latrones - Get a Free Blog

NOTES
143 B.D. Shaw, ‘Fear and Loathing: The Nomad Menace and Roman Africa’, Revue de
l’Université d’Ottawa 52, 1982, (25–46) 38, questions the historicity of the desertion.
In his view, Tacfarinas and his men were called up by the Roman army for
military duties and, after their demobilisation, were never employed again. They
then scraped a living as bandits. This is possible but without further proof is
unproveable. In any case, from the Roman point of view – of crucial importance for
this study since it alone determines what a bandit was – Tacfarinas was considered
a deserter.
144 W. Seston, s.v. Fahnenflucht, RAC VII, 1969, 284–6. J. Rüpke, Domi militiae
(n. 47), 79f. M. Vallejo Girvés, ‘Sobre la persecucion y el castigo a los desertores en
el ejercito de Roma’, Polis 5, 1993, 241–51.
145 Menand. Dig. 49.16.5.1ff.
146 Menand. Dig. 49.16.4.14: levius itaque delictum emansionis habetur, ut erronis in servis,
desertionis gravius, ut in fugitivis. The parallel between soldiers and slaves is also to be
seen in the practice of branding, intended to discourage both desertion and flight.
For evidence and discussion of this see Bellen, Sklavenflucht 26.
147 Menand. Dig. 49.16.5 pr.: Non omnes desertores similiter puniendi sunt, sed habetur . . .
aliudve quid crimen desertioni adiunxerit etc.
148 Servi fugitivi and deserters as the nuclei of robber-bands occur in Basil. Ep. 268 (ad
377) and Cod. Theod. 7.18.15 = Cod. Iust. 12.45.3 (ad 406); see Bellen, Sklavenflucht
115.
149 E.g., Tac. Ann. 3.20.1: vagi populationes; 3.21.4: spargit bellum, ubi instaretur, cedens ac
rursum in terga remeans.
150 Tac. Ann. 3.74.1–3. Wieser, Kleinkrieg (n. 41), 131–41.
151 Tac. Ann. 3.21.1. A decimation was also carried out in a similar situation during
the war against Spartacus, see below, p. 69.
152 E. Sander, ‘Das römische Militärstrafrecht’, RhM 103, 1960, (289–319) 290f.
153 Tac. Ann. 2.52.1: eodem anno coeptum in Africa bellum, duce hostium Tacfarinate. Cf.
3.20.1; 4.23.1.
154 Tac. Ann. 4.24.1: cuncti, quibus libertas servitio potior etc.
155 For the occasionally loaded use of the term libertas in Tacitus’ reports of tribal
uprisings see E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, Bd. II, Heidelberg 1965,
98 = a commentary on Ann. 4.24.1; Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 57f., esp.
n. 198.
156 Tac. Ann. 2.52.1: vagi . . . et latrociniis sueti.
157 Ibid. 4.23.2: quis fortunae inops, moribus turbidus.
158 See also Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 48f.; 51 for Tacitus’ attempt to bring
out the danger of the rebellion by means of vague and exaggerated reports of the
number and nature of Tacfarinas’ followers.
159 Tac. Germ. 29.3, on the population of the Agri Decumates: levissimus quisque Gallorum
et inopia audax.
160 Tac. Hist. 3.47.2: corrupto in spem rapinarum egentissimo quoque; ibid. 3.48.1: praedae
cupidine vagum hostem. Cf. below, pp. 150–1.
161 Tac. Hist. 2.8.1f. On the first false Nero see below, pp. 151–3.
162 Tac. Hist. 2.72.2. Cf. below, pp. 139–40.
163 Syme, ‘Tacfarinas’ (n. 130), 120.
164 Gutsfeld, Römische Herrschaft (n. 1), 60–7.
165 Devillers, ‘Le rôle’ (n. 130), 207 (quotation) and passim.
166 Tac. Ann. 2.52.5.
167 Ibid. 3.74.4: sed Tiberius pro confecto interpretatus id (sc. bellum). For the extraordinary
act of imperial favour demonstrated in the granting to Iunius Blaesus of an acclamation
as imperator, see L. Schumacher, ‘Die imperatorischen Akklamationen der
Triumvirn und die auspicia des Augustus’, Historia 34, 1985, (191–222) 218f.
185