Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2019 with funding from

Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.0rg/details/danubianpapersOOOOsyme
^ u
 RONALD SYME

DANUBIAN PAPERS
 ]

Get [up: ION'MiTRICI

 »■ -

» *

w-r • ip

■ • -I
ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE D’^:TUDESDU SUD-EST
EUROPfiEN
BIBLIOTHLQUE D'LtUDES DU SUD-EST EUROP^;E^^

RONALD SYME

DANUBIAN PAPERS

BUCHAREST - 1971
 1

i 'N • /' T 1
•

K
 FOREWORD

The present book inaugurates a new collection of studies and scientific

research papers on South-East Europe, which are part of the general concerns
of the Association internationale d’etudes du Sud-Est europ6en for the
new few years. It includes a number of studies of a historian of world renown,
Sir Ronald Syme, President of the CIPSH (International Council for Philos¬
ophy and Humanistic Studies) and Vice-Chairman of the AIESEE. The his¬
torians studying Antiquity in the Danubian regions may be happy to realise
that alongside his fundamental monographs devoted to the Roman revolution, to
Sallust and Tacitus and to the Historia Augusta, Sir Ronald Syme has particu¬
larly directed his interests towards questions pertaining to the Danubian and Bal¬
kan provinces of the Roman empire. Every study in this volume represented, when
it was first elaborated, an essential contribution to the knowledge of the respec¬
tive period. The collection of all these studies into one volume might serve all
specialists in Roman history, in general and the history of the Roman provinces
in particular. The reader will find in this volume, just as in Sir Ronald Syme’s
other works, not only a thorough knowledge of his field of study but especially
that critical spirit characterising his entire work. That is why the AIESEE
feels honoured that the author, a scholar and one of the great supporters of colla¬
boration among the specialists of the Balkan and South-East European c oun-
tries, has entrusted to it the publication of these studies. We are convinced that
the first volume of the new collection will be a good beginning for all our endeav¬
ours to present the history of South-East Europe in its major periods, and
among them, one of its most important — the Roman period.

Prof. EMIL CONDURACHI

General Secretary of the AIESEE

§
 3) < l.’S'

♦-,^1 iiM V‘. i> \* j '. > .V ‘n

., . ^•* -f ''I * W^fl' ^

’ 7 '■' '•'■^H^SST' '''^'' ' ■•■ r

= • '■ U "VW " ilj,
_: Vf i i ‘^ ‘. '. r t - : •?%*.•<>'4 *««_l ■*'{^<^1' , f‘1ft*-
f’.» • '• Vi-- t<*V H* Vv’ .♦"'.
I ::*<i*-*. * - I -’•' a4|^ V4<^‘W*v.-«»•*<’.» •.-.-,*i|[ir
^•i-' • : ' '-V. *'' ; U "'5-’i. ,!.A*»isi«iK i- i j'
»>
* '^'•' . ■•* •' ■• •- v'l
- \<.5 'ik < - i tfWJt: • ^ |iM|rf '* •*"• *
•'TV • V - <;TmS tft^V A* t<e>it» ;!r* « .iSs . - i. k-«l|

.. t‘* \.:A^fc’ V'^v ^JVk5.«fc! ,-s

I <-'aV » -• ,• .-. ■'I ‘ •' il»\ .».t%*\v,w .#', I ,»., . , 1 . t i,

t;..^.'‘*-. •.,»» -.-..iV ._•-. ■. i. ^ _ ,;J . v.ijf.- ^ , !,,

.-^3 -A •?; i- . . -4#

= '» ' i'-,v M-

' i^:-. ■*: .», • ■ ., V . ..

vl} ^r4i' '' \', ' [ *
> **k* *^ 'T;T‘ .*'
''»■'< ■ •■■ rc '*11®• If •iVjl *Um ♦^4* f 'i* ’»

• iv-xilllfl ' .’i

VI'

i‘i’M —"t •■ !•' !•"♦* .V»-^-^.-

lU xii tz-sC'^i .i^ , rj' i.;i’.i k, ;-

■
■4'-. Vv '^> '^■■i
• t, :o W '■ f •

'2^

'■■-'!& " Pm Q •

v.-fi
 PREFACE

An amicable invitation from the Association internationale d’etudes

du Sud-Est europeen suggested the reprinting of some papers devoted to the
Roman provinces in the region between the Adriatic and the Pontus. The
selection covers a wide range in time. The first of them go back to the writing
of a chapter for the Cambridge Ancient History (vol. X, 1934), but my own
interest in these studies had been aroused in a much earlier season.
The present occasion, prope ad ipsos exactae aetatis terminos, evokes
travel and investigation long ago — and a personal debt to the help and
the friendship of scholars in several countries. I am happy to recall the
memory of Abramic, Filov, Groag, Hoffiller, Klemenc, Kuzsinsky, Patsch,
Premerstein, Sergejevski, Stein, Swoboda, Vulic. The name of Parvan
is lacking: I came too late, only in time to write a review of his Dacia in
1929. Of their coevals, Alfoldi, Daicoviciu, Dobias and Egger are with us,
in unabated energy. To them, and to the many younger recruits to the com¬
pany, this volume may suitable be dedicated.
It comprises eleven articles and six reviews. They are reproduced without
change. But, as is proper as well as instructive, errors or misconceptions
are registered in the Addenda to each chapter. Likewise new items of know¬
ledge or the subsequent course taken by controversies.*

Brasenose College, Oxford R.S.

May 7, 1968

* The following papers, not included in this volume, carry items of relevance:
Rhine and Danube Legions under Doniitian: JRS XVIII (1928), 41.
The "Argonauiica” oj Valerius Flaccus'. XXIII (1929), 129.
Some Notes on the Legions under Augustus '. JRS XXIII (1933), 14.
Review of A. Stein, Die Legaten von Moesien: JRS XXXV (1945), 108.
The Jurist Neratius Priscus: "Hermes” LXXXV 1957, 480.
The Wrong Marcius Turbo: JRS LII (1962).
The Third Closing of Janus: Unpublished.
The Last Proconsul of Illyricuni: Unpublished.

7
 CONTENTS

Page

Foreword . 5

Preface . 7

Index . 11

I AUGUSTUS AND THE SOUTH SLAV LANDS . 13

II M. VINICIUS (COS. 19 B.C.). 26

III LENTULUS AND THE ORIGIN OF MOESIA. 40

IV THE COLONY OF CORNELIUS FUSCUS: AN EPISODE IN THE

"BELLUM NERONIS" . 73

V THE FIRST GARRISON OF TRAJAN’S DACIA. 84

VI ROMAN SENATORS FROM DALMATIA. 110

VII THE LOWER DANUBE UNDER TRAJAN. 122

VIII THE CAMPAIGNS OF OCTAVIAN: REVIEW OF E. SWO-

BODA, “OCTAVIAN UND ILLYRICUM’’. 135

IX VASSAL TRIBES: REVIEW OF J. KLOSE, “ROMS KLIENTEL-

RANDSTAATEN AM RHEIN U. AN DER DONAU". 145

X THE DACIAN WARS: REVIEW OF C. PATSCH, “DER KAMPF

UM DEN DONAURAUM". 152

XI GOVERNORS OF DACIA: REVIEW OF A. STEIN. “DIE REICHS-

BEAMTEN VON DAZIEN". 160

XII GOVERNORS OF PANNONIA: REVIEW OF W. REIDINGER,

“DIE STATTHALTER DES UNGETEILTEN PANNONIEN U.
OBERPANNONIENS VON AUGUSTUS BIS DIOKLETIAN”. . 177

9
 XIII GOVERNORS OF DALMATIA; REVIEW OF A. JAGENTEUFEL,
“DIE STATTHALTER DER ROMISCHEN PROVINZ DALMA-
TIEN VON AUGUSTUS BIS DIOKLETIAN”. 192

XIV HADRIAN jIN MOESIA . 204

XV LEGATES OF MOESIA. 213

XVI GOVERNORS OF PANNONIA INFERIOR. 225

XVII PLINY AND THE DACIAN WARS. 245

10
 INDEX

I Augustus and the South Slav Lands.

“Rev. int. des etudes balkaniques”. III (Belgrade, 1937), 33i
II M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.C.).
“Class. Quart.”, XXVII (1933), 142.
III Lentulus and the Origin of Moesia.
JRS XXIV (1934), 113.
IV The Colony of Cornelius Fuscus: an Episode in the "Bellum Neronis”,
AJP LVIII (1937), 7.
V The First Garrison of Trajan’s Dacia.
“Laureae Aquincenses” I (Budapest, 1938), 267.
VI Roman Senators from Dalmatia.
“Serta Hoffilleriana” (Zagreb, 1940), 225.
VII The Lower Danube under Trajan.
JRS XLIX (1959), 26.
VIII The Campaigns of Octavian: Review of E. Swoboda, "Octavian und
I llyricum”.
JRS XXIII (1933), 66.
IX Vassal Tribes. Review of J. Klose, "Roms Klientel — Randstaaien”.
JRS XXV (1935), 95.
X The Dacian Wars: Review of C. Patsch, “Der Kampf um den Donau-
raum”.
“Germania” XXII (1938), 197.
“Gnomon" XXIX (1957), 515
XI Governors of Dacia: Review of A. Stein, "Die Reichsbeamten von
Dazien”.
JRS XXXV (1946), 159.
XII Governors of Pannonia: Review of W. Reidinger, "Die Statthalter
des ungeteilten Pannonien und Oherpannoniens von Augustus bis
Diokletian”.

11
 XIII Governors of Dalmatia: Review of A. Jagenteufel, Die Statthalter
der romischen Provinz Dalmatien von Augustus bis Diokletian.
“Gnomon", XXXI (1957), 510.
XIV Hadrian in Moesia,
‘■’•Arheoloski Vestnik,” XIX (1968), 101,
XV Legates of Moesia,
“Dacia”, NS, XII, (1968), 331.
XVI Governors of Pannonia Inferior,
“Historia", XIV, (1965), 342.
XVII Pliny and the Dacian Wars,
“Latomus", XXIII, (1964), 750.

12
 I

AUGUSTUS AND THE SOUTH SLAV LANDS

Under a fair profession of peace Rome during the Principate of Augustus

embarked upon a rational and sustained policy of conquest in Europe. Of
its achievements, the most arduous and the most eventful were the complete
subjugation of Illyricum and the Balkan lands and the advance of the fron¬
tier of empire to the river Danube (13—9 B.C.) The need of this aggran¬
dizement w'as evident and imperative. East of the Adriatic between Italy
and the Balkans the Roman dominions before Augustus, consisting of the
two provinces of Illyricum and Macedonia, nowhere extended very far
inland: the frontier, if such it could be called, was narrow and insecure.
The senatorial provinces of Illyricum and Macedonia though not lacking
garrisons of legions, depended for protection of their flanks upon dependent
principalities, in the north Noricum, to the east the kingdom of the Odry-
sian Thracians. When he died, Augustus left the Danube as the boundary:
three large commands with a combined force of seven legions controlled
the new conquests. Illyricum had been taken from the charge of a proconsul
(probably in 12 B.C.) and it was divided into two provinces (soon tolbe

1 For the Danubian and Balkan Wars a Bibliography containing more than
forty items will be found in Cambridge Ancient History, X (1934), 938 ff. The present
paper, restricted in scope and necessarily brief, does not attempt a full discussion
of divergent theories. On the main topic, namely the controversy about the extent
of territory in Illyricum conquered for the first time during the Principate of Augu¬
stus, see especially the following works: M.P. Charlesworth, Cambridge Ancient
History, X (1934), 83 ff.; J. Dobi4§, Studie k Appianovd knize Illyriskd (1930);
J. Kromayer, Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, V. Die
illyrischen Feldzuge Octavians, "Hermes”, XXXIII (1898), 1 ff.; C. Patsch, Bei-
trdge zur Volkerkunde von SiXdosteuropa, V, 1. “Wiener Sitzungsberichte” CCXIV,
(1932); Swoboda, E., Octavian und Illyricum (1932); R. Syme, “Journal of Roman
Studies”, XXIII (1933), 66 ff., (review of Swoboda); Cambridge Ancient History,
X, (1934), 355 ff., 369 ff.; G. Veith Die Feldzuge des C. Julius Caesar Octavianus in
lllyrien in den Jahren 35 — 33 v. Chr. ("Schriften der Balkankommission” VII, 1914);
N. Vuli6, Oktavianov ilirski rat, "Glas Srpske Kraljevske Akademije”, CXXI (1926),
39, ff.; CLV, (1933), 13 ff.; The Illyrian War of Octavian, "Journal of Roman Stu¬
dies”, XXIV (1934), 163 ff.

13
called Dalmatia and Pannonia) at the end of the Rebellion of Illyricum
(A.D.9). And, at an uncertain date which, it appears, should lie be¬
tween 9 B.C. and A.D. 6 the Army of the Balkans was removed from
the proconsul of Macedonia and assigned to the governor of a new region,
the imperial legate of Moesia. Of the kingdoms, only Thrace remained, for
Noricum had been annexed in 16 B.C.
That is to say, Rome under Augustus had conquered or annexed a region
corresponding to Austria and Hungary south and west of the Danube; and,
of the Slav lands, to Bosnia, Slavonia and Serbia — to employ terms that
will perhaps be more familiar than the names of the Nine Banats of the
kingdom of Jugoslavia.
The change was momentous with history. It was not merely the win¬
ning of a frontier — and here, be it noted, the power of Rome did not halt
at the bank of the river but was felt and feared far beyond it. More than
all that, Rome now held the main route by land from northern Italy to the
Balkans and the East, the road that runs through Zagreb, Belgrade and
Ni§ to Saloniki or to Istanbul. In a word, the line of the Simplon-Orient
Express. When the whole world was divided for a time between Octavianus
and Antonius, the boundary between their dominions corresponded in a
most alarming way to the facts of geography and history, of language and
civilization. It was the Ionian Sea and the mountains of Montenegro. A parti¬
tion of the Empire threatened.
When unity was re-established by the victory of Actium, that was not
enough. It was necessary to knit the Empire firmly together and bind East
to West by expansion in Illyricum. That land is the keystone of the imperial
arch. Not only do the soldiers of the Illyrian regions by their valour and
patriotism save the sum of things in the evil days of the third century";
the land itself is their surest ally. When Illyricum goes down before the
invader, Byzantium may be saved by her strong walls and her policy, divert¬
ing westward the barbarian flood: the West is doomed.
It has not always been recognized that pride of place in the foreign
policy of Augustus belongs to Illyricum, that the central member and the
central theme is the series of campaigns begun in 13 B.C. by M. Agrippa
the colleague of Augustus, and M. Vinicius (perhaps the last proconsul of
Illyricum) and prosecuted in 12—9 B.C. to a successful conclusion by Tibe¬
rius as legate of Augustus. This war as a whole was designated by the Romans
as the “Bellum Pannonicum”^. The reason for neglect are various in kind,
cumulative in effect.
Germany has won prominence to itself at the expense of Illyricum.
Who does not know of Varus killed, three legions lost and an Emperor's
despair? Yet conquest in Germany was not essential to the Augustan plan ;
and it could be abandoned without damage or danger. On the other hand,
when all Illyricum rose against the conqueror in A.D. 6, there was no
retreat for Rome, but a three years struggle, described as the gravest
foreign war since Hannibal®. The disproportion persists after the time of

* Velleius, II, 96, 2; Suetonius, Tib., 9.

® Suetonius, Tib. 16.

14
Augustus. Eight legions stationed on the Rhine made history — riot by
their campaigns against the Germans, for there were none to speak of, but
by the menace which the soldiers and their commanders presented to the
Emperor at Rome. And so the Rhine is prominent in historical record.
Scattered over a wider area and lacking consciousness of their strength,
the armies of Illyricum were better behaved. The wars of Domitian and
Trajan, however, and the strengthening of the Danubian garrisons (ten
legions under Hadrian as against four on the Rhine) redress the balance
and make manifest the centre of power in future wars, foreign or civil.
Next, the character of the historical sources. For the wars of Augustus
they are meagre and fragmentary: worse than that, capricious and mislead¬
ing. For example, in north-western Spain the final conquest was the work
of ten long years (28—19 B.C.). But in our sources two campaigns (26 and
25 B.C.) usurp preeminence and all but suppress the others. That is because
Augustus was then in Spain: his Autobiography became a historical source.
Likewise in Illyricum. There is a pretty full record in the Illyrike of Appian
and in Cassius Dio of the campaigns, modest in design and in achievement,
conducted by Octavianus in 35 and 34 B.C.: of the later and considerable
conquests of the lieutenants of Augustus in these regions some twenty
years after, little has been preserved. Again, the Autobiography and the
person of the Princeps have obscured the true historical perspective.
As a result, the campaigns of Octavianus in 35 and 34 B.C. have com¬
monly received from modern scholars a full treatment, the extent of his
conquests has been exaggerated: on the other hand, the “Bellum Pannoni-
cum” of 13—9 B.C. has been neglected. Yet history is something more than
the transcription of sources, and bulk is not the criterion of evidence. In
the record of the Roman conquest of Illyricum, much must remain obscure
and baffing, it is true. None the less a fair case can be made out for the
opinion that before the Principate of Augustus the permanent Roman acqui¬
sition beyond the Adriatic were comparatively restricted in area. The cam¬
paigns of Octavianus in 35 and 34 B.C. did not embrace Bosnia, northern
Serbia or the lower valley of the Sava; in the north, in Croatia, his armies
did not advance far beyond Siscia, the modern Sisak (35 B.C.), in the south
(34 B.C.) they did not cross the chain of the Dinaric Alps but confined them¬
selves to operations in the vicinity of the Dalmatian coast. So Kromayer
argued. Since then many years have passed. The topic appears, however,
still to be in debate.
The contrary thesis of wide conquests has found many supporters in the
past. More recently it has been repeatedly urged by N. Vulic, and most
fully by Swoboda in 1932. Vulic claims it as a highly probable that Octavianus
conquered the whole of Bosnia^ ; and Swoboda seeks to prove from the sources
that the whole valley of the Sava down to Belgrade was subdued,_ and, as
well, the interior from the Adriatic eastwards to a line corresponding with
the subsequent boundary of the Roman provinces of Dalmatia and Moesia®.
That is to say, not only all Bosnia but a broad strip of western Serbia, the

* Vuli6, JRS, XXIV, 163 if., and in earlier papers.

