. Max. 1.2.4.
125 Plut. Sert. 11.3.
126 Plut. Sert. 11.2.
127 Diod. 34/35.2.5–9; 2.22. Flor. 2.7.4f.
128 Diod. 36.4.4.
129 Diod. 36.5.1.
130 Tac. Ann. 2.52; 3.20f.; 3.32; 3.73f.; 4.23–26. Aur. Vict. Caes. 2.3. Stein, s.v.
Tacfarinas, RE IV A, 1932, 1985–87. R. Syme, ‘Tacfarinas, the Musulamii and
Thubursicu’, in Studies in Honor of A.C. Johnson, Princeton 1951, 113–30 (= R.
Syme, Roman Papers I, ed. E. Badian, Oxford 1979, 218–30). Dyson, ‘Native Revolt
Patterns’ 163f. M. Bénabou, La résistance africaine contre la romanisation, Paris 1980,
75–84. O. Devillers, ‘Le rôle des passages relatifs à Tacfarinas dans les Annales de
Tacite’, in A. Mastino, ed., L’Africa romana, vol. VIII 1, Cagliari 1990, 203–11.
Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 39–67.
131 He was probably not, as Tacitus claims, a Numidian: Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft
(n. 1), 42 n. 97.
132 See the review in Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 3f., esp. n. 86.
133 Most recently Devillers, ‘Le rôle’ (n. 130), 205, with earlier bibliography in n. 11.
134 Tac. Ann. 3.73.1: . . . ut legatos ad Tiberium mitteret (sc. Tacfarinas) sedemque ultro sibi
atque exercitui suo postularet etc.
135 G. Alföldy, ‘La politique provinciale de Tibère’, Latomus 24, 1965, (824–44) 837.
136 V.A. Sirago, ‘Tacfarinas’, in L’Africa romana, vol. V, Sassari 1987, (199–204) 199f.
137 J.-M. Lassère, ‘Un conflit “routier”: observations sur les causes de la guerre de
Tacfarinas’, Antiquités africaines 18, 1982, 11–25.
138 Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 56f.
139 Tac. Ann. 3.73.2.
140 Ibid. 4.23.1; 2.
141 Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 45–7.
142 Tac. Ann. 2.52.1.
184