Tacfarinas
Tacfarinas (
Nevertheless, Tacfarinas' large-scale raids caused severe disruption of the province's grain production, which in turn threatened civil disorder in Rome. The Romans were for a long time unable to eradicate their enemy because of the Numidians' extraordinary mobility and their support from the many desert tribes. Tacfarinas was finally captured and killed in AD 24 by a combination of determined pursuit and a lucky break in intelligence.
A direct consequence of the war was the registration of the entire Tunisian plateau for land taxation and its conversion to mainly wheat cultivation. The Musulamii and other nomadic tribes were likely permanently excluded from what had been their summer grazing grounds and subsequently forced to lead a more impoverished existence in the Aurès mountains and the arid zone. The conflict also probably sealed the long-term fate of the client kingdom of Mauretania, which was annexed in AD 44 by the emperor Claudius.
Sources
Apart from a passing mention by another (minor) author, the
This has led C.R. Whittaker to doubt that Tacfarinas' revolt was ever a serious threat to Roman rule in Africa, suggesting that Tacitus may have exaggerated the war's importance for dramatic effect.
Background
Berber Africa
In Roman times, the indigenes of northwest Africa (present-day
North of the
Roman province of Africa
Africa Vetus ("Old Africa"), the land territory of Phoenician
In 45 BC, Roman
Caesar's settlement was modified in 25 BC by Augustus. He placed Juba II on the vacant throne of Mauretania, and added to it the southern and eastern parts of Africa Nova. Juba thus nominally ruled a vast realm stretching from the Strait of Gibraltar in the west to Cyrenaica in the east. Augustus' strategic conception was that Juba's native warriors would provide the Roman province's first line of defence against incursions by the nomadic desert tribes. But Juba proved unequal to the task, not least because the fiercely independent desert tribes refused to recognise his overlordship, despising him as a tool of Roman imperialism.[9]
Conflict with nomadic tribes
The most fertile part of Numidia was retained in the Roman province. This part included the central Tunisian plateau, land ideal for the cultivation of wheat, for which the Romans had an ever-increasing demand. The region, some 27,000 km2 in area, offered the prospect of doubling the province's grain production. At some point in the first half of Augustus' rule, it appears that the single
The Tunisian plateau was also the traditional summer grazing region of the semi-nomadic Musulamii and Gaetuli. The result of Roman encroachment in this region was prolonged and bitter conflict between the nomads and Rome during Augustus' rule. His proconsuls in Africa fought a series of campaigns against the nomads: campaigns are recorded in 21 BC, 19 BC, c. 15 BC, c. AD 3, and AD 6, some large enough to gain triumphs for their generals, each of which implied the killing of at least 5,000 of the enemy. After AD 6, no major operations are recorded, but the conflict mutated into a chronic low-level guerrilla resistance to Roman rule. It was in this context of conflict that Tacfarinas grew up.[10]
Still, the desert tribes' relationships with the Romans were not exclusively hostile. Many tribal nomads are known to have volunteered to serve in the Roman army, in both the regular auxilia and irregular native foederati (allied) units (although conscription was still common at this time, and was another cause of discontent). The army provided the prospect of a well-paid career that gave scope for the tribesmen's martial nature, which was highly regarded by the Romans. Numidian cavalry (equites Numidarum or Maurorum), which had played a prominent role in Roman armies since the Second Punic War (218–201 BC), were regarded as the best light cavalry in the Roman world. A Numidian cavalryman rode his small but agile and resilient desert mount without bridle, saddle, or stirrups, restraining it by a loose rope round its neck and directing it by leg movements and voice commands. Unarmoured, he was protected by just a small round leather shield. His weaponry consisted of several javelins.[11][12] Exceptionally fast and manoeuvrable, Numidian cavalry would harass the enemy by hit-and-run attacks, riding up and loosing volleys of javelins, then scattering and retreating faster than any opposing cavalry could pursue. They were superbly suited to scouting, harassment, ambush, and pursuit.[13] Numidian foot soldiers were also predominantly light infantry, relying on speed and manoeuvrability.[14] However, both Numidian foot and mounted warriors were vulnerable in close-order combat with Roman troops, who mainly wore metal armour.[13]