® Swoboda, o. c., 20, cf. pp. 33 and 37.

15
 Sanjak of Novibazar and Montenegro. Patsch in his recent comprehensive
survey says nothing of Bosnia but admits the possibility of an occupation
of Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) at this time ®.
These are large claims indeed. On the other side four different kinds of
argument may be adduced. Of necessity, the whole question can here be
treated only in a brief and somewhat peremptory fashion.
1. The sources contain general statements. For ^xemple, Appian states
that Octavianus subdued the whole of the land "Illyris” and Cassius Dio
mentions the conquest of some "Pannonians" and the submission of the rest ®.
What more simple, then, than first of all to investigate and establish the
meaning of “Ulyris” and of “Pannonians”? But there is an obstacle: it is
by no means certain whether these terms are used by Appian and Dio in
a geographical or in an ethnological sense, or whether those authors had
clear conceptions and a fixed terminology. As for Appian, I shall recur
later to the geographical extension which he gives to the words “Illyris”
and to the “land of the Pannonians” — it is prior to and independent of
Roman provincial boundaries. As for Dio, who had been a governor of Dal¬
matia, it looks as though he was influenced by the terminology of his own
day, and, whatever his sources meant by “Pannonians” and “Dalmatians”,
he took them to correspond with the Roman provinces of Pannonia and
Dalmatia.
Now it was not until after the suppression of the Great Rebellion in
A.D. 9 that Roman Illyricum was divided into the two provinces that before
long were to be called “Pannonia” and “Dalmatia”. The northern boundary
of Dalmatia ran, on an average some thirty miles south of the Sava, to a
point not very far short of Belgrade, whence it turned southwards, bounded
by Moesia, and then south-westwards to reach the Adriatic at the mouth
of the river Drina. The province thus comprised, beside Dalmatia, the Herce¬
govina and Montenegro, almost all Bosnia and a considerable slice of western
Serbia. And so the name Delmatae or Dalmatae, originally belonging to
a tribe near the Adriatic coast eastwards from Split, received a wide exten¬
sion in meaning and included all inhabitants of the Roman province of
Dalmatia. It is evident that these provincial boundaries should not be
adduced to elucidate texts describing an earlier situation or derived from
earlier information.
Given these hazards and uncertainties inherent in general terminology,
it is best to turn to definite tribal names. Here the account of Appian, deriv¬
ing as it does from the Autobiography of Augustus, is precise and valuable.
Appian mentions by name a multitude of tribes subdued by Octavianus,
most of them small and unimportant. The Breuci are not among them.
Now the Breuci, the largest, fiercest and most famous of the Pannonian
tribes, dwelt about the middle course of the river Sava, between Siscia and

* Patsch, 0. c., 61.

’ Appian, 111., 28; oQt<o iraaav 6 Katcrap ty^v ’IXXupCSa y^v, 6csri ts (i9et(T-r!^xei
'Pojpiaicov xal tJjv ou T:p6Tspov urtaxO'icraCTav auxoTc; ^xpariivaTO.
® Dio, XLIX, 37, 6: xal oGtcj? aX6vT<ov £xelvtov xal t6 fiXXo Havvovix^v Trpoaij-
yiftzo.

16
Sirmium Again, in Appian there is not a word of the three great tribes
that occupied most of Bosnia, the Ditiones in 239 decuria, the Maezaei in
269 and the Daesitiates in lOSd*' To the Breuci and to the Daesitiates (whose
centre lies near Sarajevo) belongs, it will be recalled, the place of honour
in the Rebellion of Illyricum of A.D. 6—9. If these powerful and pugnacious
peoples are lacking from the detailed account of the tribes conquered by
Octavianus, it is difficult to see how he can be said to have subjugated the
whole valley of the Sava and all the interior of Bosnia.
To be sure, the argument from silence is dangerous. It would be well
to admit subsidiary operations conducted by the lieutenants of Octavianus.
As Appian remarks, “Augustus recorded his own exploits and not those of
others.The Breuci and the Bosnian tribes, however, are not a side-show;
there is no evidence at all that they were subdued before the “Bellum
Pannonicum” of 13—9 B.C. The'^piece de resistance of the Rebellion of Illy¬
ricum must also be the chief bone of controversy. That absolves one from
the need of discussing fully certain minor arguments of no great evidential
value.
2. In the time given, it would not have been possible, on any theory
of Roman warfare, to reduce all the land from the Dalmatian coast inwards
to the Sava, from the neighbourhood of Ljiubljana and Zagreb to Belgrade
and the Sanjak of Novibazar. The area is immense, the country in character
among the most rugged and inaccessible in all Europe. In 35 B. C. Octavianus
had no easy task in dealing with the lapodes and Colapiani in Croatia and
seizing Siscia; and the next year witnessed battles and sieges not far from the
coast of Dalmatia, in the hinterland of Sibenik and Split. How then was
a conquest of Bosnia possible at this time? It presupposes the control of the
valley of the Sava from Siscia down to Sirmium and Belgrade: and such
control is difficult to win from the direction of Siscia only — a second army
based on Sirmium or Belgrade may well be required as in A.D. 6—9 (on
this whole question see further below).
3. Had such wide conquests been possible, they were not necessary.
The plan of Octavianus was modest and practicable — to make Italy secure
on the north-east in the event of war with Antonius. Hence the annexations
in Croatia and the capture of Siscia — an advanced base for the protection
of northeastern Italy should Antonius emulate the designs of Philip V and
of Mithridates and think of sending a horde of barbarian invaders up the
valley of Sava and across the pass of the Julian Alps. No less important
was Dalmatia — the recalcitrant natives had lent help to the generals of
Pompeius Magnus and had thereby hampered the operations of Julius Caesar
in the Civil War. Gabinius indeed they had routed, and Vatinius was con¬
fronted by serious difficulties. When the breach came, and the War of
Actium, Octavianus had no apprehensions from this side. Indeed, the pro¬
spect of war must have counselled him not to embark upon ambitious schemes
or commit himself too deeply to Danubian operations. The design of

» Plinius, T^H, III, 147: Saus per Colapianos Breucosque (sc. defluit).
Plinius, NH, III, 142 f.
Appian, III., 15.

17
 a Dacian campaign based upon Siscia is indicated by certain sources^^ and
has sometimes been taken seriously. Like the alleged intention of invading
Britain about this time, it may safely be discounted. That it did not occur
the year after the capture of Siscia proves no change of plan or alteration
for the worse in Octavianus’ relations with his rival in the East.
4. A study of the “Bellum Pannonicum” of 13—9 B.C. indicates that
certain tribes, among them the Breuci, were then conquered for the first
time. This topic calls for a fuller demonstration, for the “Bellum Panno¬
nicum” has seldom been estimated at its true worth, either for its own sake
or as the central theme of the foreign policy of Augustus.
The evidence indeed is very scanty Only one individual tribe is
mentioned by name as having been conquered. The old difficulty about
general statements recurs. Dio mentions only Pannonians and Dalmatians.
Further, he describes the campaigns as the crushing of rebellions This
evidence has been adduced to prove that Tiberius in fact made no fresh
conquests at all in Illyricum in the course of the years 12—9 B.C. the
argument could apply with like force to the operations of M. Agrippa and
Vinicius the year before. Evidence nearer in date to the events than Dio,
namely that of Velleius, Suetonius and the Res Gestae of Augustus, out¬
weighs Cassius Dio. If Dio believed that these wars were merely the revolts
of tribes that had been conquered more than twenty years before, then it
may be demonstrated that Dio is wrong. A source of his error my have been
the occurrence of words like “rebellio” and “rebellare” in his sources — these
words do not imply a previous conquest.
The “Bellum Pannonicum” was begun in 13 B.C. by Agrippa and
M. Vinicius^® — if not already by Vinicius alone a year earlier. Tiberius
took over in 12 B.C. Three testimonies, if correctly elucidated, will throw
light upon his campaigns.
1. Suetonius states that Tiberius subdued the Breuci and the Dal-
matae The Breuci lived athwart the Sava between Siscia and Sirmium
It follows that Rome had not yet acquired control of the valley of the Sava.
Therefore Bosnia cannot yet have been conquered.
2. According to Cassius Dio, in his subjugation of the Pannonians in
12 B.C., Tiberius was aided by the Scordisci The Scordisci apparently

Appian, III., 22 f.; cf. Strabo, 207 and 313.

Res Gestae, 30; Velleius, II, 96, 2; Suetonius, Tib., 9; Florus, II, 24, 8 f.j
Dio, LIV, 28, 1; 31, 2 f; 31, 3 f; 36, 3 f; LV, 1, 4; Livius, Per., 139.
For example, e:T:av£aTr)crav Dio, LIV, 31, 2 (12 B.C.).
Dessau, Gesch. der r. Kaiserzeit 1, (1924), 422: Swoboda, o.c., 35, “in keinem
Falle also ist von einer Eroberung die Rede, regelmassig handelt es sicb um Auf-
stande, die unterdriickt wurden”.
Velleius, II, 96, 2. As Dio mentions tbe suppression of a“ Pannonian Revolt”
under 14 B.C., it may well be that the "Bellum Pannonicum” should begin in that
year (Dio, LIV, 24, 3). Vinicius, like other marshals of Augustus, has not been gene¬
rously treated by historians.
^’Suetonius, Tib., 9, Pannonico (sc. bello) Breucos et Dalmatas subegit.
Plinius, N.H., III, 147. cf. Groag, P.W., s.v. Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, 1362.
“Dio, LIV, 31. 3.

18
held northern Serbia and a part of the land between the lower Sava and the
Danube (Syrmia, Srem). When the Scordisci became finally subject to
Rome is not recorded. As recently as 17 or 16 B.C. they had raided the
province of Macedonia 2°. Two conclusions emerge from this passage:
a) there has been an unrecorded Roman advance from the side of Mace¬
donia; b) the Pannonians here mentioned are probably to be identified
with the Breuc .
3. The third passage is the most famous and the most enigmatic. Augus¬
tus in the Res Gestae records that Tiberius subdued “the nations of the
Pannonians which before my Principate no Roman army had ever approach¬
ed, and advanced the boundaries of Illyricum to the bank of the river
Danube”^^. The crux is this: what is the extension of the term “Pannonian”
in this passage? Does it refer to the tribes northward of the Drava, to the
Danube, in the north-west portion of the later province of PannoniaPYet
these peoples, fragmentary, peaceful and menaced by the Dacians, probably
submitted to the Romans without fighting — perhaps as early as 14 or 13
B.C. Their submission may well have followed quickly upon the annexa¬
tion of the dependent kingdom of Noricum in 16 B.C. Does the passage then
refer only to the Pannonians of the Sava valley (including the Breuci) and
those between Sava and Drava? Perhaps — but the extension may be wider.
It has been shown that Bosnia can hardly have been penetrated by Roman
troops before the valley of the Sava was won in 12 B.C. Now Dio refers to
Tiberius in 11 B.C. as operating against Delmatae as well as Pannonians
“Delmatae” in Dio’s usage probably corresponds to inhabitants within the
limits of the Roman province of Dalmatia. Are they the Bosnian tribes?
Now the Res Gestae makes no mention of any subjugation of Dalmatae by
Tiberius. Is it conceivable that they lurk under the "nations of the Panno¬
nians which before my Principate no Roman army had ever approached”?
That is to say, was there a time before the constitution and delimitation of
a Roman province of Dalmatia when the “Dalmatian” or “Illyrian” tribes
of Bosnia were known as “Pannonians”? There was: it can be proved from
two sources.
Strabo the geographer gives a list of Pannonian tribes, extending from
the north to the south “as far as Dalmatia and almost as far as the Ardiae-
ans”, that is, as far as the immediate hinterland of Dalmatia and the Herce¬
govina. Among these Pannonians are the three great Bosnian tribes
(Maezaei, Ditiones and Daesitiates) and the Pirustae^®. And again, he speaks

2® Dio, LIV, 20, 3.

21 Res Gestae 30: Pannoniorum gentes qua\_s a]nte me principem populi Romani

exercitus nunquam ad[i]t devicias per Ti. [Ne]ronem, qui turn erat privtgnus et legatus
meus, imperio populi Romani s[ubie~[ci protulique fines Illyrici ad r[ip]am fluminis
Dan^ul^i.
22 Dio, LIV. 34, 2.

23 g^j-abo, p. 314: eOvyj S’ecjtI tcov Ilavvovicov Bpsuxoi. x-M xai Altiwvsc;
xa'i nEipoucyrai xal AccLOixiiTM, wv BaTtov Tgfey.M\>, xal aXXa aa7)p.6Tepa [j,i,xpa, a SiaTsivei
AaXpaTiai;, cs-/_e8b'^ 8s xi xal ’ApStalwv Eovti rtpop votov.

19
of Pannonians dwelling in upland plains to the south as far as the Delma-
tae and the Ardiaei Bosnia again, indubitably.
Approximately the same extension is given by Appian in two passages
of the Illyrike to the land of the Pannonians — it is forested and it extends
from the lapodians as far as the Dardanians Now Strabo, by mentioning
definite tribal names, provides unequivocal evidence. Further, he indicates
one striking natural feature of Bosnia, the existence of plains — that is to
say, the polja or depressions surrounded by the limestone mountains. The
other feature of that region, the forests, is prominent in Appian. Again, the
Pannonians in Appian extend from this land of the Japodes (i.e. part of
Croatia) as far as Dardania (i.e. the region between Skoplje and Nis). In
Strabo the Pirustae are designated as Pannonians; and the Pirustae are the
north-western neighbours of the Dardanians. A fairly close concordance.
The conception that Strabo and Appian represent is clear. The Panno-
nian land is all the hinterland behind 1115/ria to the Danube, bounded on
the south-west by a line running from the Japodes to the Dardanians: that
is, from Croatia to Southern Serbia. Between this “Pannonia” and the coast
of the Adriatic is the 'Tllyris” of Appian That division is earlier than the
Roman conquest and, naturally, it bears no relation to Roman provincial
boundaries. Appian is often confused and unreliable, Strabo anachronistic,
usually at least ageneration out of date in his information. But one thing
is clear — the Bosnian tribes were once called “Pannonians”. Wrongly
perhaps — the conquest brought enlightenment. It was then seen that the
Bosnian tribes could be distinguished from Pannonians like the Breuci
(who were mainly Celtic), and were in fact closely akin in race and tongue
to the Delmatae of the Dalmatian coast and hinterland. After that there could
be no doubt. For this reasons, or for reasons of administrative convenience,
they were assigned to the province of Dalmatia when Illyricum was divid¬
ed after the suppression of the Rebellion in A.D. 9. From that time on they
would naturally be called Dalmatians. The last campaign in A.D. 9 involv¬
ed the subjugation of Bosnia. Velleius Paterculus the historian, who had
some share in these transactions, describes it as the “Bellum Delmaticum”
Yet there survives perhaps some faint reminiscence of the earlier usage
when Suetonius says that Tiberius subdued Breuci and Delmatae in a
“Pannonian War” It will therefore be at least plausible to maintain that

Strabo, 317 (note the word ^porrlStix).

Appian, III., 22: uXtoSTj? S’IcttIv r) naiovwv xal &Tt(XY)x7]i; ’Ia7t6Swv ercj
AapSavou?. Compare III., 14: ot Ilalove? sicriv [reya Tiapa tov "loTpov, e7ri[i.Y)xe<;
’Ia7r6Swv ini AapSavou?, On this, cf. JRS, XXIII 70. Swoboda, (o.c., 23 and 33)
and Vulic (JIIS, XXIV, 165, in criticism of JRS, XXIII, 66 ff) understand these
passages as restricting the Pannonians to the valley of the Sava. The mention, on
the one hand of the Danube, on the other of the Dardanians, tells against
that assumption.
Appian, III., 23. It therefore is clear that this “ 11 lyris” cannot correspond
in area with the subsquent province of Dalmatia, as argued by Swoboda (o.c., 50).
Velleius, II, 115, 1: also on aninscription (ILS, 3320).
Suetoniiis, J'ib., 9.

20
the Bosnians, namely the Maezaei, Ditiones and Daesitiates are to be reckon¬
ed among the nations of the Pannonians to which no Roman army had
penetrated before the Principate of Augustus.
It follows that the middle and lower valley of the Sava, also Bosnia
and western Serbia, were first conquered, not by Octavianus in 35 and 34
B.C., but in the “Bellum Pannonicum” of 13—9 B.C. Failing detailed
record in our sources, is it possible to discover how in fact the conquest
of Illyricum was achieved? The enduring facts of geography determine the
paths of war and conquest.
Defended by the massive barrier of the Dinaric Alps the interior of
Bosnia with its tangled ranges of forested mountains may not easily be
penetrated by an army operating from the coast. It is true that at different
times during the War of 1914—19 an English statesman and a Russian gene¬
ral advocated the landing of troops in Dalmatia and an invasion of Hun¬
gary through Bosnia. It may be conjectured that these theorists, innocent
of relief-maps, were familiar with the gaily coloured charts of states, lan¬
guages or races then so widely current. Not that Bosnia is easy of access
from the north; but it is on the valley of the Sava that invasion must be
based, if it is to be attempted. The Austro-Hungarian occupation of 1878
illustrates the natural procedure. In the south there was only a small holding
force in the valley of the Neretva. From the north three columns crossed
the Sava, at Gradiska, at Brod and at Samac, and invaded Bosnia.
The control of the valley of the Sava and thereby of the main highway
in all ages between Italy and the Balkans is the necessary condition of
conquest. How may the valley of the Sava be won? The Roman conquest
of the lands east of the Adriatic came from two directions, from north¬
eastern Italy and from Macedonia. The junction of the two lines of pene¬
tration isolated and cut off Bosnia and western Serbia: to speak in modern
terms Zagreb and Belgrade must fall before Sarajevo. In the “Bellum Pan-
nonicum” we are informed only of the advance from one side, from the north -
west — and poorly at that. There is no record at all of operations from the
side of Macedonia. Yet such, on any rational and geographical theory,
there must have been.
Two faint hints suggest the truth. First, the Scordisci who harried
Macedonia in 17 or 16 B.C. must have been reduced by the Balkan Army
before 12 B.C. when they lent aid to Tiberius against the Breuci.^^ An
unknown governor of Macedonia must have been active to some purpose
in the meantime. Second, in one of the years 13, 12 or 11 B.C. all Thrace
rose in revolt against Rome To deal with this rising, the consular
L. Calpurnius Piso was brought with an army from a command in the East
(probably the governorship of the large province of Galatia-Pamphylia).
An explanation of the outbreak of the revolt and of the summoning of Piso
might perhaps be sought in the hypothesis that the governor of Macedonia
and the Balkan army were absent and otherwise engaged, perhaps against Pan¬
nonians beyond Singidunum and Sirmium, perhaps even in eastern Bosnia.

