Bandits in the
Thomas Grűnewald - a classical
scholar from Germany Constantine Roman Empire began as a doctoral dissertation (Habilitation) for the Faculty of Arts
and Social Sciences at the Gerhard-Mercator University Duisburg
The Latin
word for a bandit is latro, plural latrones. For obvious reasons this word is
used a lot in this book. The Greek equivalent is laistes, plural laistai. Bandits
on the sea (pirates) are known as praedones. While these words have several
meanings, they always have a negative connotation.
The book
begins with an introduction where ancient sources and modern scholarship about
the topic are presented. It is no surprise that the primary material is quite
limited. Most ancient authors felt that bandits do not deserve to be mentioned or
discussed in serious literature. They are only mentioned in passing or if the
author has a special agenda: it seems Tacitus mentions bandits during the reign
of Tiberius in order to place this emperor in a bad light. The secondary
material is also quite limited. An important source of inspiration is Bandits
by E. J. Hobsbawm (1917-2012) (first published 1969, fourth edition 2001). Modern works are
listed in a brief bibliography that appears on pp. ix-x.
The following
text is divided into 8 chapters. Each chapter is divided into shorter sections
by subheadings, which is very user-friendly. Here is the table of contents
[with some additional information in square brackets]:
* Chapter 1
– Real bandits
* Chapter 2
– Guerrilla leaders as latrones
[Viriathus,
Sertorius, Tacfarinas]
* Chapter 3
– Leaders of slave revolts as latrones
[Eunous and
Cleon, Salvius and Athenion, Spartacus]
* Chapter 4
– Politicians and pretenders as latrones
[Catilina,
Clodius, Julius Caesar, Marcus Antonius, Sextus Pompeius][Zeniketes, Lysias, Tarcondimotus, Antipater, Cleon]
[Lachares, Eurycles, Zamaris]
[Maxentius, Magnus Maximus, Maximinus Thrax]
[Proculus, Lydius, Palfuerius]
*Chapter 5
– Leistai in Judaea
[John of
Gischala, Simon bar Giora][The mass suicide of the Sicarii at
* Chapter 6
– Imperial challengers
[Bulla
Felix, Isodorus, Maternus]
* Chapter 7
– Avengers in dynastic conflicts
[Clemens,
avenger of Agrippa Postumus][The avenger of Drusus, son of Germanicus]
[The avenger of Alexander, son of Herod]
[Aedemon, avenger of Ptolemy of Mauretania]
[Anicetus, avenger of Polemon II of
[Three false Neros]
[Three troublemakers of the late Republic]
* Chapter 8 –
Conclusion
At the end
of the book there are notes with references and additional comments as well as an
index. A note on page 222 explains: “This index combines Indices 3 and 4 of the
German edition. Indices 1 and 2, listing citations of ancient and modern
authors, have been omitted.”
While the text
is relatively short (166 pages, including introduction and conclusion), the
notes are quite extensive. They cover more than fifty pages (167-221). The top
of the left-hand pages repeat the title of the book, while the top of the right-hand
pages are marked with one word: “Notes.” This is unfortunate and not very user-friendly.
The top of the left-hand pages should have been marked “Notes to chapter NN,”
while the top of the right-hand pages should have been marked “Notes to pages
XXX-YYY.”
There are
no illustrations in this book. A photo on the front cover shows a relief of a
mounted city policeman (paraphylax) and his armed subordinates. It is from Izmir Smyrna Turkey
According
to Grűnewald, the bandits of the Roman Empire can be divided into four types:
** Type-One:
Robbers - chapter 1
** Type-Two:
Rebels - chapters 2-3** Type-Three: Rivals – chapters 4-6
** Type-Four: Avengers – chapter 7
The title of
the German version contains four alliterations with the letter R: Räuber, Rebellen,
Rivalen, Rächer. As you can see, these German words correspond to the four types of
bandits identified by the author.
