Terrorism in Rome

[marsvigilia]

I may be naive. But it just occurred to me did the Romans or other ancients ever have to deal with the equivalent of terrorism?

Obviously there were no airplanes or car bombs, but infiltrators I imagine could wreak a lot of havoc with arson, sabotage, poisoning water supplies, etc. I've heard of poisoning wells as a scorched earth type policy, or burning down a town as part of a military operation. But I can't remember ever hearing about infiltration and sabotage, yet I'm sure it would have been tried.

Yes? No? Maybe?

[FlaviusCrispus]

<<But I can't remember ever hearing about infiltration and sabotage, yet I'm sure it would have been tried. >>

I can think of two possible cases of "terrorism" in Rome proper...

The Great Fire of AD 64, which destroyed a large chunk of Rome, was initially pinned on the Christians, who were seen as some kind of weird, anti-Roman cult from the mysterious East hell-bent on bringing their "Kingdom of Heaven" to earth by destroying the current earthly power, namely Rome. We now (probably correctly) see this as an attempt by Nero to deflect blame from himself by focusing on a little-known and even less-understood band of believers. But Romans were at least initially inclined to believe the official line, and it is remotely possible that there were a few fanatical Christians who invited suspicion by preaching openly about fire and brimstone and the evil imperial power.

I recall another episode occurred either in the reign of Commodus or Septimius Severus, when a rumor went around that a group of foreigners had infiltrated the city with poisoned needles, and that they were going about pricking people indiscriminately. I know I read about this in one of the primary sources (either Dio, Herodian or the HA), but I can't seem to locate it. Anyone out there have details of this incident?

T. Flavius Crispus
Legio VI VPF
CA, USA

[Carlton Bach]

There is some material about sabotage techniques (including an incendiary that ignites on contact 'with the morning sun' - Partington assumes it's a reaction with water triggered by dew in 'History of Greek Fire and Gunpowder) but generally I doubt there was much covert ops stuff going on. A single man just can't do that much damage without poison gas, explosives, or incendiaries

Then there were the sicarii, of course.

[Praefectusclassis]

Have a look in A.Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs. Biological and chemical warfare in the ancient world. (London/New York 2003). Has interesting tidbits on all kinds of interesting trickery.

[Dan Howard]

The Roman occupation of Judea met with resistance. The zealots (called sicarii by the Romans) assassinated several prominant Roman citizens. Roman literature makes it pretty clear that they considered the sicarii as terrorists. The word itself doesn't mean much. The Germans considered the French resistance to be terrorists. The only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the side of the fence you sit.

[Tarbicus]

The only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the side of the fence you sit.

According to various legal definition it's not always as simple as that:
[url:2lmihgof]http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html[/url]
[url:2lmihgof]http://cfrterrorism.org/terrorism/introduction.html[/url]
[url:2lmihgof]http://www.uhc-collective.org.uk/knowledge/toolbox/defence/t2000.htm[/url]

Cheers.

[Robert Vermaat]

People, this is beginning to smell of modern politics, which we have a law against here at RAT.
Thread very carefully.

[Tarbicus]

Sorry :oops:

But did the Romans have definitions of 'terrorism'? Was anything any anti-state and violent perceived as a 'terrorist' act, with a separate perception of nation against nation, as opposed to what many would simply call 'war'? Especially against non-military personnel? I imagine the sicarii were called the modern equivalent by many a senator.

[Carlton Bach]

By and large, the Roman Empire doesn't seem to have had a word or concept for 'terrorism'. Resistance to Roman order tends to be designated by three expressions

/stasis/ - which translates roughly as 'riot' or 'disturbance'. Thois was very strongly discouraged by the Roman authorities and could get a city into plenty of trouble. I have never seen the term used for rural disturbances, but I don't think the Romans would have distinguished between a city and its /chora/ hinterland. AS an aside, the Acts of the Apostles hae a scene where an incipient riot in Ephesus caused by Paul preaching is cut short by an official pointing out that the Romans won't like this.

The activities of the /latro/ or /lestes/ (robber). This seems to have been the preferred expression for what we today would call guerillas, too. There has been some speculation that the 'robbers' crucified with Jesus were, in fact, /zelotes/. However, the line between guerilla, crime, and vestigial tribal warfare is very hard to draw for modern scholars. Most likely the Romans would have called many of our terrorists /latrones/.

The war /bellum/. In the case of a community resisting Roman power with the majority of its population, in arms, and with the use of its military infrastructure, the term used was 'war', even if the people in question were not technically speaking a foreign power. The Jewish Wars, the uprising of the Egyptian /boukoles/ and even slave risings are referred to as /bellum/ in the sources. I don't think there is a specific Roman term for 'insurgency'.

[Dan Diffendale]

During the first half of the first century BC piracy was a real threat. Plutarch (Life of Pompey, 24) says "On one occasion they seized two praetors in their purple trimmings, Sextilius and Bellinus, making off with them, servants, lictors and all. They also captured the daughter of Antonius, a man who had celebrated a triumph, as she was on her way to the country, and ransomed her for a great deal of money." The point is that they were singling out prominent Romans for attack.

Pompey's campaign against the pirates was certainly not considered an attack on another nation.

[Robert Vermaat]

How about bagaudae?

The meaning of the word seems to have changed from the 3rd to the 5th century, but I recall that the earlier bagaudae were bands of brigands who roamed the countryside looting and pillaging.

[Antonius Lucretius]

If we define terrorism as a means to submit people through terror, or attempt to submit them through terror, then we can only conclude that it was largely practiced.
The jewish "sicarii" were indeed more akin to modern terrorism. Like pre-gunpowder suicide bombers.
But the general practice of the ancients to execute prisoners in front of the walls of a besieged city was pretty much terror tactics too.
And remember Tamerlane, and the pyramids of skulls?
I am thinking also about the infamous couple Clodius and Milo. They both attempted and sometimes succeded in terrorizing the roman populace, one for Caesar the other for Pompey, until they both in their turn fell victims of assassins.
As for the great fire in Rome, methink --and I'm not the only one-- that the culprit is neither Nero, nor the Christians. The culprit is probably, as was usually the case, an idiot that managed to topple a brasero in an upper floor apartment, or a flying spark from some fire.
Remember that the upper storeys of the insulae were mader of wattle and daub, that wood was largely employed and that there was neither fire extinguishers, nor safety procedures.
Historically, before the advent of electric power, fires in homes were mainly caused by accidents due to open flames.
I suppose some Christians openly rejoiced.. Maybe they shouldn't have.

[Felix]

Using this last definition of terrorism, could you consider the Romans to be practitioners of state terrorism? The reaction of Rome to Boudicca's revolt was severe, apparently even by Roman standards. It could be considered a warning to anyone else in Briton who was dissatisfied with Roman rule.

[L. Aufidius Pantera]

If you see the reaction to Boudicca as "state terrorism", then what do you make of the Roman activities and measures (as well as the Numidian ones) against Carthage in the run up to 146BC?

After all, it appears that the Numidians practiced a level of "terrorism" against the Carthaginians (as far as I know, war was never really declared) until they had little option but to attack the Numidians formally.

This in turn led the Romans to attack and, ultimately, destroy Carthage... (and don't tell me that Rome didn't know about Numidian activity...)

If the Numidian actions can be seen as terrorism, then we do have an example of "state sponsored" (or at least tolerated) terrorism!