Dio^ LIV, 20, 3; 31, 3.

3“ Dio, LIV, 34, 6 etc.

21
 The best idea of the “Bellum Pannonicum”, however, is supplied by
the-Reconquest of Illyricum nearly twenty years later, after the great revolt
of A.D. 6, for the same conditions of warfare may be deemed operative
All Illyricum rose in his rear when Tiberius marched north to invade Bohe¬
mia and destroy the power of King Maroboduus. The movement originated
among the Daesitiates, led by Bato, and soon embraced the Breuci under
two chieftains: Pinnes and another Bato. These two tribes were the nucleus
of the rebellion. Tiberius turned back, reached Siscia and held that position.
In the south-east the Balkan Army under Caecina Severus was able to rescue
Sirmium The insurgents held all that lay between Siscia and Sirmium
and all to the south as far as the coast of the Adriatic. In the next year the
Balkan Army, reinforced by a fresh force from the East under M. Plautius
Silvanus (probably, like Piso nearly twenty years before, legate of Galatia-
Pamphylia)^® marched from Sirmium westwards and after winning the great
battle of the Volcaean Marshes joined the army of Illyricum and secured the
valley of the Sava. In the next year, A.D. 8, the Breuci capitulated at the
river Bathinus Bosnia remained. In the year following it was invaded
by three separate Roman armies. The last tribes to succumb were the Daesi¬
tiates and the Pirustae.
From this analogy it would appear that in the original conquest, for
a part of the time at least, two forces co-operated, the Army of Illyricum
based on Siscia and the Army of the Balkans, coming from the south-east.
Otherwise the work could not have been done — and this is an added argu¬
ment against the theory that in 35 and 34 B.C. a single force from the
west subjugated the valley of the Sava and all lands from the Sava to
the sea.
It is impossible to reconstruct in detail the “Bellum Pannonicum" —
and perhaps unnecessary. It began in 13 B.C. — or rather, perhaps in 14
B.C., for M. Vincius, attested in 13 B.C., when he was helped by Agrippa,
may well have been there a year earlier. We have seen that in 12 B.C. the
Breuci were reduced and the valley of the Sava brought under Roman
control. The next year ma}^ have witnessed invasions of Bosnia — at least
Cassius Dio records operations against both Pannonians and Dalmatians.
Two years more and all Illyricum was Roman from the Adriatic to the
Danube — in name at least, for it is doubtful whether the Romans had
yet practised the brutal repression and driven deep into the country the
military roads that were necessary before the Roman peace could endure
in countries like Bosnia or northwestern Spain. The suppression of the
rebellion of A.D. 6 was a more thorough and murderous repetition of the
original conquest. After that, the Illyrian lands never rose again.

For the reconstruction, cf. CAH, X, 369 ff.

Caecina was legate of Moesia. At some time between 9 B.C. and A.D. 6 the
legions of Macedonia had been taken from the proconsul and assigned to this new
command. For the date (uncertain and controversial) cf. JUS, XXIV, (1934), 139 ff.
Below, Ch. III.
33 Cf. R. Syme, “Klio”, XXVII (1934), 139 ff.
34 Dio, LIV, 34, 3.

22
 It was not enough to extend the bounds of Illyricum to the bank of the
river Danube. The time now came to secure the new frontier by isolating
or pushing away some of the peoples beyond the river, by establishing friend¬
ly relations with others. This was achieved in the period 9 B.C. — A.D. 6,
especially perhaps during 6 B.C. — A.D. 4, that dark decade during which
Tiberius was absent from the control of affairs. The historians fail us almost
completely — Dio is both brief and fragmentary and Velleius Paterculus
did not wish to record the exploits of generals who were the peers and rivals
of Tiberius. Even were there no evidence at all, we should have to suppose
that something of the kind took place.
But there are significant scraps of information Augustus in his Res
Gestae states that his army crossed the Danube and compelled the tribes
of the Dacians to submit to the commands of the Roman People. Strabo twice
mentions an expedition against Dacians. Two authorities (Tacitus and
Florus) speak of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus; and there is a mysterious and
fragmentary inscription recording the exploits of an unknown governor of
Illyricum — almost certainly M. Vinicius: he appears to have crossed the
Danube and constrained to homage tribes such as the Cotini, Osi, Anartii
and others.
Such is the evidence. How is it to be fitted together? The greatest uncer¬
tainty of date and relation prevails, there is not a name or a campaign that
is not a matter of controversy The present writer for his part is of the opi¬
nion that all these events belongtotheperiodbetweentheendof the “Bellum
Pannonicum” and the outbreak of the Great Rebellion (that is, 9 B.C. —
A.D. 6^'^). But besides being obscure, conjectural and controversial, this
large topic is alien to the purpose of the present paper.
However that may be, it is at least to be presumed that the line of the
Danube had been secured and that Maroboduus had been isolated from the
Dacians when Tiberius marched against him in A.D.6. The Great Rebel¬
lion not merely saved Maroboduus but averted the Roman conquest of Bohe¬
mia and western Germany. The disaster of Varus in A.D.9 would not by
itself have been enough to baffle the Romans, if it had not followed upon
the Rebellion and reinforced the lesson of Illyricum. The Romans had been
too optimistic — in the next generation there is no thought of expeditions
beyond the Danube. That frontier was reasonably secure — but within
the frontier lived the formidable fighting tribes of Pannonians, Dalmatians
and Thracians. To watch these internal enemies, not to protect the frontier,
was the function of the seven legions stationed in Pannonia, Dalmatia and
Moesia. The early years of the reign of Tiberius witnessed extensive road

Res Gestae, 30; Strabo, p. 304, cf. 305; Tacitus, Ann., IV, 44; 1; Florus,
II, 28 f.; ILS, 8965.
For example, Patsch dates the operations of Lentulus to 14 — 13 B.C. (o. c.,
p. 93), A. V. Premerstein to A.D. 11, “Jahreshefte”, XXIX (1935), 60 ff. For Vini¬
cius, Premerstein chooses 14 B.C. (“Jahreshefte”, XXVIII, (1933), 140 ff. Patsch
following Dobias 10 B.C. (o.c., 107).
3’ Cf. JRS, XXIV, 113 ff., CAH, X, 366 f.

23
building in Bosnia. Though broken and crushed, the tribes might rise again.
This rational apprehension was justified in Thrace. It is surprising indeed
that there was never again an insurrection in Bosnia.
★

The last years of Augustus’ life were clouded by the disasters in Illy-
ricum and Germany. The melancholy ending must not be allowed to obscure
the splendid and crowning achievement of his foreign and military policy,
namely the conquest of Illyricum and the winning of the land route from
Italy to the Balkans. With Augustus, Illyricum advances to the middle
of the stage in fine style and with considerable effect. Siscia and Sirmium
at once became historical names: Naissus and Singidunum, though lacking
notice, can have been hardly less important in the wars. The centuries pass,
and there is no word of these cities until they appear again in the records
of history as the birthplaces of emperors and capitals of Empire.

I. ADDENDUM

This paper, published at Belgrade in 1937, had for its purpose to state
again in simple terms a general thesis about the Roman conquest of Illyri¬
cum which I had adopted several years earlier when composing a chapter
for CAH,X. (1934). Since that thesis failed to attract much attention (praise
or censure or bare mention) there is an excuse to insist and persist. And
many were not disposed to abandon a “tradition” and concede the primacy
of Illyricum over Germany in the imperial policy of Caesar Augustus...
Three actions stand in relation, viz. the campaigns of Octavianus in
35 and 34 B.C., the conquest of 13—9 B.C., the reconquest after the great
rebellion of A.D. 6. If one of them is misconstrued, the others suffer. The
first was only a brief episode, an operation of restricted scope. None the
less, the notion that Octavianus conquered Bosnia and all the valley of the
Sava still finds fanciers. For a recent refutation, see the long paper of
W. Schmitthenner, “Historia” VII, (1958), 189 ff. The matter will be taken
up below, in the Addendum to Ch. VIII.
In the wider sphere, tribes and turmoil all the way from Noricum to
the Pontic shore anterior to the Augustan conquest come into the account.
Seethe valuable paper of Alfoldi in “Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis”
VIII, (1942), 1 ff. [the German version of “Budapest Tortenete” I, (1943),
137 ff.]. Also A. Mocsy in his “Pannonia”, P~W^ S^ipp., IX (1962), 527 ff.
There is a grievous gap of information about Macedonia in the Triumviral
period. A general of Marcus Antonius may have achieved the subjugation
of the Dardanian territory, with control of the strategic area of Naissus

24
(I hope to be able to deal with this matter elsewhere). Conquest in the
Balkans was continued soon after the War of Actium, in another direction
(by way of Serdica), by M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 30 B.C.). For his campaigns
see E. Groag, P~W, XIII, (1926), 272 ff.; C. Patsch, “Wiener S-B" CCXIV
(1932), 69 ff.); A. Stein, Die Legaten von Moesien (1940), 10 ff.; A. Mdcsy,
“Historia” XV, (1966), 511 ff. Finally, ample study should go to the “Bel
lum Thracicum” of L. Piso, three years of warfare (? 12—10 B.C.). See
remarks in the Addendum to Ch. III.

25
 II

M. VINICIUS (COS. 19 B.C.)

I. The new inscription from Gales.

II. The date of the operations recorded by the inscription

Dessau 8965.

III. The identity of the general.

I. The following inscription “Not. Scav.'* 1929, p. 31) was recently

discovered at Gales:
M. Vinicius P.f., M.n.,L. pron., cos. II, VII vir [epu]lonuni, sodalis
Augustalis, thriumphalibus ornamentis, quinq{uennalis) viam ah angiporto
aedi[s] lunonis Lucinae usque [ad'] aedem Matutae et [clivum] ab iano ad
g[isiayios portae] Stellatin[ae et viam patulam] ad portaym laevam et ah
foro] ad port[am domesticam sua pecunia stravit].
In the^Not. Scav.” the editor assumes that this Vinicius is the well-
known consul of 19 B.C., the son of a Roman knight from Gales, and an
intimate friend of Augustus. He had been legate of Gallia Gomata in 25 B.G.,
commander of the army of Illyricum in 13 B.G. He later held the command
on the Rhine, probably in A.D. 1—4, and then received the ornamenta
triumphalia}-. This identification has been accepted by E. Groag, in a stan¬
dard work of reference.^ But there is a grave difficulty which does not seem
to have been observed — the second consulate. From 27 B.G. down to the
Principate of Glaudius only twice was a second consulate conferred upon
any save members of the imperial family, on T. Statilius Taurus in 26 B.G.,
and Q. Sanquinius Maximus {i'he praefectus urbi), in succession to Gains,
from February I, A.D. 39. This cannot be mere chance. By giving his trusted
friend Taurus a second consulate for the year 26 B.G. Augustus provided

^ The ancient evidence about Vinicius comes from Tacitus, Ann., VI, 15;
Suetonius, Dzwms Aug.,l\-, Dio, LIII, 26, 4; Velleius, II, 96, 2 — 3 (cf.Florus, II,
24), and 104, 2.
^ P-W. s.v. P. Sulpicius Quirinius, 827.

26
for the security of Rome for a part, at least, of the time when he, the other
consul, was absent in Spain. This was an exceptional situation. But never
again, throughout the whole Principate of Augustus, was such a second
consulate conferred upon an ordinary senator. The Princeps wished to restore
the consulate, like other institutions, to its former dignity. So at first and
for some time the tenure of the consulate was again made annual. Even
wRen, for reasons easily understood, this rule was relaxed, no senator, how¬
ever eminent, was elevated to a second consulate — not even a Messalla
Corvinus, a Domitius Ahenobarbus, a Calpurnius Piso or aFabius Maximus,
to name only a few of the nobles who enjoyed the favour and the confidence
of Augustus.
Is it to be believed that what was denied to these men was granted to
the son of a Roman knight? An honour so unique would surely have been
amply recorded, not merely b}^ Velleius Paterculus or by Tacitus but on
the consular Fasti. All the eponymous consulates are known, and a second
consulate must have been of this character — at least all known second consul¬
ates in the period of the Julio—Claudian emperors were either eponymous
or held by substitution for the emperor. It was Claudius who first made a
practice of conferring this distinction upon eminent senators. From A.D. 43
onwards there is quite a series of second consulates — 43, F. Vitellius;
44, C. Passienus Crispus; 45, M. Vinicius; 46, D. Valerius Asiaticus. The
Vinicius of the inscription therefore appears to be, not M. Vinicius {cos.
19 B.C.), whose second consulate is not only unrecorded but almost incred¬
ible, but his grandson {cos. A.D. 30), whose second consulate is attested
in A.D. 45.4
Against such an attribution of the inscription, however, there are two
objections that might be raised.
1. The ornamenta triumphalia of the grandson are nowhere recorded.
But this need occasion no surprise — Claudius bestowed that distinction
with lavish and almost ridiculous generosity, even on men who were not of
consular standing, or on a mere youth like his destined son-in-law Silanus.
The British expedition must have produced a large crop of ornamenta trium-
phoJia, for Claudius took with him many distinguished senators, for secu¬
rity as well as for ornament, from affection or from fear. There were several
men who would not with safety have been left behind in Rome. This is not
the place for a full list of the retinue or staff of Claudius But one may
note M. Licinius Crassus Frugi; his son Cn. Pompeius Magnus, the husband
of Antonia; F. Junius Silanus Torquatus, betrothed to Octavia; Ti. Plau-
tius Silvanus Aelianus, brother by blood or adoption of Urgulanilla, who

® Each mentions the ancestry of his grandson. Velleius, II, 96, 2: avo tuo,
consulari] Tacitus, Ann., VI, 15: Vinicio oppidanum genus: Calibus orius, patre
atque avo consularibus, cetera equestri familia erat.
4 Xhe argument from the second consulate is so strong that it is hardly neces¬
sary to mention another consideration. The Vinicius of the inscription was sodalis
Augustalis, that is to say, he must have survived Augustus. Whether the grand¬
father lived so long, however, is uncertain.
® Suetonius, Divus Claud., 24; Dio, LX, 23, 1; ILS, 957.

27
had once been married to Claudius; Galba, the legate of Upper Germany,
of ancient lineage, with some reputation as a soldier, or at least as a disci¬
plinarian — omnium consensu capax imperii; D. Valerius Asiaticus, who
had grasped at power after the assassination of Gains; Cn. Sentius Satur-
ninus, who on the same occasion had advocated the restoration of the
Republic.
Vinicius cannot have been absent from the family party. He had mar¬
ried a niece of Claudius, Julia (Livilla), the daughter of Germanicus ®.
Though the origin of his family had been humble, a triumphalis avus and
mariage with a princess had raised him to a dangerous eminence.’ He had
done his best to veil his talents, or the absence of them, under an ostenta¬
tious profession of the characteristic virtue of a senator, that of quies *.
But, like Valerius Asiaticus, he had asserted his claim to the Principate.
Though Claudius strove to blot out the memory of those two days of uncer¬
tainty that had followed the assassination of Gains, all was not forgotten.
Both Vinicius and Asiaticus received second consulates, in 45 and in 46 A.D.
respectively; but neither of them was permitted to survive that honour by
more than a year ®. There thus appear to have been two good reasons, either
of which by itself would have induced Claudius to take Vinicius with him
to Britain; family ties and a well-grounded distrust. To have omitted Vini¬
cius from his retinue would have been a gratuitous insult. Vinicius went
to Britain like other relatives of the Princeps, received, like then and with
as much justification, the ornamenta triumphalia, and swelled the distin¬
guished company that escorted Claudius in triumph to the Capitol.
2. The other difficulty is this. The Vinicius of the new inscription is
described as “P.f., M.n., L. pron.” The grandfather, as is known from the
Fasti, is “P.f.”: the grandson should therefore be called “P.f., M.N., P. pron”.
To defend the attribution of the inscription to the grandson, it must be
assumed either that there has been a mistake or that the grandfather, at
some time later than his consulate, passed by adoption (probably testamen¬
tary) into the family of L. Vinicius {cos. 33 B.C.), perhaps a near relation,
and so became “L.f.” instead of “P.f.” This, it must be admitted, sounds very
far-fetched, and looks like a counsel of despair. Yet a mistake or a change
of name must be assumed — or else it must be believed that the grandfather
received a second consulate from Augustus. That is, in short, the problem:
a choice of two difficulties.
II. The whole question has a more than prosopographical value. It con¬
cerns the identity of the illustrious unknown of the inscription from Tus-
culum, ILS, 8965:
® Cf. E. Hiibner, Das romische Heer in Britannien, “Hermes”, XVI, 1881,
524 — 6. The following passages from] the] ancient evidence justify the names
mentioned here and the statements made about them: Dio, LX, 21, 5; ILS, 957,
986; Suetonius, Galba, 7; Tacitus, Ann., XI, 3; Eutropius, VIII, 13, 2; Josephus,
Ant. /., XIX, 2, 1 ff.; 4. 3.
^ Tacitus, Ann., VI, 15.
® Dio, LX, 27, 4: y^P xal Sca7tp£7iri]? tivfjp, xrjv Si xal tx kccorou
jrpdcTTcov saa)!]eTO.
® Dio, LX, 27, 1—4; Tacitus, Ann., XI, 1 — 3.