According
to Grűnewald, each type can be divided into two sub-types, one negative and
one positive. Among the rebels, Tacfarinas is considered a common criminal, who
only wants to enrich himself, while Viriathus is considered a noble bandit,
because he has a higher goal, such as justice. Among the rivals, Maternus is
regarded as a common criminal, while Bulla Felix is regarded as a noble bandit.
As far as I
can see, the sub-types (one negative and one positive) do not work well with
type-one or type-four bandits.
While there
are four types, the lines between them are not always clear: Viriathus, who is
presented as a rebel, might also be described as an avenger. Even Octavian, the
future Emperor Augustus, might be described as an avenger, who wanted to
revenge the murder of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar.
Grűnewald is aware
of this fact. On page 138 he says: “… to a certain extent the desire for
vengeance characterises all types of latrones, in this respect making it
difficult to distinguish between them.”
The German
version (published 1999) was reviewed by Brent D. Shaw in the online magazine Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2000.02.12). Shaw knows the topic quite well: he is the
author of three articles about Roman bandits (published 1984, 1991 and 1993). All
three articles are listed in Grűnewald’s bibliography, and there are several references
to them in the notes. Shaw is also the author of Sacred Violence: African
Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine (2011).
It is, in
many ways, a positive review. Having presented a brief summary of the book,
Shaw says:
“Grűnewald has worked carefully and assiduously to correct and update
existing studies (…), and he is a fair and accurate reporter of views of other
scholars on the subject. His analysis of the primary and secondary materials
for the history of brigandage in the Roman empire is both diverse and comprehensive.”
At the end
of his review, Shaw describes the book as “a diligent and incisive summa of
research done to date, and a reasoned critique of some superficial interpretations
that have worked their way into the scholarship on the subject. It will be the
necessary point of departure for anyone who wishes to acquire an accurate
assessment of the state of research, the condition and range of the primary
sources and the specifics of the standard cases that have been involved in
modern historical debates on the subject.”
However, Shaw
also has some critical comments and some critical questions. Labels
(definitions) can change over time, depending on the circumstances (i.e. who is
in power):
“The novelists make the point that the bandits or pirates can be
exterminated like beasts on one day, or rise to the position of respectable men
and officials on another. Such was the work of fate.”
A modern example
(not mentioned by Shaw) is Nelson Mandela: as a prisoner of the apartheid state,
he was branded as a dangerous terrorist. When he was released and became the
first black president of South Africa
According
to Shaw, the labels used by Grűnewald are not always convincing:
“Despite
reading and rereading the section on the leaders of the slave wars as ‘type-two’
bandits, it remains unclear to me why Eunus [Eunous] and Athenaios [Athenion] count
[as noble bandits] and Spartacus does not.”
Shaw has a
question:
“Why precisely, for example, is Vespasian never a bandit to an
observer like Josephus, who sees brigands everywhere else around him in his own
society?”
I agree
with Shaw. I like this book, but I have to mention a few things which bother
me:
(1) On page
21 Grűnewald quotes an inscription from AD 151 or 152 about a person who was
attacked by bandits as he travelled from Lambaesis to Saldae in North Africa . He says the author is Marcus
Valerius Etruscus, but in fact it is Nonius Datus. Marcus Valerius Etruscus, commander
of Legio III, did not travel to Saldae. He gave Nonius Datus, a Roman engineer,
permission to make the journey.
The story
of Nonius Datus and the aqueduct that transported water to Saldae is quite
famous. It is mentioned in several books about Roman history. Apparently, Grűnewald does not
know it. Apparently, the translator does not know it, either. He has faithfully
translated Grűnewald’s mistake, without any correction.
For more
information about this case, see Serafina Cuomo, “A Roman Engineer’s Tales,”
Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 101 (2011) pp, 143-165.
