latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
demanded that the emperor send in Tetrinius to fight as a gladiator. Caligula
brusquely turned down the request, on the grounds that those who made it
were themselves just like Tetrinius. 10 Insignes latrones and, with these, probably
also famosi latrones, unlike their common colleagues in crime, enjoyed
no possibility of appealing against their death sentence: it was held to be in
the public interest to execute such criminals forthwith. 11 The same holds
true for seditionem concitatores and duces factionum – ‘instigators of revolts’: for
the purposes of this study it is interesting that top-class latrones were mentioned
in the same breath as agitators and ringleaders of rebellions. The
prosecution of latrones, given the threat they posed to public order, was the
personal responsibility of provincial governors. 12 To proceed against a latro
by means of trickery was not considered illegal as a dolus malus – ‘entrapment’,
but rather praised as a dolus bonus – ‘stratagem’. 13 This is clear from
a case in Tacitus. 14 A servus latro – ‘slave-bandit’ – could be killed without
penalty. 15 Latrones might also include those who committed the crimes of
receiving stolen goods, evading sentence and aiding and abetting, as well
as banditry proper. 16 On the other hand, from the time of Hadrian there
was mitigation in the punishment of those who turned informer, and helped
arrest accomplices. 17
From these texts it can be concluded that though every latro was a robber,
not every robber was a latro. In other words, the crime of robbery appears to
have been a necessary, but not a sufficient, criterion for being a latro. Latrones
are emphasised as a special category of robbers through their use of weapons
(vis armata), through their forming of bands ( factiones, homines armati coactive) 18
and through their aim of plunder (spoliare) with malice aforethought (dolus
malus). In brief, therefore, latrones are those who, as armed brigands, commit
particularly serious crimes.
The establishment of a distinction between latrones and ordinary robbers
may be followed up with an opinion of the jurist Pomponius, which offers
an even closer definition of the term latro: ‘“Enemies” are those who have
made a formal declaration of war against us, or against whom we have so
declared. The rest are either latrones or praedones.’ 19 His declaration hinges on
a conception of the hostis as an agent defined by his exclusivity. The exclusive
characteristic of the hostis is his capacity to make a declaration of war
that is valid under international law. By contrast, all other enemies of state
are latrones or, synonymously, praedones. However, apart from their inability
to make a public declaration of war, latrones are indistinguishable from hostes.
In particular, as is shown in the concluding antithesis of Pomponius’ opinion,
hostes and latrones are linked by the common characteristic that they both
wage war on the Roman state. But hostes are regular, and latrones irregular
wartime enemies. As Theodor Mommsen commented, latrones are ‘different
from hostes only in political terms’. 20 However, this difference went beyond
that of simple definition; it also had a particular judicial relevance, insofar as
freemen could become the captives of either latrones or hostes. According to
16