58 THE ROMAN EMPIRE
particularly during the civil war of AD 69 when rebellions were in progress
in north- east Anatolia (Tac. Hist. 3.47), in Britain against Rome’s puppet
monarch Cartimandua (3.45), and in Germany among the Batavi, as well as
in Judaea.
What caused such rebellions? Roman authors who referred to them
undertook little analysis. The personal grudges of revolt leaders were often
blamed – disgruntled Boudicca, the deserter Tacfarinas, the ambitious
Classicus in Gaul in AD 68, the Batavan auxiliary commander Civilis
frightened for his safety under Vitellius in the same year. It is hard to know
whether the Roman tendency to name wars after the enemy commander, so
that the revolt in Pannonia and Dalmatia in AD 6 was known as the bellum
Batonianum (CIL V 3346) in memory of Bato, refl ects the crucial role of
such men as instigators of unrest or only Roman perceptions of them. It was
taken for granted by Tacitus that foreign nations, like Roman senators,
would share a love for libertas (Tac. Agricola 30–2). But the immediate
cause was usually perceived to be the imposition or extortion of taxation.
The provincial census provoked uprising in Pannonia in 10 BC and in Judaea
in AD 6. The German revolt that destroyed Varus in AD 9 may have been
caused by his decision to start taxing the province, which had been occupied
since 9 BC. In provinces where the principle of tribute was accepted its weight
might provoke unrest, as in Syria in AD 17 (Tac. Ann. 2. 42), or, more
commonly, the excessive use of extortion to extract the revenue. Thus Gallic
revolts in 12 BC and AD 21 were both sparked off by opposition to extortionate
offi cials, as was the British revolt of AD 60. Bato in Dalmatia in AD 6 is said
to have complained about the fi nancial offi cers as wolves preying on the
province (Dio 56.16.3). The Batavi who rebelled in AD 69 provided Rome
with soldiers rather than money, but in their case too excesses in recruitment
fuelled the uprising (Tac. Hist. 4.12–14).^8
Such explanations are – and were – coherent enough, but hardly suffi cient.
It is strange that Roman governors so often failed to realize how discontent
was growing if they really believed revolt for liberty to be natural and
obvious. The freedman Licinus blamed for extortion in Gaul is alleged to
have argued that bleeding the provincials would be a positive disincentive to
rebellion (Dio 54.21.8). For a clear understanding of the motives of rebels it
would be desirable to look at the views of the provincials themselves.
Such a task is not easy. We have no idea what Thracians or Gauls thought
about the empire and the evidence that does survive to give an insight on
provincial attitudes to Rome is highly partisan and unrepresentative. The
mass of Egyptian papyri give occasional clues, but the Egyptian peasantry
was much more closely monitored by Roman offi cials than inhabitants of
other parts of the empire and therefore less likely to strike out for
independence; the revolts of the mid second century were exceptional.
Preservation of papyrus copies of the martyrdom narratives of Alexandrian
Greeks even in the south of Egypt shows a dislike of Rome among Greeks in
Egypt in general; in the Martyr Acts Roman emperors from Augustus to