28
 ...] cins [...
[cos., XV^ vir s. /.[...
[legatus projpr. Augusti Caesaris in [Illyrico
[primus? t^^rans flumen Danivium [...
[...] m et Basternarum exer[citum.. .
[... fu]gavitque, Cotinos [.. .
[...]s et Anartio [s.. .
[... A^ugusii [..
This remarkable inscription, first published in 1895, has hardly receiv¬
ed the attention it deserves^®. The man’s name ended in — cius. This
narrows the range. A.v. Premerstein identified him with M. Vinicius and
dated to 14 B.C. the operations recorded on the inscription (Vinicius is
known to have been in Illyricum in the next year, 13 B.C., when he and
Agrippa began the “Bellum Pannonicum” which Tiberius concluded.
Ritterling rejected both the date and the identification, but ventured no
further suggestions. Dobias accepted Vinicius but argued for the date
11 B.C.; similarly Patsch, in 10 B.C. Domaszewski assigned no name to
the general, but assumed that his operations belonged to the period 9,
B.C. — A.D. 6. It is much to be regretted that he did not have occasion to
discuss and justify his date. Groag has recently touched upon the question.
He assumes more or less the same date as Premerstein for these operations
(immediately after the annexation of Noricum, c. 16—15 B.C.), and suggests
tentatively that the unknown general who conducted them may have been
P. Sulpicius Quirinius, cos. 12 B.C. (when of praetorian standing).
It would demand considerable space to discuss adequately all the pro¬
blems of history and of geography presented by the inscription and by theo¬
ries about it; and the following observations will be kept as brief as they can
be. The identity of the general and the date of his operations are closely
connected but by no means inseparable problems. It may be too much to
expect a convincing solution of both; but a solution of one of them is not
beyond all hope, if, for the purpose of the argument they are kept separate.
An attempt to discover the approximate date of the campaign of the
unknown general would appear to have the better prospect of success. At
what date is a legate of Augustus likely to have crossed the Danube on its
middle course somewhere between Vienna and Budapest, defeated an army
of Bastarnae and other barbarians, and to have entered into relations, wheth¬
er of peace or war, with various tribes from the Cotini, who probably dwelt
in the valley of the Gran in Slovakia, eastwards to the Anartii, the neigh-

For example it is not mentioned in Dessau’sGescAfcAte devr.Kaiserzeit. (1924).

The most important references are: A.v. Premerstein, Ein Elogium des M. Vinicius,
Cos. 19 V. Chr., "Jahreshefte”, VII (1904), 215 ff; E. Ritterling, P-W, s.v. Legio,
col. 1229; J. DobiiS, Zadunajskd vyprava M.Vinicia, "CasopisNdrodnihoMusea”,
1922, 81 ff. and 213 ff. (inaccessible to me); C. Patsch, Beitrage zur Volkerkunde
von Sudosieuropa V, I. ("Wiener Sitzungsberichte", CCXIV, I, 1932), 104 ff.: A.v.
Domaszewski, Gesch. dev r. Kaiser I, (1922), 222; E. Groag, P-W, s.v. P. Sulpicius
Quirinius, 827 f.

29
hours of the Dacians on the north-west? Premerstein held that he crossed
the Danube at Carnuntum in 14 B.C. and marched eastwards; the object
of his campaign was to secure the line of the Danube for Rome and create
beyond it a line of dependent states between the Germans and the Dacians,
perhaps with a view to operations against the Dacians.
We must ask, however, whether a campaign of this nature was desir¬
able or even possible at so early a date as 14 B.C. The annexation of the
kingdom of Noricum had brought Carnuntum into Roman hands, it is true
But an expedition of such scope surely presupposes that the conquest of
all Illyricum up to the Danube had been already achieved. This was not
the case. In 13 B.C. Agrippa and Vinicius fought against the Pannonians,
and this “Bellum Pannonicum” was continued and completed by Tiberius
in 12— 19 B.C. Before 12 B.C. the Pannonian Breuci had not been com¬
plete subdued, and so Rome cannot yet have controlled the valley of the Sava
and the route down to Sirmium and Singidunum^^. Only when that had
been achieved could Roman armies deal with the fierce tribes to the south
in the interior of Bosnia, and receive the submission of the more peaceful
population in the north between Drave and Danube. Until Illyricum has
been subjugated the need for operations beyond the Danube does not present
itself. A date before 9 B.C. is therefore excluded.
A date within the period 9 B.C. — A.D. 6, as assumed but not discus¬
sed by Domaszewski, would be not only attractive but highly probable.
These operations would then have been both possible and desirable. Pre¬
merstein has pointed out the need for separating the Germans of Bohemia
from the Dacians, but Maroboduus had not brought his Marcomanni from
the Main valley to Bohemia earlier than 9 B.C.^^. In his new home he soon
built up for himself a formidable empire. It would therefore be reasonable
to suppose that the operations of the unknown general were intended either
to check the expansion of Maroboduus or to pave the way for the grand com¬
bined invasion of Bohemia which was in fact launched in A.D. 6. The cam¬
paign of A.D. 6 was a remarkable achievement; but what led up to it also
deserves and repays study. By A.D. 6 Maroboduus must have been weakened
and hemmed in on every side. On the north-west Tiberius had defeated the
Langobardi and won over the Semnones in A.D. 5, powerful nations which

Noricum was probably annexed in 16 B.C. (Dio LIX, 20, 2.) Veleius states
that Carnuntum belonged to the kingdom of Noricum (II, 109, 3).
12 Vellfeius, II, 96, 2 —3; Subinde bellum Pannonicum quod incohafum ab Agrippa

Marcoque Vinicio, avo tuo, consulari, magnum atroxque et perquam vicinum immine-
bat Italiae per N eronem gestum esi;p)io, LIV, 31, 2 — 4 etc.; Suetonius, Tib., 9: Pan-
nonico (sc. bello) Breucos et Dalmatas subegit-, and especially. Res Gestae, 30: Pan-
noniorum gentes qua(s a'\nte me principem populi Romani exercitus nunquam
devictas per Ti. [Nejronem, qui turn erat privignus et legatus meus imperio populi
Romani s\ubie'^ci protulique fines Illyrici ad r[ip^am fluminis Dan[u]i.
i®For the nature and extent of the conquest of Tiberius, cf. JRS, XXIII
(1933), 66 ff., review of E. Swoboda, Octavian und Illyricum. (below, Ch. VIII).
11 Drusus appears to have dealings with them in 9 B.C. (Florus, II, 30, 23;
Orosius, VI, 21, 15; Dio, LV, 1, 2).

30
at one time or another recognized the hegemony of Maroboduus At an
earlier date (between 7 and 2 B.C.) Domitius Ahenobarbus had settled the
Hermunduri in Franconia and Thuringia This would cut off Maroboduus
from the Chatti and facilitate an invasion of Bohemia from the west. What
had been done in the east and south-east? The operations of the unknown
general supply the answer and complete the picture. They served to cut off
Maroboduus from the Dacians. The humbling of the Dacians themselves
was also a necessary preliminary to the campaign of A.D. 6. This was achiev¬
ed by Cn. Cornelius Lentulus, at a date of which the ancient sources give
no indication That it also belongs to this period, I hope to be able to
argue elsewhere. For the present it may suffice to state that by the inser¬
tion of the unknown general (and of Lentulus) in the period 9 B.C. —
A.D. 6 an intelligible account of the history of the Danube lands during
those years can be reconstructed.
Reasons of policy and strategy suggest the date 9 B.C. — A.D. 6. An
examination of the literary sources for the wars of the period will, I think,
confirm that date and narrow it to 6 B.C. — A.D. 4. That is the most obscure
decade of the Principate of Augustus. The history of Cassius Dio is defective
at this point; only a fragment records the exploits of Ahenobarbus — apart
from that there is nothing about Rhine or Danube. It cannot be taken as
axiomatic that Dio must have mentioned the campaigns of the unknown
general and of Lentulus. But if they belong to this period, their absence
from the narrative of Dio need occasion no surprise. On the contrary.
The silence of Velleius Paterculus is equally comprehensible, but for
a different reason. Sensit terrarmn or bis digressum a custodia Neronem urhis
His account of the period between the departure of Tiberius to Rhodes,
6 B.C., and his resumption of the charge of affairs in A.D. 4 is contained
in three chapters (II, 100—2) which are devoted mainly to illustrating the
unfortunate results of the absence of Tiberius. He refrains from recording
the exploits of the generals who had taken the place of Tiberius on the Rhine
and in Illyricum — naturally enough; we should not have expected him
to mention the great march of Ahenobarbus from the Danube to the Elbe
which belonged to this period. A little further on in his narrative he does,
it is true, mention that Vinicius had been in Germany (A.D. 1—4?), but
only incidentally and to illustrate how sorely Tiberius was required. The
silence of Dio and of Velleius so far from weakening, really confirms the
attribution of the exploits of the unknown general to the years 6 B.C.—
A.D. 4. If they belonged to any other period, that silence would indeed
be remarkable.

15 Velleius, II, 106; Res Gestae, 26. Cf. Tacitus, Ann., II, 45.
15 Dio LV, 10 a, 2.
1’ Lentulus is mentioned byname in Florus, II; 28 — 9 and Tacitus, Ann., IV,
44; cf., however, also Res Gestae, 30-31 and Strabo, VII, p. 304. The commonly
accepted modern date appears to be A.D. 11. Thus Groag in P-W, s.v. Cn. Cornelius
Lentulus.
18 Velleius, II, 100, 1.

31
 III. The problem of the identity of the illustrious unknown may now
be investigated. His inscription records that he was XV vir sacris faciundis.
The M. Vinicius of the inscription from Gales was VII vir epuhnum (see
above). Groag therefore concluded that the unknown general was not
M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.C.), and suggested that he might have been P. Sulpi-
cius Quirinius. But, as has been shown above, the inscription from Gales
refers not to the M. Vinicius who was consul in 19 B.G. but to his grandson
(cos. 30, cos. 77, A.D. 45). It can therefore still be maintained that the
unknown general was M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.G.). To satisfy the requirements
discussed above one requires a legate of Illyricum of the period 6 B.G. —
A.D. 4 whose name ended with the letters — cius. The choice is narrowed
to M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.G.), P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. 12 B.G.), G. Mar-
cius Gensorinus (cos. 8 B.G.), Ser. Sulpicius Galba (cos. 5 B.G.), L. Vini¬
cius (cos. 5 B.G.), Q. Fabricius (cos. 2. B.G.), P. Vinicius (cos. 2 A.D.).
Of these men only two, M. Vinicius and Quirinius, are known to have com¬
manded an army after their consulates. The command in Illyricum with
its army of five legions was at this time second to none in the Empire. It
called for ability and experience — and above all, devotion to the interests
of Augustus. Vinicius and Quirinius are known to have held high commands
in this period, and, with Sentius Saturninus, Lollius, Varus and Aheno-
barbus, were prominent in the councils and in the confidence of the Prin-
ceps. The issue therefore seems to lie between Vinicius and Quirinius
(though the claims of Gensorinus might perhaps be admitted). Quirinius
knew the East well but there is no evidence that he was employed in the
northern frontier provinces. None the less, it is just possible that he was
legate of Illyricum for a short time before or after Ahenobarbus (c. 6 B. c.
or c. 1 B.G.) or in A.D. 4—5 (he was in the East in A.D. 1—3). But there
would be serious difficulties in such a hypothesis and it is unnecessary,
for there is a better candidate, M. Vinicius, who already knew Gaul and
Illyricum. Vinicius is attested in Germany in A.D.l or 2 (see below), in which
command he was the successor of Ahenobarbus. It is therefore an easy and
natural conjecture that, like Ahenobarbus, he governed Illyricum and Ger¬
many in succession, and had followed Ahenobarbus in Illyricum a few j^ears
before A.D. 1.
A reasonable date and a reasonable identity have been discovered for
the unknown legate of Illyricum. There is, however, an objection that can
be raised against this attribution — the silence of Velleius, who dedicated
his work to the grandson, his friend and patron. Velleius nowhere mentions
that Vinicius was legate of Illyricum and had won such distinction in this
period. But Velleius has not recorded every stage in the career of his patron's
grandfather. He omits the command in Gaul in 25 B.G., and the success,
perhaps the conquest of the Vallis Poenina, that gave Augustus an impera-

Cf., Groag, P-W, s.v. P. Sulpicius Quirinius.

To mention only the fact that Tacitus has given a summary of his chief
claims to fame (Ann., Ill, 48).

32
torial salutation He does mention the “Bellum Pannonicum" of 13 B.C. —
for Vinicius began what Tiberius was triumphantly to complete^®, and he
mentions Vinicius’ command in Germany — again with reference to Tibe¬
rius. Velleius’ history has now become a biography and a panegyric of
Tiberius. The successes of others have no place in it, save when they illus¬
trate or enhance those of Tiberius.
The occasion and the language in which Velleius speaks of Vinicius’
operations in Germany make this evident. Non diu vindicem custodemque
imperi sui morata in urhe patria proiinus in Germaniam mittit uhi ante trien-
nium sub M. Vinicio, avo iuo, clarissimo viro^ immensum exarserat hel¬
ium, et erat ah eo quibusidam in locis gestum, quibusdam sustentatum feli-
citer, eoque nomine decreta ei cum speciosissima inscriptione operum orna-
menta triumphalia (II. 104). This is not enthusiastic praise (especially the
sustentatum feliciter); and the lack of an}^ conspicuous success won by
Vinicius enhances by contrast the glowing picture of Tiberius’ victories.
If Vinicius had held the command in Illyricum and had crossed the Danube
during the period when Tiberius w^as in exile at Rhodes, that fact would
have had no place in abiography of Tiberius, and would, indeed, have destroy¬
ed the impression which Velleius strives to create, that Tiberius was indis¬
pensable, that only Tiberius was successful on the northern frontiers^®.
It can therefore be argued that the inscription is an elogium of M. Vini¬
cius. It need not have contained a record of all the posts that he held. At
the top came his name and the mention of his consulate and priesthood,,
as the fragment shows, then his gesta. On what survives of the inscription
only his exploits beyond the Danube are discernible: they must have been
followed by the record of his operations in Germany. The latter, according
to Velleius, were the occasion of the grant of the ornamenta triumphalia^
If, like his predecessor in Germany, Ahenobarbus, he passed without inter¬
ruption from the one command to the other, the combined achievement of
both commands may well have been regarded as the justification for the
award. This appears to have happened in the case of Ahenobarbus.
Suetonius records that Ahenobarbus received the ornamenta ex Germanico
hello That is to say, probably for his operations, as legate in Germany,
against the Cherusci in 1 B.C., at the time when he constructed the famous
pontes longi But Tacitus mentions as the occasion of the grant his march

*1 Dio, LIII, 26. 4.

22 Velleius, II, 96, quoted above.
23 The rehabilitation of Tiberius cannot be extended to cover his panegyrist.,
Velleius is mendacious as well as misleading. Tiberius marched to the Elbe in A.D. 5..
This, says Velleius was numquam antea spe conceptum, nedum opere tentatum (II,.
106, 2). But Drusus had reached the Elbe, Ahenobarbus had crossed it.
2* Suetonius, Nero, 4.
2» Dio, LV, 10a, 2. For the pontes longi, cf. Tacitus, Ann., I, 63.

33;
from the Danube to the Elbe, which had happened a year or two before,
when he was still legate of Illyricum, as Dio records^®.
The hypothesis that M. Vinicius was legate of fllyricum c. 2—1 B.C.
immediately after Ahenobarbus provides a valuable „ piece of information
about one of the eminent consulars who stood near to Augustus, one of the
generals to whom he entrusted the great military commands in the critica 1
period when death had bereft him of Agrippa and Drusus, when Tiberius
had retired, a self-willed exile, to Rhodes; and, if Lentulus too be added,
it supplements and probably completes the list of the legates of Illyricum
between 9 B.C. and A.D. 6;
8 B.C. Sex. Appuleius (Cassiodorus, Mommsen, Chron. Min. II p. 135).
L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (Dio, LV, 10a, 2).
? M. Vinicius? (ILS 8965).
? Cn. Cornelius Lentulus.
A.D. 6 M. Valerius Messallinus (Velleius, I I, 112, 1—2; Dio, LV, 29, 1).
It is only a hypothesis that the unknown legate was M. Vinicius;
and no attribution of the inscription can claim to be more than a hypothesis .
More important, however, than the identity of the general is the date of
the operations which he conducted. That he was Vinicius cannot be proved:
or disproved; but that his operations belong to the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4
is highly probable, for two independent reasons, the nature of the opera¬
tions themselves and the nature of the literary evidence about the wars
of Augustus.

II. ADDENDUM

The elogium from Tusculum, it is no surprise, continues to present

problems. The following new items may be consulted:
A.V. Premerstein, “Jahreshefte”, XXVIII (1933), 140 ff.; XXIX (1935),
60 ff.; A. Degrassi, Inscr. it. XIII. Ill Elogia (1937), no. 91; R. Syme,
CAH, X (1934), 366 f.; A. Alfoldi, ib., XI (1936), 84; F. Miltner, “Klio”
XXX (1937), 213 ff.; J. Dobias, “Eunomia” I (1939), 47 ff.; A. Dobo,
Inscriptiones extra fines Pannoniae Daciaeque repertae etc. “Diss. Pann.”,
I, 1 (1940), no. 155; A. Alfoldi, “Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis”
VIII, 1 (1942), 1 ff.; R. Hanslik, P-W, IX, A (1961), 112 ff.; A. Mocsy,
P-W, Supp., IX (1962), 543 f.
P. 26 — The inscription at Cales. As indicated, the L. pron. in the
filiation was a difficulty, but minor. It could not disprove the consul of
A.D. 30. On Premerstein’s suggestion, the stone was inspected. It duly
disclosed P. pron. [o.c. (1935), 73].

Tacitus, Ann., IV, 44: post exercitu flumen Albim transcendit, longius pene-
trata Germania quam quisquam priorum, easque ob res insignia triumphi adeptus est;
Dio, LV, 10 a, 2.

