>The story, found in both Plutarch and Suetonius, is that the young Caesar,
>while on service in the Eastern Mediterranean, was captured by Cilician
>pirates and held for ransom. When they asked for a ransom of 20
>talents Caesar was outraged and told them that this was a paltry
>sum to ask for a Caesar and insisted that the sum be 50. While awaiting
>the arrival of the ransom Caesar maintained a congenial relationship
>with his hosts even though he constantly reminded them that, once
>freed, he would return and hang them all. This he did, even though,
>once captured, they became subject to Roman judicial process and
>therefore escaped hanging--all were crucified.
The message insinuates that, from the pirates' perspective, Caesar's threat (while he was held captive) was a far preferable fate than the actual punishment received from the Roman authorities. However, I have some questions concerning the "Roman judicial process" mentioned in the posting.
After capturing the pirates, Caesar seems to have delivered them to the Roman military authorities (perhaps in Pergamum). At this point, were the pirates subject to Roman military law? Is this the "Roman judicial process" that you mean? Would the senior officers at Pergamum comprise a kind of "military tribunal" that would confirm the pirates' fate? And, finally, do you think that young Caesar wished to mitigate the pirates' severe punishment? Or, was Caesar simply content to permit the pirates to remain subject to the judicial process and its extremely harsh penalties?
Thanks for the posting.