(2) Sometimes
Grűnewald is a bit careless when it comes to chronology. Here are some
examples:
(A) In
chapter 3 about the slave wars, he never provides the complete dates. On page
59, he should add: The First Slave War (Sicily Sicily Italy
(B) In the
section about the Sertorian war in Spain
For more
information about this conflict, see Sertorius and the Struggle for Spain
(C) In the
section about Tacfarinas (pp. 48-55), there is a problem with the chronology. We
are told the conflict lasted from 17 to 24, which is true. On page 48 he says:
“In AD 23 the proconsul Q. Junius Blaesus managed to run down and wipe out most
of Tacfarinas’ followers.” In fact, this happened in AD 22. The text continues:
“In the same year [i.e. AD 23] P. Cornelius Dolabella completed the work of his
predecessor when he stormed the rebels’ camp and so precipitated Tacfarinas’
death.” In fact, this happened in AD 24.
When we get
to page 53, we find the correct dates: Now Q. Junius Blaesus is connected with events
in AD 22 and P. Cornelius Dolabella with events in AD 24. Apparently, the
author did not notice his own inconsistency. Apparently, the translator did not
notice it, either. He has faithfully translated Grűnewald’s mistake, without any
correction.
(D) In the
section about Masada , the desert fortress located south
of Jerusalem Dead Sea (pp. 106-109), he says: “This last
bulwark of the rebellion succumbed only in 73.” This is the traditional date. However,
new evidence relevant for this case has been discovered, and therefore some
scholars prefer the following year, AD 74. Grűnewald does not mention this issue.
Perhaps he does not know about it. For references to the modern debate, see
Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome
(3)
Regarding Tacfarinas and his revolt, Grűnewald says: “Seen as a whole, it
never amounted to very much, nor did it ever pose any serious threat to Roman
rule in North
Africa ”
(page 48).
Against
this view I will offer the following facts, which are all mentioned by the
author on page 53:
(a) The
conflict lasted for almost ten years. (b) Three Roman commanders were granted a
triumph after a victory over Tacfarinas. (c) The Ninth Legion was brought in
from Pannonia
On page 54 Grűnewald talks
about “the very wide repercussions of Tacfarinas’ rebellion, its extraordinary
ability to regenerate itself after defeat, the adaptability of its commander,
his strategical [sic!] skills and his charismatic qualities as a leader.” Later,
on the same page, he refers to “the undeniable truth that Tacfarinas’ uprising
was perhaps the most important military event of the first ten years of
Tiberius’ reign.”
As far as I
can see, the first evaluation (on page 48) is refuted by the subsequent
information (on pp. 53-54). The author seems to contradict himself, giving two
opposing view of this rebellion.
(4)
Sometimes Grunewald is so busy discussing terminology that he forgets to tell
us the story of the bandits. This objection applies in particular to chapter 3
about the slave wars in the Republican era.
What about
the translation? I think Drinkwater has done a good job. As noted above, it
seems he overlooked a few problems. In addition, there are three misprints:
** Page 46
– “… the motions to refused Caepio his triumph.” It should be “refuse.”
** Page 79 – “Zenketes.” It should be “Zeniketes.”
** Page 100
– “Simon bar Gora.” It should be “Giora.”
In spite of
these objections, I think he has done a good job. Because of his efforts this
book is now available in English.
Incidentally,
Drinkwater is mentioned in the text on pp. 129 and 164. There are references to
his work in the notes on pp. 211-213 (notes 125, 149, 151).
Drinkwater
was in contact with the author while he was working on the translation. In his
foreword he explains: “I owe particular thanks to Thomas Grűnewald for his
promptness and enthusiasm in reading and correcting my draft chapters as they
were produced.”
In
conclusion: Bandits in the Roman Empire is the first and so far the only
full-scale study of this topic. I like this book, but as you can see from my
review, there are some flaws, and therefore I think it deserves a rating of
four stars.
PS # 1: The
following recent articles are available online: Lincoln H. Blumell, “Beware of
Bandits! Banditry and land travel in the Roman Empire ,” Journeys, vol. 8, # 1-2,
summer/winter 2007, pp. 1-20; Brady B. Lonergran, “Roman Banditry,” Penn
Historical Review, vol. 18, # 1, fall 2010, pp. 1-25.
PS # 2: American
author and illustrator Jasper Burns has written a modern screenplay about one
of the famous bandits: Bulla Felix: The Roman Robin Hood (2011).