Early life
Nothing is known about Tacfarinas' family background and early life, except that he was probably a member of the Musulamii tribe[15] of Numidians and apparently not of royal or noble birth.[2] Presumably, when he reached military age (i.e. around 20 years old), he enlisted in a Roman auxiliary regiment.[16] It is unclear whether he volunteered or was conscripted, or whether he joined a cavalry or infantry regiment. He served for a number of years.[17][Note 2]
Conflict with Rome
Camillus proconsul (AD 15–17)
At some point during his term of military service, Tacfarinas deserted. Gathering around him a band of marauders, he carried out many minor raids on Roman territory. Using his experience of the Roman military, he organised his ever-growing following into distinct units, to the point where he commanded an effective armed force. A political turning-point for Tacfarinas came when the disparate Musulamii clans accepted him as their paramount leader.[17]
Thereafter, Tacfarinas rapidly gained the support of some of the
By AD 17, the Roman proconsul of Africa,
Apronius proconsul (AD 18–20)
But the Romans were much mistaken if they believed this battle to be the end of Tacfarinas. The latter proved a resilient and determined adversary. For the ensuing seven years, he waged a devastating war on the Roman province. But neither side was able to score a decisive victory. Tacfarinas could not defeat the Romans in conventional military operations such as pitched battles and sieges. The Romans, for their part, could not eradicate such a mobile enemy, despite inflicting severe defeats on him, as Tacfarinas enjoyed the ultimate resort of vanishing into the desert or the mountains, beyond the Romans' reach. In the meantime, Tacfarinas' raiding inflicted massive economic damage on the province. It is likely that the sky-high grain prices recorded at Rome during this period were caused by Tacfarinas' insurgency.[20] These in turn threatened the emperor with civil disorder in the City of Rome itself: Tacitus records riots in protest at grain prices in AD 19.[21]
In 18, Camillus was replaced by
The reverse at Thala impressed on Tacfarinas the difficulty of conducting conventional operations against the Romans. So he reverted to guerrilla tactics, retreating before the advancing Romans, then attacking their supply-lines in the rear. The Romans were soon exhausted and frustrated, unable to respond effectively. Eventually, however, the sheer volume of plunder that Tacfarinas had taken forced him to adopt a more stable base, near the Mediterranean coast in the puppet-state of Mauretania. Here he was surprised by a flying column of auxiliary cavalry and special light-armed legionaries under the proconsul's own son, Lucius Apronius Caesianus (presumably the 3rd legion's
Blaesus proconsul (AD 21–23)
At this point, Tacfarinas sent envoys to Rome to offer peace in return for land in the province for himself and his followers. It is doubtful that this implied a desire by Tacfarinas' men to become sedentary farmers. More likely, they simply sought restored access to their traditional grazing grounds.
Installed in Africa, Blaesus issued his amnesty offer, which was successful in bringing over many of Tacfarinas' war-weary allies. The new proconsul also employed innovative tactics to deal with his elusive enemy. With a doubled contingent, he was able to cover Tacfarinas' various entry routes into the province more thoroughly, dividing his forces in three divisions covering the western, central and southern sectors respectively. He built a large number of new forts (castella), many very small, accommodating only a single
Final defeat (AD 24)
In any event, the Romans were soon disabused of their complacency. The new proconsul,