34
 P.32 —Tha identity of the general in ILS, 8935. GroaggaveupP.Sulpi-
ciu3 Quirinius fcjs. 12 B.C.); and C. Marcius Censorinus (cos. 8 B.C.) is
ruled out, sines ha was an augur (CIL, X, 5339). The consul of 19 B.C.
holds the field. As a curiosum niay be noted the attribution to Valerius
Msssallinus (cos. 3 B.C.), legate of Illyricura in A.D. 6; enounced by
D. V. Lunzar, P-W, VIII, A (1955), 161. Premarstein’s photograph lends
no support [o.c. (1933), 141, reproduced by Degrassi], The fragment itself
disappeared between 1915 and 1918,
P. 26 — The career of M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.C.). Add a proconsulate
of Asia. L. Robert registered, but did not publish, an inscription at Mylasa
“msutionnant le culte de Drusus, ‘nouvel Orient’, et de Marcus Vinicius”
'(Rev. arch. VI (1935), 156]. He assumed without question the consul of
19 B.C.; and tha argument is reinforced by G.W. Bowersock, Augustus and
the. Greek World (1935), 119, cf. 150 f. The last proconsul known to have
honours of this typa is C. Marcius Censorinus, the consul of 8 B.C. (SEG,
II, 519). Hanslik, with a reference to [Robert (but with no indication of
dissant) assigned the document to the consul of A.D. 30 {P-W, IX, A, 117).
At this time tha normal interval after, the consulship was five years.
Thus M. Licinius Crassus Frugi (cos. 14 B.C.), proconsul of Africa in 9/8
(IRT, 319j. The interval might be abbreviated — or postponed because
of a man’s othar occupations. There are clear casses, cf. JRS, XLV (1955),
30. From 12 to 10 tha tenure was by exception a biennium, with a special
appointmant (Dio, LIV, 39, 4); and in 110/9 the proconsul was probably
Paullus Fabius Maximus (cos. 11), cf, Groag in PIR^, F. 47. Soon after
would come L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 15), after his “Bellum Thracicum”
(? 12—10). For the evidence for his proconsulate PIR C. 289. Not admitted
by D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 1^1.
If the Ignotus holding Asia from 12 to 10 was Marcus Vinicius, that
is highly relevant to the dating of his military activities in the period:
on which see below.
P. 30 — The status of Illyricum. The “Bellum Pannonicum” was begun
by x\grippa and Vinicius, so Velleius Paterculus affirms (II, 96, 2). That
is, in 13, though Vinicius may have already been operating in 14; Cassius
Dio records under that year a “rebellion” of Pannonians (LIV, 24, 3). What
was the nature and title of his command? P. Silius Nerva (cos. 20 B.C.),
active in 17 and 16 (Dio, LIV, 20, 1 f.), had been proconsul of Illyricum,
as an inscription attests (ILS, 899: Aenona). If Vinicius was proconsul,
he was the last of them, cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 390. Better, the first of the
imperial legati pro praetore. It was high time for the Princeps to take over
the province, great tasks of conquest impending and a larger garrison of
legions [cf. JRS, XXIII (1933), 23], A proconsul was now an anachronism.
Tiberius, the next governor, in 12 B.C., was a legatus Augusti (Res Gestae, 30).
As such, Tiberius was not qualified to take an imperatorial salutation
or celebrate a triumph. However, he acquired proconsular imperium: from
the beginning of 10 B.C., as may be deduced from the provisions in favour
of his brother Drusus (Dio, LIV, 33, 5). In fact, he acquired his first salu¬
tation before the death of Drusus. Furthermore, sharing the imperium of
Caesar Augustus, he could now have legates subordinate to him, with the

35
title and competence of legaii Augusti pro praetore, even such of con¬
sular rank.
So far so good. An assertion of Cassius Dio imports confusion. After
narrating campaigns of Tiberius against both Dalmatians and Pannonians
in 11 B.C., the historian states that in consequence "Dalmatia” was transfer¬
red to the custody of the Princeps as now standing in need of armed protec¬
tion (LIV, 34, 4). This date for the transference of Illyricum has been incau¬
tiously accepted by many scholars (no need for their names). It is too late,
by several years, cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 394. The reason for the change is
Dio’s own. It corresponds with his misconception about the original divi¬
sion of provinces between Princeps and Senate — and it betrays a tardy
recognition of inadvertence.
P. 30 — The character and direction of the Transdanubian operations.
First, an army of two peoples defeated. Premerstein’s original notion had
been. \Quadoru']m et Basternarum exerlcitum]. In his second contribution
he was happy to take over [Dacoru]m from Dobias and Patsch. Vinicius
therefore is not likely to have crossed the Danube at Carnuntum and marched
eastwards, as Premerstein opined. Even Brigetio lies too far to the west.
Better Aquincum. A victory over Dacians and Bastarnae should fall some¬
where north-east of Budapest and north-west from Transylvania.
Second, smaller tribes reduced to pay homage. Though fragmentary,
the inscription indicates that they were five in number. They appear to be
registered in a geographical order of progression from west to east, from
the Cotini to the Anartii, who lay to the north-west of Dacia (cf. Patsch,
O.C., 104 f.). Of the three missing names, one should certainly be the Osi,
who were neighbours of the Cotini (Tacitus, Germ., 43, 1): for the Osi,
cf. E. Polaschek, P-IT,XVIII., 1581 ff. In fact, after “Cotinos” the inscrip¬
tion shows a defective letter, O, C or Q. Premerstein reads 0[sos] [o.c. (1933),
142, cf. 158]. That is convincing. The Q[uados] of Miltner (o.c. 216) was
in no way plausible. To sum up. A number of tribes beyond the Danube,
extending from the southeast of Moravia to the Dacian territories have been
brought (but not by conquest) to acknowledge the suzerainty of Rome.
When is that likely to have happened?
P. 29 — The date. After the lapse of three decades, Premerstein reaf¬
firmed his original date. That is, 14 B.C. Against which stands as previously
a plain argument: not before the subjugation of Pannonia in 12 and 11.
In the conquest not much resistance (it is true) was to be expected from
peoples in northern Pannonia such as Azalii, Boii and Eravisci, broken or
dwelling in fear of the Dacians, with memories of Burebista and more recent
tribulations. That was conceded in a letter to Premerstein [cited, o.c. (1935),
81]. The Breuci are another matter.
Meanwhile a large and impressive consensus has emerged in favour
of 10 B.C. That was the date which Patsch had commended in 1932. Dobias,
previously an advocate of 11 B.C., rallied to this thesis which he supported
by strong arguments in his lengthy investigation in 1939. Alfoldi in 1936
had put out an abberrant view, with no close dating. On his showing, M. Vini¬
cius “penetrated into Dacia in the lower Danubian region” ; and “at the same
time his legate in the North-West of Dacia carried out a punitive expedi-

36
lion against the Osi, Cotini, Anartii and others” (CAH, XI, 84). This recon¬
struction, highly vulnerable, was soon discarded by its author. His restate¬
ment in 1942 ran “friihestens im Jahre 10 v. Chr., eher jedoch im Jahre 9 v.
Chr.” (“Archivum Europae Centro-Orientalis”, VIII, 38).
In 1937 Miltner came out with an ambitious reconstruction. For 10 B.C.
he postulated a simultaneous invasion of Transdanubia by three Roman
armies on a vast front: on the north-west M. Vinicius, at the centre an
unknown general, in the south-east Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. Indeed, Lentu-
lus operated “in der Walachei and in Bessarabien” (o.c. 222). The mention
of Bessarabia is enough to support other reasons for disbelief, cf. Dobias,
O.C., 80. The whole scheme evokes to its detriment the doctrine promul¬

gated by Schulten about the campaign of Caesar Augustus in 26 B.C.; north¬

western Spain invaded by three armies from bases at Braga, at Astorga,
and near Burgos [Los Cantabros y Astures y su Guerra con Roma (1943),
129 ff.].
However, undeterred by any doubts or not moved to curiosity, Hanslik
has recentlv proclaimed “die... notwendig gewordenen Operationen hat
am besten Miltner, “Klio”, XXX (1937) 221 ff. rekonstruiert” [P-IF, IX
(1961), 115]. That article, like some others in the encyclopedia, was vari¬
ously defective, cf. “Historia”, XI (1962), 148. Observe, for example, “Cn.
Calpurnius Lentulus”, and an item in Dio wrongly dated (10/9 B.C. instead
of 11/10).
To proceed. Now at last must be disclosed the reason for putting the
campaign of Vinicius precisely in the year 10 B.C. It stands in Dio: tran¬
sactions of the winter 11/10. The Senate voted that Janus should be closed
since warfare had been brought to a termination. It was not done. The
Dacians crossed the frozen Danube and took booty from Pannonia, and the
Dalmatians rose in rebellion (LIV, 36, 2). Hence a ready and welcome
solution. The Roman counterstroke, it is implied, came promptly, as the
dignitas imperii demanded. Vinicius is the answer.
That is not all. Most scholars of the recent age bring in other pieces
of evidence about the Dacians, nameless and undated. First, Res Gestae,
30. After chronicling the extension of Illyricum to the bank of the ri¬
ver Danube the document proceeds: citr[a] quod [D]a[cor]u[m tr'\an[s]
gressus exercitus meis a[u']sp[icis vicious projeigatusque [est. et} pos[tea tran']s
Danu[y'\ium ductus ex[ercitus me]u[s'] Da[cor][um gentes [imperia populi
Romani perferre coegit]. Second, Suetonius, Divus Aug. 21,1: coercuit et
Dacorum incursiones, tribus eorum ducibus cum magna copia caesis. Third,
Strabo, VII, p. 304 (the use of the river Marisus by the Romans in their
war); p. 305 (the Dacians close to subjection).
Much might be said. There is space here for only the briefest comment.
It must start from the passage in Dio, which calls for sharp scrutiny. It
merely reports a Dacian raid. No counter-measures, no defeat of the inva¬
ders either in Roman territory or beyond the river. The historian goes on to
say that Tiberius dealt with the Dalmatian insurgents and Drusus conducted
a campaign in Germany. That is all.
The fact thus registered is instructive on various grounds. One observes,
in contrast to Dio, warfare and battles attested by the other sources. First,

37
Dacian invaders defeated on Roman territory, according to the Res Gestae.
The notice in Suetonius may belong here. Second, an army of Dacians and
Bastarnae defeated by Vinicius beyond the Danube.
Grave discrepancies are patent, and a suspicion arises. There is a temp¬
tation to concentrate and combine the sporadic scraps of evidence and
exploit the sole date available, the Dacian raid of 11/10 B.C. The time has
come to keep them apart — some of them at least. In the narration of Dio
as extant the next mention of Dacians occurs in A.D. 6, the first year of
the Pannonian Revolt (LV, 30, 4). A more severe incursion than either
(with a battle on Roman territory) may have incurred in that interval. Or
two incursions. Ever and again the eye and the mind are drawn to the par¬
lous condition of the literary sources for the campaigns of that period. The
manuscript of Dio exhibits three gaps, of two leaves each, the first of them
beginning in 6 B.C. The invasion of Dacia (attested by the Res Gestae and
by Strabo) and the campaign of Marcus Vinicius may fall between 6 B.C.
and A.D. 4.
P.31 — A date c. 1 B.C. In the present paper (and in CAH, X, 366 f.)
it was argued that Vinicius followed Domitius Ahenobarbus as legate of
Illyricum c. 1 B.C, The notion has not found favour. Something might yet
be said for it.
A subsidiary device can be brought in, closely relevant to the dating
of military operations, A lull ensued after the victorious campaigns
of Tiberius and Drusus, and the gates of Janus were closed by Augustus
(the third time), cf. Mommsen in his commentary on the Res Gestae (ed. 2,
1883, 50 f.). The appropriate season is towards the end of 8 B.C. (various
reasons can be adduced). When and why was Janus opened again? Surely
in 2 B.C. or in 1 B.C. The ceremony would accord well with the martial
pageantry that heralded the sending of Gains Caesar to make war on the
Parthians — and the confident predictions of a poet (Ovid, Ars Amatoria
I. 177 ff.). And there may have been some other justifications.
A vexatious piece of evidence now obtrudes. Orosius alleges that the
Gates of War were closed, precisely in 2 B.C. cunctisgentibus unapau compo-
sitis lani portas ipse tunc clausit. quas ex eo per duodecim jere annos quietissimo
semper ohseratas otio ipsa etiam robigo signavit, nec prius umquam nisi sub
extrema senectute pulsatae Atheniensium seditione et DacorUtn commotione
patuerunt (VI, 22, 1),
The allegation is false, the motive transparent, cf. the firm language
of Mommsen (o.c., 51). Orosius puts the Nativity in 2 B.C. which of neces¬
sity entails universal peace then and for some time in the sequel. For a dozen
years, he says (cf, also VII. 3. 4). That is not credible either. What hen ist
the source of the duodecim fere annos and the corroborative detail about
the re-opening of Janus? The disturbance at Athens came from the Chronicle
of Eusebius by the channel of Jerome, where it is put in A.D. 11: the
Armenian version has 13/14, Syncellus 13. For the Atheniensium Seditio
(otherwise here irrelevant), see now 1 G.W, Bowersock, Augustus and the
Greek World (1965), 107 f.
Orosius, however, has added a Dacorum commotio. Whence derived?
To be sure, the Getae caused some trouble in A.D. 12, far away near the

36
mouth of the Danube: they took Aegissus and Troesmis (Ovid, Ex Ponto, I,
8, 11 ff.: IV, 7, 19 ff.; 9, 75 ff.). The welcome piece of confirmation has
been eagerly snapped up and exploited with confidence.
Perhaps it is only a coincidence. Another explanation is not excluded.
Orosius may have found in a source a notice linking to a Dacorum commotio
the (authentic) opening of Janus sometime after the third closure. Orosius
in his compiling is elsewhere guilty of confusions. For example, he confla¬
tes Tiberius’ German campaign in 8 B.C. with the Pannonian Revolt
(VI,21, 24 f.). For a modern confusion touching Janus, observe Alfoldi’s
statement: “in A.D. 11 the solemn closing of Janus by Augustus was pre¬
vented by dangerous Dacian incursions” (CAH85).
To sum up. The Gates of War were certainly not closed in 2 B.C., then
remaining shut until about A.D. 11. Orosius’ year of the Nativity announc¬
ed not peace but war. That is the irony, and the truth. What follows? An
incursion of the Dacians may in fact have had something to do with the
opening of Janus in 2 B.C. or 1 B.C. In the latter year Gains Caesar on his
way eastwards visited the Danubian armies; “he fought no war, but not
because there was no war then”, so an epitomator of Dio states (LV, 10, 17
Boissevain). The item is relevant to the fragmentary story of Danubian
warfare. Furthermore, the fifteenth imperatorial salutation of Augustus
comes into the account. It is generally assigned to Gains Caesar and the
capture of Artagira in A.D. 2. Kolbe wished to attach it to operations of
Vinicius in Germany in A.D. 1, leaving the sixteenth for Artagira [“Germa¬
nia”, XXIII (1939), 104], The fifteenth might fall as early as 1 B.C.
To conclude. As is amply clear, many uncertainties subsist. Some of
the problems touch Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. See therefore the Addendum
to the next chapter. After Groag’s demonstration in 1936 (FIR C 1379)
Lentulus must be held identical with the augur, consul in 14 B.C., not
with the homonym of 18. Moreover, Lentulus should probably be removed
from the list of legates of Illyricum from 9 B.C. to A.D. 6.

39
 in

LENTULUS AND THE ORIGIN OF MOESIA ^

I. The problem of Lentulus. II. The approximate date. III. Lentulus’

position: IUyricum or Moesia? [o) The problem of Moesia; (b) The evidence
of Dio; (c) The evidence of Velleius; (d) Aelius Catus; (e) The position of
Lentulus; (f) The origin of Moesia. IV. Conclusion. Appendix: Legio XX on
the lower Danube.

I. The problem of Lentulus

The ancient evidence for the wars and conquests of Augustus is not
only fragmentary: the fragments themselves are capricious and misleading.
Chance and design have conspired to produce a like result; and the interest¬
ed partiality of contemporary authorities has been nobly seconded by the
ignorance or the indifference of subsequent compilers. The successes of the
Princeps and of his stepsons received ample commemoration and overshadow¬
ed the achievements of his lieutenants. The existence of a relatively full
narrative in Florus and Orosius of the “Bellum Cantabricum” of 26 B.C.,

1 The works most frequently referred to in this article are as follows, in alpha¬
betical order: — B. Filow, Die legionen der Provinz Moesia, "Klio", Beiheft VI
(1906); M. Fluss, P-W, s.v. Moesia:V. Gardthausen, 1,3(1904);
C. Patsch, Beitrdge zur Volkerunde von Sudostenropa. V, I;" Wiener Sitzungsberichte,
CCXIV, I, (1932;) A. von Premerstein, Die Anfdnge der Provinz Moesien,
"Jahreshefte", I (1898), Beiblatt 145 ff.; R. Rau, Zur Geschichte des pannonisch-
dalmatischen Krieges der Jahre 6—9, n. Chr., “Klio", XIX (1924), 313 ff.;
E. Ritterling, P-W, s.v. Legio (especially his narrative of the wars of the time of
Augustus 1213 — 42); G. Zippel, Dierdmische Herrschaft in Illyrien (1877). Much
light will be thrown upon the history of the Danubian lands by A. von Premerstein's
renewed and exhaustive study of M. Vinicius, of which the first part has recently
appeared, Der Daker — und Germanensieger M. Vinicius (Cos. 19 v. Chr.) und sein
Enkel (Cos. 30 und 45 n. Chr.), “Jahreshefte", XXVIII (1933), 140 ff.

