latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
If it may, therefore, be taken as more or less certain that Tacitus’ account
of Tacfarinas should be set in the wider context of his general pessimism
about the Principate and, more narrowly, in his concept of the depravity of
Tiberius’ reign, it is legitimate to ask how such feelings and attitudes may
have affected his characterisation of Tacfarinas, the ‘bandit’. It is obvious
that he twisted and distorted the features of the real Tacfarinas. On the other
hand, his narrative also contains unmistakable references to the very wide
repercussions of Tacfarinas’ rebellion, its extraordinary ability to regenerate
itself after defeat, the adaptability of its commander, his strategical skills
and his charismatic qualities as a leader.
For example, though at first only the Musulamii took up arms, they were
soon joined by the Mauri, led by Mazippa, and then the Cinithii, ‘a by no
means negligible tribe’. 172 Losses were made up by recruiting auxiliaries
from the centre of Africa Proconsularis; the Garamantes later provided reinforcements.
173 The extent of Tacfarinas’ backing in Roman North Africa and
its border regions is shown not only by the number of peoples who joined
him and the extent of the theatre of operations of his revolt but also by the
report that he was supplied with grain by people on the Roman side. 174 The
fact that Tacfarinas sent envoys to Tiberius with an offer of negotiation 175
shows the extent to which he had the better of Rome at this time. That he
demanded allocation of land for those he represented 176 reveals his uprising
as being socially and politically motivated (while, as already shown, Tacitus
tended either to play it down as pure banditry or write it up as a war of
liberation). Tiberius flatly turned down Tacfarinas’ offer of talks, saying that
Spartacus had not been allowed a negotiated surrender and neither would
the bandit Tacfarinas. 177 Subsequently, however, Tiberius accommodated the
rebels to the extent that he promised amnesty to all who voluntarily laid
down their arms. His previous decisiveness thus turned out to be a thing of
words, not deeds. 178
The picture sketched above allows one to discern, under ‘Tacfarinas the
literary construct’, a personality able to stand comparison with Viriatus – as
long as Tacfarinas is viewed free from invective and Viriatus from panegyric.
On the other hand, the same picture shows Tiberius as an incompetent
amateur. If only for the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that,
despite what Tacitus says to the contrary, what Tiberius and his officials did
in this respect reflects judgement and understanding. However, it suited
Tacitus to have the ‘bandit’ in conflict with the government of a weak
emperor. That, in literary terms, Tacfarinas was afforded the traits of a
‘contemptible bandit’, also occurred as a result of Tacitus’ wish to denigrate
Tiberius. In recording the undeniable truth that Tacfarinas’ uprising was
perhaps the most important military event of the first ten years of Tiberius’
reign, Tacitus subtly criticises this emperor’s administration in implying
that more considered action could have led to a faster and more effective
resolution of the crisis. He hints that this developed into a guerrilla war
54