By the start of the AD 24 campaign-season, Tacfarinas felt strong enough to lay siege to the Roman strongpoint of Thubursicum (
Aftermath
The death of Tacfarinas put an end to Musulamii hopes of halting the Roman takeover of their traditional grazing lands. The registration of the whole plateau for tax purposes was launched by Dolabella immediately after Tacfarinas' demise and completed in 29/30 AD, as evidenced by the stone markers laid down by the Roman surveyors, some of which survive to this day. They reach as far as the
Dolabella applied to the Senate for triumphal honours. But his motion was voted down at the behest of Tiberius, despite the fact that arguably Dolabella deserved the accolade more than any of his three predecessors, since unlike them, he had actually brought the war to an end by eliminating its instigator. Tacitus suggests that the reason was Sejanus' concern that his uncle's glory should not be diminished by comparison. Doubtless, Tiberius' embarrassment that the war had flared up again after he had declared it won also played a part.[30]
The Garamantes, fearing that their own clandestine support for Tacfarinas may have been revealed to the Romans, despatched an embassy to Rome to protest their loyalty, although it is unknown how successfully. Ptolemy, king of Mauretania, was rewarded for his real loyalty by the title rex, socius et amicus populi Romani ("king, ally and friend of the Roman people" i.e. puppet-king). As a special token of esteem, the ancient ritual was revived, whereby the title was conferred in person by a Roman senator, who travelled to the king's capital with an accompanying gift of
Ironically, that same toga eventually caused Ptolemy's downfall, according to the Roman historian
Indeed, Ptolemy had by this time become a far more popular ruler than on his succession sixteen years earlier, when thousands of his Mauri subjects had defected to Tacfarinas. His execution sparked a massive anti-Roman revolt under one
Notes
- Afro-Asiatic group (formerly known as Hamito-Semitic) and is therefore in the same family as ancient Egyptian.[5]
- ala is attested in the Augustan/Tiberian era (30 BC–37 AD), the ala Gaetulorum veterana. Five Numidian infantry cohorts are attested: cohors I Numidarum, I Gaetulorum, I Afrorum, Maurorum et Afrorum and I Musulamiorum.[18]
- ^ Roman attitude to nomads: For the Romans, who harboured a lively contempt for "barbarians" (i.e. non- Greco-Romans), nomadic people, whom they termed inconditi ("tramps") or vagi ("drifters"), were the "lowest of the low".[22] Hence, Tacitus' description of the Fenni (nomadic hunter-gatherers of NE Europe) as "astonishingly primitive and appallingly destitute" and of the Sarmatians, steppe horsemen of SE Europe, as of "repulsive appearance".[23]
References
- ^ Grant (1996) 18-9
- ^ a b c d e f Tacitus III.72
- ^ a b c d e f CAH X 596
- ^ Smith's (1890) Triumphus
- ^ Brett & Fentress (1996) 5–6, 29, 37–9
- ^ a b c CAH X 615
- ^ CAH XI. 812
- ^ CAH IX 27-30
- ^ a b CAH X 592
- ^ CAH 593, 596
- ^ Livy XXXV.12
- ^ Trajan's Column
- ^ a b Sidnell (2006) 172
- ^ Sallust Jug. 59, 74
- ^ Cornelius Tacitus, Arthur Murphy, The Historical Annals of Cornelius Tacitus: With Supplements, Volume 1 (D. Neall, 1829 ) p114.
- ^ MacDonald (2012)
- ^ a b c d Tacitus II.52
- ^ Holder (2003)
- ^ a b Tacitus IV.24
- ^ CAH X 615. cf. Tacitus II.87; IV.6
- ^ Tacitus II.87
- ^ a b c Tacitus III.21
- ^ Tacitus Germania 46
- ^ Tacitus III.20
- ^ a b c d Tacitus IV.23
- ^ Tacitus I.15-21
- ^ a b Tacitus III.74
- ^ Tacitus IV.25
- ^ CAH X 595
- ^ a b Tacitus IV.26
- ^ Suetonius Caligula 35
- ^ Dio LIX.25
- ^ a b CAH X 597
- ^ CAH X 598
Bibliography
Ancient
- Cassius Dio Roman History (ca. 130 AD)
- Sallust De Bello Iugurthino (ca. 40 BC)
- De Vita Caesarum(121 AD)
- Tacitus Annales (ca. 100 AD)
Modern
- Brett, Michael & Fentress, Elizabeth (1996): The Berbers
- Cambridge Ancient History (1996): Vol X Chapter 13(i): Roman Africa by C.R. Whittaker
- Grant, Michael (1996): Introduction to Penguin Classics translation of Tacitus' Annales
- Holder, Paul (2003): Auxiliary deployments in the Reign of Hadrian
- Sidnell, Phillip (2006): Warhorse
- Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities(1890)
- Vanacker, Wouter (2013): Conflicts and Instability in Mauretania and Gaius’ Realpolitik. Latomus 72 (3), 725-741