Titus Labienus, traitor or betrayed?
Sort:
Discussions are always the most interesting when about people's opinions, so i want to use a more recent example to discuss the question of what to make of Labienus' experience. He is not that famous, so do not worry if you never heard of him.
Basically, Labienus was born around the time of Caesar's birth, and the two men were good friends. When Caesar finished his conculship and got the province of Illyricum, Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul , Labienus, who qualified for a province himself, went to Caesars provinces as his 2nd in command. Together, they fought against Ariovist and Vercingetorix and Labienus was almost always the one to lead operations, when small army groups broke up from the rest of the army to secure strategic hills or capture the opponent's queen. During caesar's two expeditions into Britain, Labienus was responsible for defending the shore for the way back. It was clear Labienus was talented as a general.
However, after Caesar and Pompey had a dispute over Caesar's candidature as roman concul, Caesar marched across the Rubicon and Labienus , who was in charge of most of the army camping in Gaul at that time, chose to flee south to join Pompey. Labienus would command several legions in the following battles of Pharsalus and Thapsus, but was never given full command of the army so long as Cato and Pompey were in charge. When Labienus finally was free to fight his battle in the battle of Munda, the advantage in army lay on Caesar's side. He died on the battlefield. Caesar gave him an honourable funeral.
I attempted to summarize the entire story, but I am lacking a lot of details. Unfortunately I only picked up information gradually, so i cannot recount all the sources, sooo you may want to check yourself.
To me, Labienus deserves better than what happened. His person is often remembered as a traitor, who abandoned a friend , but in my view, Caesar abandoned him.
When Caesar marched on Rome, it was against roman law. In our modern world, it would be expected to leave him. Of course, Pompey had acted against law quite a few times, and so did others as well, but Pompey had the Senate's support and had not marched into Italy with an army.
What wonders me is why Labienus did not try to recruit some of the soldiers stationed in Gaul under his supervision. The legions in Gaul had campaigned with Labienus for the last 9 years at least, and their commander had just attacked the roman state. Of course, Caesar made lots of promises to the legionaries to keep them loyal, but Labienus could, too. Perhaps Labienus was not popular, or he feared for his life every second he stayed, but were there such thoughts, it would be lost by now. Labienus fled without even packing his stuff and once Caesar heard of it, he sent the leftovers to the pompeian camp. A last act of friendship? A tactic to make Pompey suspicious of Labienus?
I could not make my own conclusions about this person. Labienus was a talent nobody trusted after he sided with the rightful side in a conflict. According to Cicero (and i think similarly) , Labienus has shown bravery with his decision. He acted like a true, honourable person and did not deprive a former friend of his armies, even after he joined the opposition. I have the feeling the most brutal, unhonourable commanders are the ones prevailing in history. So was the case with Caesar, Octavian and Frederick ll of Prussia and many others who abandoned alliances as they saw fit. So was it in sudden attacks like in the Maritsa battle, the siege of Toulouse or the many surprise invasions. The Habsburgs did it in the battle of Marchfield, Prussia in the Silesian wars, the Bohemians were at Kressenbrunn, Robert de Bruce killed John Comyn in a church, and so on. The world seems to have nothing for those willing act chivalriously and all about who can be more tricky and brutal. Is this the case with Labienus? Was he the angel within brutes? Thanks for reading. If you feel motivated to do good, feel free to do that
