latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
need not be made to shoulder all the guilt, his shady role in this disgraceful
affair cannot be papered over. 101
In the context of the current study, who precisely initiated the plot
and whether the Roman consul should be regarded as instigator or accomplice
are unimportant. What is significant is how Roman writers depicted
the event to their readers. There can be no doubting both the material and
moral responsibility of Caepio – who, of course, fares all the worse in the
judgement of posterity as the focus of outrage at Viriatus’ murder and of
resentment at the inability of his predecessors to bring Viriatus to book
in honourable combat. It is no wonder, therefore, that victory over Viriatus
brought him no glory. 102 He was denied recognition not only by later historians
but even by contemporaries, as is evidenced by the Senate deciding not
to grant him a triumph 103 and to withhold from Viriatus’ killers the reward
that Caepio had promised them. 104 Caepio’s standing had already been damaged
in Rome and so brusque a snub could only have further discredited
it among his Lusitanian allies. Despite the criticism that the Roman ruling
elite had to endure as news spread about the squalid war against Viriatus,
it is remarkable that the majority of senators still voted in favour of the
motions to refused Caepio his triumph. In its refusal to compromise, such a
public distancing from the actions of a proconsul is exceeded only by the case
of Cato the Younger, who (unsuccessfully, of course) proposed in the Senate
that Caesar be handed over to the Germans. 105 In Caepio’s case, the upright
attitude of the Senate against Viriatus’ murder and its perpetrators may be
interpreted as an indication that, contrary to all misgivings, Roman politics
of the period were still being conducted according to a certain respect for
justice and tradition. However, such a thesis would be easier to maintain
if we could rule out that Caepio’s summary rejection was not part of the
political game – more precisely, not engineered by the metropolitan rivals of
the Servilii. 106 But this is uncertain. At best, Caepio’s affair serves to lessen
the impression of a corrupt Senate, at worst, considerably to strengthen it.
The murder of Viriatus thus left a deep impression in the Roman historical
tradition and Roman writers in particular were unanimous in blaming their
own side for it. This may be taken as indicating that contemporaries saw the
crisis of the Roman ruling class – which finally led inter alia to the fall of the
Republic – as emerging around the middle of the second century bc, i.e.
earlier than the internal political wranglings over the Gracchan reforms.
Z.W. Rubinsohn has expressly commented on the importance of this observation
in questioning the standard chronological divisions of Roman history
with reference to ‘the epoch-making year of 133’. 107
If the legend of Viriatus’ invincibility began with his great accomplishments
in war, it was brought to perfection only by his death since he died
undefeated. No matter how tragic his end was and how abruptly it terminated
his plans, the crime only rendered his fame immortal. The outrage
served to add a significant conviction to the mythical conception of the
46