Documents as separated in time and location as from Neo-Assyria ( parrisu), Ptolemaic Egypt ( tarache), and first and fourth-century AD Imperial Rome ( lestai, latrocinio respectively) use language that muddies attempts to perceive insurgency. Regardless of how they responded to insurgencies, authorities typically use the language of de-politicization (banditry, criminality, troubles) when they need to refer to it in our sources. There is nothing in the definition that precludes its application to the ancient world.ДЄnother, and no less important aspect of the language of insurgency is the way it was characterized in the ancient world. This definition is understood to exclude recognized belligerents involved in a conflict such as the Hellenic and Delian Leagues against Persia in the Persian wars or Mithridates against Rome in the first century BC.

The commonly recognized definition of insurgency is a revolt or rebellious movement, to which modern authorities add, вЂњintended to overturn or eliminate a constituted government or authority by subversion and military force,вЂќ (NATO 2010). So far so good, but this ancient origin does not make вЂњinsurgencyвЂќ automatically applicable to ancient conflicts. The earliest use of вЂњinsurgencyвЂќ in its modern sense is from the nineteenth-century but this usage is based on the much older word вЂњinsurgentвЂќ which comes from the Latin root, insurgere (Geggie 2013). Although we must be careful to avoid anachronism in using terms like вЂњinsurgencyвЂќ when describing ancient phenomena, a careful examination of key terms reveals that we can use this term appropriately. That вЂњinsurgencyвЂќ has not been used more often in modern studies of ancient conflict is not surprising given its modern flavor. The ultimate goal is to offer a path toward consistently assessing ancient conflicts and the ways rulers responded to them. The second part of the paper will consider a case studiy that demonstrates the importance of this approach. The first part of the paper will treat the language of insurgency, both the concept and the label. I will do so by providing historical context for understanding and employing this term and demonstrate the usefulness of вЂњinsurgencyвЂќ as a specific concept for analyzing certain kinds of conflict. This paper seeks to reassess prevailing treatments of insurgency in the Greco-Roman world.

Two key recent problems with analyzing insurgencies revolve around the vocabulary - inconsistent modern application of the term and the ancient practice of calling all insurgents bandits. As a result, these studies often fall short or get hung on modernism. While this interest has done much to stimulate work on conflict, much of it has been excessively influenced by recent conflicts and counter-insurgency theory (COIN). Because of the intense modern interest, ancient Mediterranean history has felt the pull of studies into insurgency and its most common manifestation вЂ“ asymmetric conflict (Smith 2007 Powers 2013 Anson 2015). A cursory examination of ancient military history suggests, however, that as in the twentieth century, insurgencies were a problem that plagued various complex political entities such as Assyria, Persia, Macedon, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Rome. Given the level of attention in media and policy an observer might be forgiven for thinking insurgency and counterinsurgency are new developments. вЂњInsurgency and its Application in the Ancient WorldвЂќ