latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Tacfarinas was seen as representing nomadic tribes which the Romans,
more than they did of the Celts, Illyrians and Germans, regarded as barbarian.
141 For this reason, Tacfarinas may have appeared to have been a less
worthy opponent than, for example, Vercingetorix, Bato or Arminius. Personally,
too, he could not demonstrate so noble a descent as Vercingetorix or
Arminius. Although, as a result of his service in the army, he was Romanised,
as a mere auxiliary soldier Tacfarinas had served in an inferior position and
was by definition not a Roman citizen. His social standing was therefore
hardly the equal of that of a prince of the Arverni or of a prince of the
Cherusci who was also a Roman eques. Though he was finally able to rise to
become Musulamiorum dux, 142 he still lacked the nobility of those of his peers
who escaped being labelled latrones. An obvious explanation for this derogatory
judgement of Tacfarinas by Roman historians may, therefore, be found
in his ethnic background and his social status. However, as already shown,
Viriatus could exhibit no better pedigree than Tacfarinas, yet he won the
regard of the same historians. Thus origin and status alone could not have
been sufficient criteria for the classification of Tacfarinas as a common bandit
worthy of no respect.
On the other hand, a perfectly satisfactory ground for his being downgraded
to a latro of this type may be derived from the combination of his
barbarian birth, his low social status and crucially, his desertion. 143 In a later
chapter I will discuss the case of Maternus who, under Commodus, engineered
a ‘War of the Deserters’ (bellum desertorum). In characteristic fashion,
Roman historians also described him, a deserter himself, as a contemptible
common bandit. Both examples confirm the view that deserters were more
or less automatically labelled latrones, to the extent that in this context latro
became synonymous with ‘deserter’. Such a connotation reflects the abhorrence
of Roman society for desertion, a crime of dishonour which, as a
renunciation of the oath to the colours (sacramentum), represented a breach of
one’s word, as a consequence of which he who broke the oath became sacer,
‘accursed’. 144 In time of war and in extreme emergencies, deserters could be
sentenced to death. 145 In view of the gravity of the crime, Roman law put
desertores on the same level as runaway slaves (servi fugitivi), systematically
ranking their misdeeds against the less serious offences of soldiers who went
absent without leave or slaves who wandered off without permission (erro). 146
In itself, desertion was not deemed so serious that no consideration could be
given to the circumstances that had brought it about. However, when it was
associated with further crimes (including, in the worst possible case, instigating
a rebellion), mitigating circumstances were not taken into account. 147
It may, perhaps, be seen as a reflection of the same line of thinking generated
by this legal differentiation between the treatment of deserters, that
Tacitus says just as little about the causes of the unrest under Tacfarinas as
Herodian does about the background to Maternus’ revolt. A further deciding
factor in the disparagement of such latrones as ‘common bandits’ may
50