40
the only Spanish campaign directed by Augustus in person, serves to illus¬
trate by contrast how meagre is the record of that part of the long and
arduous task of subduing Spain which was prosecuted and consummated
in his absence. Similarly the spectacular conquest of the Alps by Tiberius
and Drusus in 15 B.C. is more fully recorded and more widely known than
the campaigns of P. Silius Nerva which preceded it, and which made it
possible. The operations of Silius are recorded by Cassius Dio alone. But
not all of the generals of Augustus have had the good fortune to be mention¬
ed in the pages of Cassius Dio or of Velleius Paterculus (for his is the only
other continuous narration that embraces the principate of Augustus). They
have been omitted, accidentally or even deliberately, and with them a large
piece of history has either perished utterly or has narrowly escaped obliv¬
ion. What has survived in other sources is seldom detailed enough to fix
the date and determine the significance of their exploits. Only Tacitus and
Strabo preserve the memory of the Homanadensian War of P. Sulpicius
Ouirinius; only a broken stone from Frascati reveals the operations beyond
the Danube of an unknown general who may have been M. Vinicius (ILS,
8965). That being so, it is the duty of the historian, not merely to interpret
what is recorded, but always to remember how little after all has been
recorded.
Save when Tiberius is on the scene, the narrative of events in Illyricum
and in the Balkans shrinks almost to nothing. None the less, one eminent
name stands forth, that of Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. His campaigns are men¬
tioned by Tacitus and by Florus; but he is missing from Dio and from
Velleius. Nor has justice been done to him in modern times. The histories
of Dessau, of Rice Holmes and of Homo pass him over without a word of
excuse or apology. It is true that the exact date of his campaigns is unknown:
and, when certainty may well appear to be beyond all hope, it is perhaps
preferable to refrain from assigning a date. But to omit all mention of the
man is even worse than to give him a spuriously definite date — it dis¬
guises the presence of a difficulty and thereby consecrates a false concord in
history. For the campaigns of Lentulus widely divergent dates have been
propounded; A.D. 11 has enjoyed a certain popularity; Patsch, however,
in his comprehensive and valuable survey of the history of the Danube lands
has recently suggested 14/13 B.C. Yet even Patsch’s study cannot be said
to have exhausted all the possibilities latent in this obscure and intricate
subject. It is the purpose of the present paper to enquire whether a different
date and a different interpretation may not be admissible. Although, for
the sake of brevity, much must be omitted that concerns the history of
the Danube lands in the time of Augustus, especially military and geograph¬
ical details, several other problems may be linked with the central
theme of Lentulus.
Both the date of Lentulus’ operations and the official position which
he held are uncertain. For the purpose of the argument these two questions
will first be treated separately: a solution, even approximate, of the for¬
mer may throw some light upon the latter and provide material for the
solution of a kindred problem, the date of the creation of the command in

41
Moesia. First of all, however, the ancient evidence about Lentulus must be
set forth. The following passages are relevant.
1. Florus II, 28—9, 18—20: Dad montibus inhaerent, inde Cotisonis
regis imperio, quotiens concretus gelu Danuvius iunxerat ripas, decurrere sole-
bant et vidna populari. visui^ cst Caesari Augusto gentew aditu diffidlliniafn
sutnmovere. misso igituf Lentulo ultra ulteriorem reppulit ripam; dtra prae-
sidia constituta. sic turn Dacia non victa sed summota atque dilata est.
Sarmatae patentibus campis inequitant. et hos per eundem Lentulumpro-
hibere Danuvio satis fuit. nihil praeter nives pruinasqxie et silvas habent. tanta
barbaria est ut nec intelligant pacem.
2. Tacitus, Ann., IV, 44: Lentulo super consulatum et triumphalia de
Getis gloriae fuerat bene tolerata paupertas.
3. Res Gestae divi Augusti, 30: dtria] quod [D]a[cor]M[7w tr]an[s']gressus
exercitusmeisa[u]spi[icisvict]usprofligatusque [esy. et pos[tea tran]s Dan[u]-
vium ductus ex[ercitus me]u\s Da[cor]um gentes im\_peri'\a p\opult\ R[oinani
perferre coegW].
4. Res Gestae divi Augusti, 31: nostram amic\itiam appetiver'\un\t'\ per
lega[tos'\ B[a'\starn[ae Scythae]que et Sarmatarum qui su[nt dtra fl^umen
Tanaim [ef\ ultra reg[es, Alba]norurnque rex et Hiberorum e[t Medorurn].
5. Strabo, VII, p. 304: xal Stj x<xl vuv, -^vixa ^£[X(|;£v in aUTOu? CTxpa-
TSiav 6 SspacTTop Kaiaap, £; t:£vt£ [jL£pLSap, t6t£ S’£ip TETxapap Si£aTCOT£(; ETuy-

yavov.
Ib: ""pEt Se St,’aUTfov MapiCToc TTOTapop Eip xov Aavouiov (o zone, TtapaaXEuap
avExogiJ^ov ol'"Pfogatot xap rrpop tov TroXEjjLOv.
p. 305: xal Eyyop [xev t^xodcti tou uTcaxooEtv P<o[i.aia»v, outtco S’Eiaiv
uTToj^Eipiot xEXeop Sia xac £x xwv PEpp-avoiv IXTtiSap TioXEglcov ovxcov xot^
'Ptogaioip.

II. The approximate date

There are two ways in which an attempt might be made to determine

approximately the date of the operations of Lentulus — by examining
(a) the political and military situation on the Danube, (b) the nature of
the historical sources for the Augustan Wars. These two methods will at
first be pursued separately: in their result they will be found to converge.
(a) The operations of Lentulus against the Dacians and the Sarmatians
do not appear to have involved much fighting: had they been likely to do so,
it is doubtful whether they would have been undertaken at all (see further
below). Their purpose was not conquest and permanent subjugation, but
the pushing away from the Danube of undesirable neighbours, the weaken¬
ing of potential enemies. In short, the extension of Roman influence rather
than Roman control. The words used by Florus are significant — of the
Sarmatians '.prohibere Danuvio, of the Dacians summovere, the latter of
which is the technical term that describes the “moving-on” of a mob by lie-
tors. That is to say, these were police measures; and they may well be com-

42
pared, in purpose and jn result, with the measures taken by a legate of
Moesia in Nero’s reign, Ti. Plautius Silvanus Aelianus He too made no
annexation of new' territory beyond the Danube The activity of Lentulus
was directed against both Dacians and Sarmatians Further northwards
at an uncertain date another general of Augustus, the illustrious unknown
of JLS, 8965, extended Roman influence over the Cotini in Moravia and
the Anartii to the north-west of Dacia. It would be tempting to conjecture
that operations so closely connected in design were not far removed in time
(see further below). It appears to be Lentulus’ expedition across the Danube
that is commemorated in the Res Gestae — “and subsequently my army
crossed the Danube and compelled the tribes of the Dacians to submit to the
commands of the Roman people’’ And a result of the intimidation of the
Sarmatians appears also to be recorded there — “the Bastarnae, the Scy¬
thians and the kings of the Sarmatae on both sides of the river Tanais sent
envoys and sought my friendship” This attitude of submission was, as
might have been expected, of no long duration. When the attention of Rome
w'as diverted and her armies were engaged elsewhere, the tribes beyond the
Danube reverted without delay to their normal habits. There were raids
in A.D. 6 and, later, at the very end of the reign of Augustus. On the Lower
Danube, as beyond the Rhine, the majestic phrases of the monument of
Augustus record a success that was achieved but not maintained.
What period of the Principate is most likely to have witnessed the exten¬
sion of Roman influence beyond the Danube? The operations of Lentulus
presuppose the conquest of Illyricum and the pacification of the Balkans.
It is therefore difficult to believe that they can have taken place earlier
than 11 B.C. or indeed earlier than 9 B.C. In 13 B.C. Agrippa and M. Vini-
cius began the “Bellum Pannonicum”. Tiberius, who prosecuted it from
12 to 9 B.C., “subdued the nations of the Pannonians which before my prin¬
cipate no Roman army had ever approached, ... and, advanced the bounds
of Illyricum to the bank of the river Danube" (Res Gestae, 30). And it was
only after Tiberius’ subjugation of the Pannonian Breuci in 12 B.C. that
Rome won control of the land route from Italy to the Balkans down the
valley of the Save In the period of the conquest of Illyricum (13—9 B.C.)

2 ILS, 986.

^ The verbose inscription mentions among these operations no act of annexa¬

tion; the terms in which it describes their result (per quern (sc. quae) pacem provin-
ciae et confirmavit et proiulit) cannot therefore be understood to refer to annexation
of territory.I
* That the “Sarmatians” who vexed the Lower Danube in the time of Augustus
were probably Bastarnae has been plausibly suggested by Patsch (o.c. 83). The point
is irrelevant to the restricted scope of this paper.
6 Jies Gestae 30. Patsch (o.c., 102 ff.) assigns this passage to the operations
of the unknown general of ILS, 8965, whom he identifies wiih M. Vinicius and dates
to 10 B.C.
* Res Gestae, 31.
’ For this view of the “Bellum Pannonicum” of 13 — 9 E.C., see further JRS,
XXIII (1933), 70 f. (below, Ch. VIII).

43
 a great war had been waged in Thrace, and its successful termination brought
with it the first pacification of the Balkans. This Thracian war was much
more than a rising of tribes that had been conquered before; and it en¬
gaged for three years the attention of L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 15 B.C,),
who had been summoned (probably with an army) from his command in
Galatia-Pamphylia
There would therefore appear to be certain grave objections that must
be faced by any hypothesis that places the extension of Roman influence
far beyond the Danube at a date earlier than 9 B.C. Yet such a date has,
not without some plausibility, been proposed. Ritterling, dissatisfied (and
with reason) with the commonly accepted date A.D. 11, suggested that
the operations of Lentulus either preceded or followed those of Piso in
Thrace Patsch has recently proposed a more definite date, the winter of
14/13 B.C. His hypothesis depends upon another hypothesis. In 16 B.C.
the Scordisci, who dwelt, in northern Serbia, and the Dentheletes, a Thra¬
cian tribe, attacked and devasted Macedonia In 12 B.C., however, the
Scordisci appear as allies of Rome and help Tiberius to reduce the Panno-
nian Breuci It would therefore appear that the Scordisci had somehow
been brought to reason or subjugated in the meantime.
How and when? Velleius records that Tiberius “added as new provinces
to the empire Raetia and the Vindelici, Noricans, Pannonia, and the Scor¬
disci." Moreover, a mysterious notice in Eusebius under the year 15 B.C.
seems to connect Tiberius with Thrace; and the record of Tiberius’ exploits
in the Consolatio ad Liviam has a mention of Dacians From these three
pieces of evidence A.von Premerstein constructed the ingenious and coher¬
ent hypothesis that Tiberius was active in the Balkans late in the year
15 B.C., immediately after his Alpine campaign, probably as proconsul of
* Macedonia Patsch has adopted this hypothesis, though with modifica¬
tions. He suggests that Tiberius reduced the Scordisci in 15 B.C., operating
from the direction of Pannonia, not from that of Macedonia (as von Pre¬
merstein argued), and dates to these years the setting up of the command
in Moesia. It was probably soon after this, he argues, in the winter of

® The war lasted three years (Velleius, II, 98). Dio dates its beginning to
11 B.C. (LIV, 34, 5 — 6), perhaps really the year of its conclusion, as has often been
assumed.
* Ritterling, o.c., 1229.
Patsch, O.C., 91 ff.
“ Dio, LIV, 20, 3.
Dio, LIV, 31, 3.
Velleius, II, 39, 3; Eusebius, ed. Schoene, p. 142 f.; Ttpepto^ Kaiaap
OuivStxou; xai tou? Xoittoix; TTapaxeip^vou? xf) ©paxy) orviroc^ev (Syncellus); Caesar Tiberius
Vindicenses et omnes qui circa Thraciam erant subegit (Armenian Version); Tiberius
Vindelicos et eos qui Thraciarum confines erant Romanas provincias facit (Jerome);
Consolatio ad Liviam, 387 f.: Danuviusque rapax et Dacicus orbe remoto j Appulus
(huic hosti perbreve Pontus iter).
Premerstein, o.c., 158 ff. He had in part been anticipated by Zippel (o.c.,246).

44
14/13 B.C,, that Lentulus, the legate of Moesia, crossed the Danube: and
the absence of his army beyond the river is a plausible occasion for the out¬
break of the great Thracian revolt in 13 B.C. (if it was in 13 B.C.).
This hypothesis possesses in a marked degree the merits of harmony
and internal coherence: but it must not be accepted on those grounds alone.
Moreover, even if Tiberius’ command in Macedonia and Thrace in 15 B.C.
were a fact, not a hypothesis, it would by no means follow that the expedi¬
tion of Lentulus took place in the next year. As for the three pieces of evi¬
dence that have been adduced to support the theory of a campaign in Mace¬
donia conducted by Tiberius late in 15 B.C., it may be observed, (a) that
the passage in the Consolatio ad Liviam does not record the exploits of Tibe¬
rius in chronological order — the mention of Dacians could easily be a
reference to his command in Illyricum in 12—9 B.C., in which period a
Dacian raid is known to have taken place (h) the passage in Velleius is
of quite general reference; ("cjEusebius may be hopelessly confused^®.
It is indeed possible that Tiberius was in the Balkans at some time before
his assumption of the command in Illyricum after the death of Agrippa in
12 B.C.—perhaps fora year or two after the end of 15 B.C., the year of his
Alpine campaign. If so, it is strange that two sources particularly detailed
in all that concern Tiberius, indeed we might say two biographers, namely
Velleius and Suetonius, should have said nothing about it.
This being so, the hypothesis about Tiberius, though it may not be re-
j ected utterly, is a very insecure basis for a further hypothesis about Moesia and
about Lentulus. Patsch suggests that in 15 B.C. Tiberius reduced the Scor-
disci from the side of Pannonia. That can hardly be so, for the Pannonians
themselves, especially the Breuci who dwelt in the valley of the Save and
commanded the way from Siscia to Sirmium, were themselves not subdued
before 12 B.C., and then they were subdued by Tiberius with the help of
the Scordisci The conquest of the Scordisci therefore preceded the con¬
quest of the Pannonians: and it must have been effected from the south¬
east, from the side of Macedonia. That some such advance had been made
in this region between 16 and 12 B.C. is highly probable. It has not been
recorded in history, but the necessity of it and the results of its achievement
are manifest. It was the work of an unknown general of Augustus, a procon¬
sul of Macedonia who may have been Tiberius — but who was probably
not Tiberius. In this way by 12 B.C. the Serbian section of the Danube
was reached and held. Moreover, in order that Rome might subdue the
Pannonian tribes of the valley of the Save and so gain control of the land

Dio, V, 36, 2; cf. Suetonius, Divus Aug., 21; Res Gestae, 30.
What really lurks behind his statement, it is impossible to say. Eusebius
makes Tiberius, the conqueror of the Vindelici, conduct an otherwise unknown
campaign in Thrace. In Orosius again, Piso, the conqueror of Thrace, is nowhere
described as such, but appears in a novel role as a general operating against the
Vindelici (nam inter ceieros et Piso adversum Vindelicos missus est; quibus subactis
victor ad Caesarem Lugdunum venit (VI, 21, 22). This is a singular coincidence —
it is only a coincidence.
1’ Dio, LIV, 31, 2 — 3; on the Breuci, cf. also Suetonius, Tib., 9.

45
 route from Italy to the Balkans (which, after all, was the main purpose of
the conquest of Illyricum) it would be very desirable, as the reconquest
of these regions in A.D. 6—9 so clearly reveals, that the efforts of the army
of Illyricum based on Siscia should be supported by another army operating
from Sirmium to take the Pannonians in the rear. Patsch suggests that the
great Thracian rising, subsequently crushed by Piso, had broken out when
and because Lentulus and his army were across the Danube. The evidence
being what it is, hypothesis can be answered only by hypothesis. And, as
an alternative to Patsch’s view, it might be maintained that the proconsul
of Macedonia and his army were in fact absent, operating towards or near
Sirmium, during, or as a preliminary to, the reduction of the Pannonians
in one of the years 13, 12 or 11 B.C.; this would help to explain the out¬
break of the revolt and the need for summoning a general and an army from
the East.
The theory of Patsch cannot be disproved, despite the weakness of
some of the evidence upon which it — and any other theory — must rest.
The principal objection to it is that an expedition such as that of Lentulus
would be expected to follow rather than precede the conquest of Illyricum
and the pacification of the Balkans (13—9 B.C.). For this reason a date later
than 9 B.C. is to be preferred. How much later, that is the question. The
period A.D. 6—11 has found several advocates. Mommsen in one place sug¬
gested A.D. 6, in another A.D. 9 The legates of Illyricum and of Moesia
in A.D. 6 at any rate are known for certain — and Lentulus was not one
of them. But, even if they were not known, the years of the great Pannonian
revolt, A.D. 6—9, must be rigorously excluded. Suetonius’ description of
the Pannonian revolt as the gravest foreign war that had confronted Rome
since the days of Hannibal may be exaggerated, but is not wholly unjustifi¬
able^®. A. von Premerstein suggested A.D. 11, and this date has been accept¬
ed by Groag (the author of the article on Lentulus in the Encyclopaedia
of Pauly-Wissowa) and by Parvan At first sight the military situation
might appear to justify this date amply. In A.D. 6 when the Pannonian
revolt broke out, Caecina Severus, the legate of Moesia, appeared with his
army in the neighbourhood of Sirmium, Before the end of the year, however,
raids of the Dacians and Sarmatians compelled him to depart And after
his second appearance at the theatre of war, along with Plautius Silvanus
in the following year Caecina had probably returned once again to Moesia
which, as before, must have demanded his urgent attention. After the Pan¬
nonian revolt had been crushed, it would surely appear advisable to re¬
assert the authority of Rome on the Lower Danube.

Mommsen, Res Gestae, 132; Provinces, I (1886)] p. 42. Similarly Gardthau-

sen: in A.D. 6—9 or soon after (o.c. 1181 f., cf. 1193).
Suetonius, Tih., 16.
2® Premerstein, o.c., 168; Groag, P-W, IV, 1362; Parvan, Getica (1926), 96;
so also apparently Fluss, P-W, XV, 2395. Lentulus is omitted by Filow and by Stout
(The Governors of Moesia, Diss. Princeton, 1911).
Dio, LV, 29, 3 ff.
22 Dio, LV, 32, 3; Velleius, II, 112, 4.

