latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
him, took the first step to being an outlaw by acting dishonourably and
deserting the colours.
In addition, the aims of Tacfarinas’ rebellion will also have contributed
to its derogatory rating as latrocinium. As already mentioned, we know very
little about these other than that at a certain point in the development of the
revolt the insurgents demanded the allotment of land. The requesting of
land on which to settle had likewise occurred during Viriatus’ war, again
showing similarities between the two movements. Whether this was all
Tacfarinas and his allies pursued in their struggle against the occupying
power we cannot say. Investigation of the causes of the unrest is somewhat
hampered by the report that Tacfarinas called on all those who preferred
freedom to slavery at a time when it suited his cause. 154 Tacitus thus explains
the war as one of liberation, the aim of which was to end Roman rule
in North Africa. But such a destructive ambition is scarcely consistent with
Tacfarinas’ demand for land on which his followers might settle. If it really
had been their intention to drive the Romans from their land, the rebels
would hardly have bothered to haggle over land: they would have had to
make a play for everything. But all-out war is neither a realistic nor a
plausible assumption in contrast to the demand for land, from which it
necessarily follows that the rebels were prepared to accept the Roman officials,
of whom they made their request, as the recognised authority in their country.
Tacfarinas’ supposed appeal to libertas should be seen as an embellishment of
Tacitus who was, for literary reasons, inclined to impute the noble motive
of the struggle for liberty to provincial rebellions. 155
What finally made the difference between Viriatus the ‘respected bandit’
and Tacfarinas the ‘contemptible bandit’ was the way each met his end.
Viriatus proved his invincibility by being overcome only as a result of
betrayal. Tacfarinas perished wholly unremarkably in battle. For a warrior,
he died an honourable death but, as a latro, he failed to acquire the aura of
impregnability which would have marked him out as a ‘respected bandit’.
Tacitus disparaged Tacfarinas’ battle companions as ne’er-do-wells, indigents
and adventurers 156 inured to bandit life. 157 This sounds like a volatile
mixture, but says nothing about the actual composition of Tacfarinas’ following.
158 Tacitus was employing terms from a restricted vocabulary that he
habitually drew upon when describing groups of people of whom he was
suspicious 159 or when speaking about the social composition of rebel movements.
So Anicetus, a rebel leader from Pontus who exploited the political
uncertainty of the Year of the Four Emperors (ad 69) to foment unrest in his
native country, is supposed to have gathered around himself the poorest
of the poor, with whom, bent on plunder, he roamed the land. 160 Likewise,
in the course of the same year and also in the East, a false Nero surrounded
himself with desertores who eked out an existence as ‘wandering beggars’
(inopia vagi) and reinforced his forces with people who were motivated by
a desire for ‘revolution’ (res novae). 161 And Geta, the slave who at that time
52