latrones - Get a Free Blog

POLITICIANS AND PRETENDERS AS LATRONES
saw Cleon as a true bandit, but not, however, Antipater or Tarcondimotus. 63
But what, in the end, really differentiates them, apart from Cicero’s standing
surety for these last two, remains an open question. Vogt (following
Benndorf ), talked of the ‘bandit state’ founded by Zeniketes in Lycia, of
which he declared himself king. 64 This is plainly no more than a repetition
of the official Roman view of things. As far as the Romans were concerned,
all such princes were latrones since they used their personal armies to fight
private wars which, from a legal point of view, were no more than plundering
expeditions. 65 That, on the other hand, such war-lords occasionally appear
in Roman sources as men of honour depends for the most part on whether
they took sides in the Civil War and, if so, whose. As a rule, those who chose
to ally themselves with the losers had much less chance of being regarded
favourably unless they managed to go over to the winners before it was too
late.
This is how the Romans saw things. However, to reach an objective judgement
we have to proceed from the fact that Zenketes, Lysias, Tarcondimotus,
Antipater and Cleon all extended their power in the political vacuum which
had arisen following the collapse of the old order. In this situation, the latro
as a social phenomenon, able to legitimise his position only through success,
represents the form in which proto-political power typically made its first
appearance. 66 Whoever the Romans termed a ‘bandit’ was probably just a
local ‘big man’. Thanks to its geographic conditions, the area of the Taurus
mountains seems to have encouraged this sort of ‘bandit state’. 67
Roman writers’ characterisation of local moguls as latrones is not something
that was restricted to Asia Minor. Examples of this also occur in
respect of Greece and the Middle East which, during the first century bc,
enjoyed a comparable political climate. To begin with, there is the case of
the Spartan dynast, Lachares. 68 To judge from an inscription set up to commemorate
his virtue (aretes heneka), Lachares had the best of relationships
with the council and people of Athens. 69 He will therefore have been respected
throughout Greece. We know rather more of his son, Eurycles, who
made a name for himself under Augustus through his donation of public
buildings in Sparta and Corinth. 70 The sources on Eurycles contain a report
which provides us with significant information about his father as a ‘bandit’.
Eurycles fought with Octavian’s fleet at the battle of Actium. Plutarch says
that Eurycles sailed his vessel directly at Cleopatra’s flagship after Antony
had sought refuge on board there. He made no attempt to disable the enemy
by ramming her, which might well have worked, but when he got close only
hailed Antony (to his astonishment) to tell him that he was the son of
Lachares, and that Caesar’s (i.e., Octavian’s) good fortune in war had now
put him in the position of being able to avenge the death of his father. 71
Lachares had – so Plutarch adds – been put to death on Antony’s orders
following charges of being engaged in banditry. 72 This happened probably
just before the battle of Philippi, when Antony was engaged in ordering the
79