46
 In A.D. 11, according to Orosius, there was a Dacorum commotio
This item has been thought to supply the approximate date of the expedi-'
tion of Lentulus If so, all that can be said is that the vaunted exploits
of Lentulus, for which he received the ornamenta triumphalia, were quite
ineffective. The Dacians and the Sarmatians took no notice of them. In the
next year, A.D. 12, their raiders swept across the Danube and captured
Aegissus, as we learn from Ovid^®. Troesmis also succumbed, perhaps in a
different raid two or three years later^®. It does not appear likely that the
measures associated with the name of Lentulus can in fact have been carried
out in the year A.D. 11. That they were desirable, no man doubts; and the
course of events shows it only too clearly. But Rome could not afford the
risk or spare the troops.
The Pannonian revolt revealed how perilously optimistic had been
the frontier policy of Augustus. Then came the disaster of Varus and the
loss of three legions. Now Rome must stand anxiously on the defensive.
The Pannonian revolt had lasted for three years. What if Thrace were to
rise again? Piso, in three years of hard fighting, had broken the resistance
of the natives, and thinned the population. Since then twenty years had
passed. Sooner or later other Thracian risings might be expected — and
did, in fact, occur 2^. So far from indulging in expeditions beyond the Danube
after A.D. 9, the Romans may even have had to reduce the size of the army
of Moesiaand restrict the area of the territory directly under their control.
For the next thirty years the principal function of the two Moesian legions
was to keep watch on Thrace. They could not at the same time adequately
protect the Lower Danube.
For these reasons it would be preferable to date the campaigns of Lentu¬
lus to a more optimistic and expansive period of Roman foreign policy. On
the other hand, a date preceding the conquest of Illyricum, such as 14/13
B.C. (as suggested by Patsch), appears to be too early. One is therefore left
with the period 9 B.C. — A.D. 6 An examination of the literary evidence
for the wars of Augustus will confirm this dating, and even suggest that
it can be narrowed to 6 B.C. — A.D. 4.
(h) The Periochae of Livy end with the year 9 B.C. and deprive us of
a useful guide: the only continuous narrations, those of Cassius Dio and of
Velleius Paterculus, do not mention the name of Lentulus. Can any expla-

23 Orosius VI, 22, 2.

3^ von Premerstein, o.c., 167f.
3® Ovid, Ex Ponto, I, 8, 11 ff.
3® Ovid, Ex Ponto, IV, 9, 75 ff.
3’ In A.D. 21 and 26 (Tacitus, Ann., Ill, 38 — 9; IV. 45 — 51). Compare Strabo’s
estimate of the man-power of Thrace (VII, p. 331): Suvaxai otIXXeiv xaiiiep ouaa
Tuepitjowi; exTreTiovefiivT; (i.e., as a result of Piso’s war) poptou? xal TrsvTaxurxtXiouc
iTcnia^, TTE^wv Ss val eJxoai (iupexSa?.
38 The only scholar who appears hitherto to have dated the operations of Len¬
tulus to this period was A. von Domaszewski in his popular Geschichte der romischen
Kaiser I (1922), 222: but he did not argue his case, and nobody has since mention¬
ed his opinion for praise or for blame.

47
nation of their silence be discovered? Dio, for all his faults, supplies a remark¬
able amount of miscellaneous information and reveals wars which other¬
wise would never have been heard of at all. He records for example, the
Spanish campaigns of 24 and 22 B.C. and the Alpine war of P. Silius Nerva
(in 17 or 16 B.C.). In a resumptive section, under the year A.D. 6, he men¬
tions inter alia a war, the memory of which, but for him, would entirely
have perished: the Isaurian War.
That being so, it is surprising that there should be never a word about
Lentulus. Very surprising until we notice that for the period 6 B.C. to
A.D. 4 the narrative of Dio is not merely compressed but is fragmentary.
There are three gaps in the manuscript, each of two pages. By good fortune,
the march of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus from the Danube to the Elbe and his
war against the Cherusci in Germany (not long before 1 B.C.)^® are preserved.
Apart from that, after 7 B.C. until we come to A.D. 6 there is not a word
about the northern frontiers. On grounds of historical method it would
therefore be permissible to assign to this period certain events otherwise
undatable, such as the campaigns conducted beyond the Danube by Len¬
tulus and by the illustrious unknown of the inscription /Z.5, 8965 — per¬
haps also Quirinius’ Homanadensian war, if not his Marmaridean war
as well.
Nobody familiar with Dio (and in possession of his faculties) would
argue that Dio must have recorded these events — Dio’s own sources were
probably meagre and unsatisfactory for the decade 6 B.C. — A.D. 4. None
the less, the fact that the narrative of Dio, where we have it, does not dis¬
dain to mention even the Isaurian War permits the conjecture that the
campaigns of Lentulus were also narrated in that part which has not surviv¬
ed. That is to say, that they occurred in the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4.
By a singular fatality the same period was most summarily treated
by Velleius Paterculus. At this point Velleius has degenerated almost com¬
pletely into a biographer of Tiberius. In his narrative three chapters (II,
100—2) intervene between the departure of Tiberius to Rhodes in 6 B.C.
and his return to Rome in A.D. 2. These chapters record the deplorable behav¬
iour of his wife Julia and the mission of Gains Caesar in the East. In them
there is not a word about the northern frontiers save this at the beginning —
sensit terrarum orbis digressum a custodia Neronem urbis: nam et Parthus
desciscens a societate Romana adiecit Armeniae manum et Germania aversis
domitoris sui oculis rebellavit. It might appear presumptuous to seek for
system or principle in an incoherentwriter like Velleius. But there is one — it
is his purpose to show that Tiberius was indispensable to the Empire. This
principle determines what he says, and also what he omits. He therefore
records the guilt of Julia, the unsatisfactory behaviour of Gains Caesar, the
perfidy and deserved end of Tiberius’ enemy, Marcus Lollius, the guide and
counsellor of Gains. But he does not record the successes won by the men
who held the commands on the Rhine and in Illyricum, the rivals and the
successors of Tiberius. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus is omitted, as might have
been expected.

Dio, LV, 10 a, 2.

48
 It is true that Velleius does mention that M. Vinicius had been in Ger¬
many. But this he does later when describing the sending of Tiberius to the
Rhine in A.D. 4, when emphasizing how sorely Tiberius was needed. And
his praise of Vinicius is the coolest compatible with decency and with his
relations to his patron, the grandson of Vinicius®®. If, in the period when
Tiberius was absent from the control of affairs, a Roman general passed
beyond the Danube and compelled the Dacians to acknowledge the suzerainty
of Rome, that is the last thing that one would expect to find commem¬
orated by panegyrist of Tiberius.
The deliberate silence of Velleius re-inforces and confirms the inference
drawn from the presence of gaps in the text of Dio. Namely that military
operations belonging to the decade 6 B.C. — A.D. 4 run a grave of disap¬
pearing from recorded history. The exploits of Ahenobarbus have barely
survived. When that is once admitted, it becomes more and more likely
that the expedition of Lentulus also belongs to this period. It is commonly
believed that the departure of Tiberius in 6 B.C. had an unfortunate effect
on the foreign policy of the Empire, that the plan of conquest on the northern
frontiers had so flagged and subsided during his absence, that only his strong
hand could re-invigorate it. That is the impression that Velleius wished
to produce. The timid servility of history has confirmed and perpetuated
his transparent artifice. After the conquest of Ill nicum and the invasions
3

of Germany there came a pause, it is true; and many legionary soldiers

were dismissed from service in the years 7—2 B.C. Serious warfare was
not contemplated for a time; and there was need for consolidation. But
there was exploration beyond the Danube and preparation for another
advance.
The military situation and the nature of the literary evidence for the
wars of Augustus, therefore, favour the supposition that the “campaigns”
of Lentulus belong to the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4. There remains the pro¬
blem of his command.

III. Lentulus’ position: Illyricum or Moesia?

The operations of Lentulus appear to belong to the decade between

6 B.C. and A.D. 4. For the present no convincing evidence in support of a
narrower dating within the limits of that period can be adduced. It may,
however, emerge from an examination of the problem presented by the
command which Lentulus held. Was he legate of Illyricum or legate of
Moesia — or even proconsul of Macedonia?

30 Velleius, II, 104.,On this point see further CQ, XXVII (1933), 147 (above,
ch II).
31 Res Gestae, 16.

49
 (a) The problem of Moesia. Whether or not a province of Moesia was
set up in the time of Augustus has been frequently disputed. No contem¬
porary writer even mentions the name Moesia, let alone a province of that
name: and Appian, who should have known what he was talking about,
for he had been an imperial finance-officer, states emphatically that the
Moesians were not made to pay tribute until the reign of Tiberius®^. This
difficulty may be countered, and has been countered by the assumption
that what was set up in Moesia in the time of Augustus was a “military
district" The term has been objected to but perhaps the dispute is
really one of names. What is a province, after all? How can it be defined?
What difference was made when, for example, the two Germanies assumed
the name of provinces about A.D. 85—90? Though the subject is too large
to be dealt with here, the problem may be simplified. The provincia of a
governor is his sphere of action. There can exist a governor and a provincia
before the whole of the area which the command embraces has been subject¬
ed to the payment of tribute and the imposition of the forms of provincial
organisation The problem therefore disappears. There is no reason why
there should nor have been in the time of Augustus an imperial legate in
charge of the region later called the province of Moesia. His title may have
been, not legatus Augusti pro praetore provinciae but rather legatus
Augusti exercitus qui est in Thracia Macedoniaque, a title like that borne
by the commanders of the German armies before the time of Domitian.
For brevity, and by a convenient licence, the term “legate of Moesia” may
be employed. The name may be later, the thing was not. Similarly, after
Illyricum had been divided c. A.D. 9, the official term for its southern half
was for some time “Upper Illyricum” but we need not anxiously shrink
from calling it “Dalmatia.”
The problem which remains, therefore, is to determine when the legions
of Macedonia were taken from the proconsul of the province and placed
under the charge of an imperial legate (for the date of the introduction of
provincial organisation in Moesia is a different question and need not concern
us here). To be satisfactory, a solution should be in harmony with the poli¬
tical and military situation as well as with existing literary evidence. Vari¬
ous dates have been proposed, for example:

(1) 27 B.C. (Ritterling).

(2) 15 B.C. (Zippel : Patsch).

Appian, III., 30.

For example, by Premerstein, o.c., 162 ff.
By Gardthausen (o.c., 3 (1904)788), and by Ran (o.c., 319 f.). Gardhausen’s
words are “einem gewesenen Consul ... konnte in den letzten Jahren des Augustus
nur eine richtige Provinz, nicht ein blosses Militarkommando anvertraut werden."
** As, for example, when Piso was temporarily placed in charge of Thrace,
cf. Seneca, Epp., 83, 14: huic et divus Augustus dedit secreta mandata cum ilium
praeponeret Thraciae quam perdomuit. Velleius, II, 98: quippe legatus Caesaris trien~
nio cum his bellavit. (This evidence shows that Piso cannot have been proconsul of
Macedonia).

50
 (3) c. 13—11 B.C., with Piso as the first legate of Moesia (Mommsen);
similarly, or shortly after (Dessau).
(4) I B.C. — A.D. 6 (A. von Preraerstein ; Fluss).
(5) c. A.D. 9-12 (Filow; Rau)

The number and variety of opinions bear witness to the inadequacy

of the evidence and make a final and satisfactory solution appear beyond
all reasonable hope. Perhaps the choice may be narrowed.
Ritterling’s adoption of the date 27 B.C. (that of the division of pro¬
vinces between Princeps and Senate) sprang from a disinclination to believe
that any military provinces except Africa were left to proconsuls in 27 B.C.
Yet, once Africa is admitted, the objection is illogical. And in addition to
Africa it would appear that one must admit both Macedonia and Illyricum
— and thereby a different conception of the Principate of Augustus in its
earlier period. There is neither evidence nor probability to support the
hypothesis of a separate command in Moesia as early as 27 B.C. And there
is unimpeachable testimony against it — the trial of M. Primus before the
Senate in 23 or 22 B.C. on a charge of making war upon the kingdom of
Thrace The whole context of the trial shows that he was proconsul of
Macedonia. Moreover, M. Loilius was certainly consular proconsul of Mace¬
donia, c. 19—18 B.C. Patsch’s date (15 B.C.), depends upon the hypothe¬
sis of a command in the Balkans held by Tiberius in that year (see above).
This date seems too early. Piso, summoned from Galatia-Pamphylia to
deal with the Thracian revolt, has some claim to be reckoned as the first
legate of Moesia (though it is perhaps preferable to regard Piso's commission
as a special command). In any case, the setting-up of the Moesian command
just after the pacification of Thrace by Piso would, historically, be a very
reasonable hypothesis. Indeed, it may well contain the truth of the matter.
On similar grounds the date proposed by Filow and by Rau, c. A.D.
9—12, could be justified, — the step would then be a part of that re-organi¬
sation of the Danube provinces after the suppression of the great insurrection
of A.D. 6—9 which is attested by the division of Illyricum, c .A.D. 9. Either
of these two dates (c. 9 B.C. or c. A.D. 9) is historically possible. The liter¬
ary evidence appears to tell against both of them. A. von Premerstein (fol¬
lowed by Fluss) adopted 1 B.C. — A.D. 6 as the period in which the change
took place. The evidence comes from Dio and Velleius.
(b) The evidence of Dio. When the Pannonian revolt broke out in
A.D. 6 Caecina Severus "the governor of Moesia” came up and engaged the
rebels Caecina was of consular standing. What then was his position —

Ritterling, o.c., 1218; Zippel, o.c., 247; Patsch, o.c., 86; Mommsen, Provin¬
ces, I, 24; Dessau, Gesch. der r. Kaiserzeit, I (1924), 395; Premerstein, o.c., 162 ff.;
Fluss, O.C., 2372; Filow, o.c., 2; Rau, o.c., 320.
Dio, LIV, 3, 2 (under the year 22 B.C.).
Dio, LIV, 20, 3. Dio does not state that Lollius was proconsul of Macedonia.
A dedication to him has been discovered at Philippi, BCH, LVI (1932), 207 ff.;
whence AE (1933), 85.
Dio, LV, 29, 3.

51
 legate of Moesia or proconsul of Macedonia? The former, according to Dio-
There may be anachronism here, as elsewhere in Dio. Anachronism of name
does not matter so much. Is there anachronism of fact? Dio records that
Macedonia was left to the Senate in 27 B.C. But this is the first occasion
on which he mentions Moesia. It would not be wise to expect Dio to conform
to a superhuman standard of completeness and self-consistency. But he
does appear to know the difference between Macedonia and Moesia. Before
A.D. 6 he has not mentioned the name of Moesia, not even in his account
of Piso’s Thracian War (to which he devotes a paragraph): yet Moesia turns
up unheralded in A.D. 6. It would be a justifiable inference that Dio has
already said something about the establishment of Moesia in that part of
narrative which is imperfectly preserved, — that the establishment of
Moesia, like other events of some historical importance, belongs to the
period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4. The inference explains Dio; but it is not, of course,^
proved that Dio must have mentioned the transference of the army from the
proconsul of Macedonia to a legate of Moesia. It is quite possible, though
it must not be taken as axiomatic, that Dio is anachronistic in fact as well
as in name. If so, Caecina Severus was consular proconsul of Macedonia
That is possible, for it is by no means to be believed that a hard and fast
line was drawn under the Principate of Augustus between praetorian and
consular provinces: in so far as concerns imperial provinces, there is evid¬
ence to the contrary. And when Macedonia was a senatorial military pro¬
vince it may have had — indeed we know that it had — both praetorian
and consular proconsuls, viz., M. Primus, c. 23 B.C., and M. Lollius, c.
19—18 B.C. respectively. This possibility must therefore be reckoned with,,
preferable though it is for so many reasons to believe that the command in
Moesia had been set up earlier than A.D. 6. Another piece of evidence, how¬
ever, appears to offer a prospect of the narrower dating, to the period 1 B.C.—
A.D. 6.
s
w s
fcj The evidence of Velleius. When Velleius Paterculus received a
summons to go to the East with Gains Caesar in 1 B.C. he had been serving
as a military tribune in Thracia Macedoniaque under P. Vinicius and under
P. Silius. Vinicius was consul in A.D. 2, Silius consul suffect in A.D. 3.
It has often been supposed that Vinicius and Silius were praetorian pro-
consuls of Macedonia. if they were, the combination with Dio’s datum
which has just been discussed would permit the conclusion that the change
took place between 1 B.C. and A.D. 6. This appears convincing — until
a closer examination shows that the problem is not so simple as all that,
and reveals instead an alarming complexity. Indeed, there are several possi-

This view has been urged by Rau, o.c., 320.

Velleius, II. 101, 3, cf. IGRR, I, 654.
: Premerstein, o.c., 155; Fluss, o.c., 2372, P-W, s.v. P. Silius, 73; also.
Patsch., O.C., 96, though this is barely consistent with his view that the Macedonian,
legions had been transferred to a legate of Moesia as early as 15 B.C.

52
bilities that have not hitherto been recognised. The position held in succes¬
sion by Vinicius and by Silius, when of praetorian standing, may have
been one of the following four:

(1) Proconsul of Macedonia

(2) Legate of Moesia
(3) Legate of a consular proconsul of Macedonia
(4) Legate of a consular legate of Moesia

What criterion can justify a choice between these alternatives? Ritter-

ling suggested that Vinicius and Silius might have been legionary legates.
Perhaps another term is preferable. We know very little about legionary
legates in the time of Augustus, and it might therefore be better to call Vini¬
cius and Silius legates either of a consular legate or of a proconsul. Their
position is clearly one of some distinction for they proceed very soon after
it to the consulate. There is a presumption that Velleius, when describing
his military service, would indicate the commanding officer, not a sub¬
ordinate. One may therefore suppose, provisionally, that these two senators
of praetorian standing were either proconsuls of Macedonia or imperial
legates in command of the army of “Thrace and Macedonia” (that is, for
short, “legates of Moesia”.) There is no reason why this command should
not have been held by men of praetorian standing, especially if, as is quite
probable, the army comprised only two legions at this time. But, before
these two alternatives are debated, the date and position of another army-
commander in the Balkans must be investigated.

* *

(d) Aelius Catus. Strabo records that Aelius Catus transported fifty
thousand Getae across to the southern bank of the Danube “where they now
dwell under the name of Moesians”^^. The Aelius Catus whom this passage
would best fit is the consul of A. D. 4, Sex. Aelius Q.f.L.n. Catus. And it
has been conjectured that when he carried out his transplantation of Getae
he was consular legate of Moesia^®. But this conjecture has not commended
itself to everybody. According to Dio, in 16 B.C. (or thereabouts) a certain

Like th,e woaTpaTTQYOt of- P- Silius Nerva (proconsul of Illyricum, ILS,

899) operating in 16 B.C. (Dio, LIV, 20, 1—2).
Such as the praetorian army-commanders later attested in Moesia when
Moesia, Macedonia and Achaia were under the charge of a consular legate (A.D.
15-44).
Strabo VII, p. 303; ert yap y-d>- e<p’ri[X6iv AIXick; Karck; (jieTcpxiaev ex Tispala?
TOu "IcTTpou Tuevre [xuptaSa? owjiaTcov Tcapa twv PeTaiv, o(aoyX<ottou ©p^^iv e£(;
T7)v ©pax7)v, xal vuv olxoucriv auT69'i Moiaol xaXoujicvOt.
« Ritterling, o.c.. 1238; Patsch, o.c., 114; cf. Mommsen, Res Gestae (ed, 2,
1883), 132. Stout (The Governors of Moesia) omits Catus altogether, and roag in'
PIR 2, A, 157, refrains from assigning him a date.

53
Lucius Gaius repelled a Sarmatian raid across the Danube The name
“Lucius Gaius” is obviously corrupt — there is no gentile name or cogno¬
men “Gaius”. Various conjectures have been advanced — among them that
of Premerstein that L. Gaius was really L. Aelius Catus, the Aelius Catus
mentioned by Strabo (and therefore the grandfather, or perhaps the uncle, of
Sex. Aelius Catus, the consul of A.D. 4) It may be observed, however, that
the repulse of a Sarmatian raid is not the same thing as the transplantation
of fifty thousand Getae; and there is nothing in the history of the Lower
Danube in the time of Augustus that makes an identification of the two
incidents unavoidable. Moreover, the Lucius Gaius of Dio may be, as
Ritterling has supposed, a corruption of L. Tarius (Rufus)
The strange explanation recently promulgated by Fluss, that in 16 B.C,
L. Tarius Rufus both repelled a Sarmatian raid and settled fifty thousand
Getae on the southern bank of the Danube is not very helpful. It presup¬
poses that the text of Strabo is corrupt as well as that of Dio, and
that under each corruption lurks the same name, that of L. Tarius Rufus.
The name Aelius Catus in Strabo is above and beyond any objection:
its wanton alteration is no remedy. If we suppose that Sex. Aelius Catus
(cos. A.D. 4) is meant, historical results both credible and useful may fol¬
low. If he was consular legate of Moesia, when did he hold that command?
Patsch suggested in A.D. 5. but that would leave him an unusually brief
tenure of office, for Caecina Severus is attested in the next year. A date
c. A.D. 9 would be preferable to that, for there would be room to insert
him between Caecina Severus (attested in A.D. 6 and 7) and Poppaeus Sabi-
nus (cos. A.D. 9) who took up the command in A.D. 11 or 12 It must
be noted, however, that there is no necessity to assume another governor
of Moesia between Caecina Severus and Poppaeus Sabinus. There was a short¬
age of suitable men in this critical period; and the tenures of provincial
governors were extended both in A.D. 6 and in A.D. 9, as we are credibly
informed.
Moreover, in the case of Sex. Aelius Catus there is a further possibility
that has not hitherto been recognised. He may have held his command when
he was a praetorian, before A.D. 4. Therefore that command may belong
to the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4, about which both Dio and Velleius are so
uncommunicative. P. Vinicius was consul in A.D. 2, P. Silius in 3, Sex.
Aelius Catus in 4. It might therefore be conjectured that Catus held the
same position as did in succession his predecessors in the consulate, that

Dio, LIV, 20, 3.

** von Premerstein, o.c., 156 f.
** Ritterling, o.c., 1229 f. This suggestion is accepted by Patsch (o.c. 83) and
by Groag (PIR A, 157.)
Fluss, O.C., 2371 — 2. But Fluss is inconsistent with himself, for in another
place (2341) he dates the transplantation of the Getae c. A.D. 5.
Patsch, O.C., 114.
»* The approximate date at which the governorship of Poppaeus Sabinus
began is discovered from Tacitus, Ann., VI, 39.
®* Dio, LV, 28, 2; Suetonius, Divus Aug., 23.

54
he was either praetorian proconsul of Macedonia or praetorian legate of
Moesia, probably the former, c. A.D. 2—3.
The words in which Strabo describes the transplantation of the Getae
to the Thracian bank of the Danube “where they now dwell under the name
of Moesians” might appear to give a hint about the origin of Moesia. But it
only a hint and nothing more. It is time to return to Lentulus.
(e) The position of Lentulus. The fact that Lentulus operated against
Sarmatians, as well as Dacians, and the phraseology of Tacitus, triumphalia
de Getis (not de Dads), both point to the Lower Danube, to Moesia rather
than to Illyricum None the less he was probably legate of Illyricum.
In the period to which, because of the literary evidence, or rather because
of its absence, the command of Lentulus is to be dated, Lentulus was a senior
consular.
The departure of Tiberius to Rhodes in 6 B.C. placed Augustus in a
delicate position. To whom was he to entrust the great military commands
in Germany and Illyricum — equal in rank and foremost in importance,
for each had an army of five legions? A complete list of the governors of
the military provinces in the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4 would cast a flood
of light on this decade, the most obscure of the whole principate of Augustus;
unfortunately it is not to be had. But, from the chaos several clear facts
emerge. The chance of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 16 B.C.) has come
at last. He governs Illyricum and Germany in succession, in the years lead¬
ing up to A.D.I. M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.C.), prominent before (he and
Agrippa began the “Bellum Pannonicum” in 13 B.C.), seemed to fade away
when Tiberius came on the scene in 12 B.C. In the absence of Tiberius he
reappears. He was in Germany in A.D. 1—4, succeeding Ahenobarbus:
he had perhaps succeeded him in Illyricum a few years before, if a conjec¬
ture about the inscription ILS, 8965 be accepted. With the return of
Tiberius to the control of affairs in A.D. 4 Vinicius recedes again.
Lentulus was a man of illustrious family. He enjoyed the friendship
both of Augustus and of Tiberius. In A.D. 14 he was chosen to accompany
Drusus on a delicate mission to the mutinous legions in Pannonia — he
was ante alios aetate et gloria belli. His son Cossus when proconsul of
Africa terminated the arduous Gaetulian War c. A.D. 5—6, and many years

The brief duration of their governorships might point rather to proconsulates.

Cf. Mommsen, Res Gestae (ed. 2, 1883), 131; Ritterling, o.c., 1229.
Cf. the arguments of Premerstein, o.c., 168. If, as it is probable, the Roman
operations in the valley of the Marisus (Mures, Marosch), recorded by Strabo (VII,
p. 304, quoted above), were conducted by Lentulus, he must have been legate of
Illyricum at the time. (The Marisus of Strabo appears to be the lower course of the
Theiss and its chief tributary, the Mures river, erroneously but pardonably assumed
to be the main stream). Patsch, however (o.c., 102 ff.), assigns these operations to
the unknown legate of ILS, 8965 (in his view M. Vinicius in 10 B.C.).
Dio, LV, 10 a, 2.
®8 Developed in CQ, XXVII, (1933), 142 ff. Here all is uncertain: von Premer¬
stein dates the operations of M. Vinicius (ILS, 8965) to 14 B.C., Patsch to lOB.C.
Tacitus, Ann., I, 27.

55
later, as praefectus urhi Cossus was as deep in the confidence of the suspi¬
cious Tiberius as had been that other hard drinker, L. Calpurnius Piso.®” If
the distinguished consular Cn. Cornelius Lentulus held a command in the
Danube lands in the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4, it is much more likely to have
been Illyricum than the comparatively unimportant command of the army
of Macedonia or of Moesia, which (as has been seen), was even given to sena¬
tors of praetorian standing. It was on men like Lentulus, Vinicius and
Ahenobarbus that Augustus relied, and the fate of the Empire turned, in
the years when Tiberius was in exile and the princes Gains and Lucius were
still mere boys.
Of the eminence to which these three men and their families had attain¬
ed the fates of their grandsons bear eloquent testimony. The power of
Lentulus Gaetulicus, legate of Upper Germany for ten years, was suspect
to the Emperor Gains: in A.D. 39 he was put to death on a charge of conspi¬
racy. After the assassination of Gains, M. Vinicius (who had been the hus¬
band of a daughter of Germanicus) put forward a claim to the vacant place;
he survived his temerity by four years. Ahenobarbus is more familiarly
known as the grandfather of the Emperor Nero.
The fact that Lentulus conducted operations against the Sarmatians
might appear to tell against the view that he was legate of Illyricum; but
we are dealing with a time before provincial boundaries and the functions
of provincial governors had been definitely (and even jealously) drawn.
Though L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was (or had just been) legate of Illyricum,
it was perhaps from the side of Raetia and with the use of the army of Raetia
that he crossed the Danube and set out on the expedition that was to take
him to the Elbe. Imperial legates of Illyricum and Germany in this period
must have had powers that seldom fell to the lot of a governor in later days.
There is no difficulty in believing that a legate of Illyricum was entrusted
with the supreme control of a comprehensive scheme of operations, on and
beyond the Danube frontier, embracing the Moesian as well as the Panno-
nian section of it. He was not invested with proconsular imperium — that
would not be necessary. A way could easily be found of giving him some
measure of control, if necessary, over a governor inferior in rank, praetorian
proconsul of Macedonia or legate of Moesia. There appears to be evidence
that something of the kind had already been done in these regions. When
L. Calpurnius Piso was summoned to Thrace he received secreta mandata^^.
What was their purpose and tenour? Was it not to ensure that he could
comand the co-operation of the proconsul of Macedonia and enjoy, if neces¬
sary, the precedence?
Lentulus, then appears to belong to the series of legates in charge of
the great army of Illyricum in the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4. He can only
be dated with reference to the other legates, and here all is uncertain, except

Seneca, Epp., 83, 14 — 15.

For the view that there was a legionary garrison in Raetia in the period 15
B.C. — A.D. 9, cf. Ritterling, ox., 1226. That Ahenobarbus se tout from Raetia
has been maintained by Mommsen, Miillenhoff, Much and Winkelsesser.
Seneca, Epp., 83, 14.

56
for Ahenobarbus, who is attested in Germany in 1 B.C. (where he was suc¬
ceeded in the next year by M. Vinicius). Ahenobarbus governed Illyricum
before Germany — but for how long is not known. Here hypothesis must
be built on hypothesis: the fabric will be fragile. The unknown legate,
ILS, 8965, must also be found a place, probably after Ahenobarbus. And
he may have been M. Vinicius, who was in fact the successor of Ahenobarbus
in Germany If that is so, Lentulus may have been legate of Illyricum
for a brief space after Sex. Appuleius and before Ahenobarbus, c. 6—5 B.C.
But there is more room for him at the other end, where there is a large gap
to be filled before Valerius Messallinus (attested in A.D. 6). On the provi¬
sional hypothesis that Lentulus’ command may be dated c. A.D. 1—4,
the list of the legates of Illyricum after Tiberius could be filled out in the
following way:
8 B.C. — Sex Appuleius (Cassiodorus, Mommsen, Chron. Min., II, p. 135)
? L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (in Germany by 1 B.C.)
? ILS, 8965 (perhaps M. Vinicius: if so in Illyricum c. 2 B.C. —
A.D. 1?)
? Cn. Cornelius Lentulus
A.D. 6 — M. Valerius Messallinus.

This hypothesis will find a certain amout of confirmation on other

grounds, see below.
(f) The origin of Moesia. The activity of Lentulus appears to belong
to A.D. 1—4: several scholars have already conjectured that the setting-up
of the command in Moesia belongs to the interval between 1 B.C. and A.D.
6.®^ Do the two measures stand in any connection? It is quite possible that
they do. One of the measures of Lentulus was the establishment of praesidia
along the southern bank of the Danube.®® The intimidation of the Dacians
and the driving away of the Sarmatians were necessary preliminaries to
the securing of the new frontier; and this extension of Roman control as
far as the bank of the river implies a great increase in the area of Mace¬
donia (or Moesia). It was probably about the same time that the southern
bank received new settlers, 50,000 Getae transplanted by Aelius Catus“and
now called Moesians”. This, too, may have some connection with the opera¬
tions of Lentulus. It may be almost contemporaneous with them, just before
or just after. Aelius Catus’ comm.and is probably to be dated c. A.D. 2—3
(cf. above). Both Aelius Catus and Lentulus may have had something to
do with the establishment of Moesia,®® if it belongs to this period and is

For this conjecture, cf. CQ, XXVII (1933), 142 ff., especially 147 f.
Above, n. 42.
Floras II, 28, 19, quoted above.
As Mommsen assumed, dating them, however, c. A.D. 9. "Probably at this
time, after the Illyrian war was decided in favour of Rome, Gnaeus Lentulus led a
strong Roman army across the Danube, reached as far as the Marisus (Mures) and
emphatically defeated them in their own country, which was then for the first time
trodden by a Roman army. Fifty thousand captive Dacians were made to settle in
Thrace” (Provinces, I, 42).

57'
 not to be dated c. 9 B.C. All three dates and all three actions appear to
converge towards the period A.D. 1—4. If they are combined, it will appear
plausible that Catus was praetorian proconsul of Macedonia (probably the
last proconsul of Macedonia to control an army) acting in concert with Cn.
Cornelius Lentulus, the legate of Illyricum. A Roman province was extend¬
ed, the frontier secured by demonstrations beyond it, and a new command
set up. And so the first legate ofMoesiawas probably the consular A. Cae-
cina Severus who is attested in A.D. 6.

IV. Conclusion

It would be idle to pretend that the theory which has here been devel¬
oped is anything more than a hypothesis. Given the nature of the evidence
and the complexity of the problems, it cannot be otherwise. The same must
be said of other opinion about Lentulus and dates as widely divergent as
14 B.C. and A.D. 11. Moreover, even if Lentulus can be reasonably dated
c. A.D. 1—4, the problem of Moesia, though simplified, still remains.
To be plausible, a hypothesis should satisfy both the literary evidence
and the military and political situation. This theory can face that test.
(a) about Lentulus: it accounts, without any difficulty, for the absence
of all mention of Lentulus in Dio and in Velleius. If Lentulus is
not to be dated to the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4, his absence from the
narrative of Dio is particularly remarkable in view of the many
details which Dio provides about otherwise unknown wars.
(b) about Moesia: it accepts and utilises both what Velleius says about
P. Vinicius and P. Silius, and what Dio says about A.Caecina
Severus.
(c) it provides the Aelius Catus of Strabo with identity, status and
date. That is Sex. Aelius Catus (cos. A.D. 4), praetorian pro-
consul of Macedonia after P. Silius, c. A.D. 2—3.
a
it it

So much then for the literary evidence. As for the political and mili¬
tary situation, with the aid of this theory an almost submerged part of
history can be recovered. All Illyricum was conquered in 13—9 B.C.; and
within those years Thrace had been pacified. But much remained to be
done — the consolidation of what had been won, the securing of the new
frontier, the preparation perhaps for a further great advance, namely the
overthrow of Maroboduus and the conquest of Bohemia. The literary tradi¬
tion is almost silent. But, though there were no wars of conquest in this
period, it is too great a compliment to Tiberius — and to Velleius Pater¬
culus — to believe that nothing at all had been achieved in the years of
Tiberius' absence from public affairs. In the north-west Ahenobarbus had

58
settled the Hermunduri in Franconia and Thuringia and thus, by inter¬
posing a tribe devoted to the interests of Rome, had cut off Maroboduus
from the Chatti and the Cherusci. Maroboduus was thus checked on the
west: on the eastern side it would be neccessary to separate him from the
Dacians — in alliance they might be formidable. That this was in fact
done emerges from the fragmentary inscription ILS, 8965: the unknown
general (M. Vinicius? appears to have entered into relations with tribes;
beyond the Danube such as the Cotini and the Anartii.®’
The operations of Lentulus have their place in this ordered scheme..
For the protection of the Danube frontier in the future, as one of the pre¬
liminaries to the encirclement of, and ultimate attack upon. Maroboduus,
it was not enough to have dealt with the tribes that faced the Roman fron¬
tier across the Danube from Bohemia eastwards to the western bounds of
Transylvania: the Dacians themselves must be humbled, the Sarmatians
driven away from proximity to the frontier of the Danube. This was the
work of Lentulus. Sooner or later it would have to be done, but it was not
the most urgent of these tasks. The Dacians, though ever ready to seize an
opportunity of raiding across the Danube, were not perhaps in themselves,
a formidable menace, for after the murder of Burebistas they had split apart
again.®® Bohemia and the power of Maroboduus was a more serious preoc¬
cupation. Now, as later, the Lower Danube had often to suffer from Rome’s
enforced neglect. For this reason, therefore, the tidying-up of this frontier
which was carried out by Lentulus might have been expected to follow,
rather than to precede, the expeditions of the other two legates of Illyricum „
Ahenobarbus and (?) Vinicius. Once again attention is directed to the years
A.D. 1-4.
It might perhaps be urged that the operations of Lentulus are not likely
to have been undertaken in a period when troops from the Balkans may
have been absent in the East with Gains Caesar (see below. Appendix).
That is a reasonable objection: none the less, it must be remembered that
the operations of Lentulus were more like police-work than warfare and did
not demand a large army. Similar, though by no means as comprehensive,
measures were carried out by a legate of Moesia some sixty years later, al¬
though, as he himself complains, he had sent a large part of his army to Arme¬
nia.®® None of the legates of Illyricum had much fighting to do in the period
6 B.C. — A.D. 4 (and there is only one imperatorial salutation that could
be atributed to their expeditions) But, as has been shown, it was far
from being a period of inactivity in these lands. The absence of troops in
the East would not preclude operations by Lentulus on and beyond the
Danube. And, in any case, these troops could have returned in time — there
was no fighting in Armenia after the siege of Artagira in A.D. 2. Be that

For this conjectural date and identification, cf. CQ XXVII (1933), 142 f£.
(above, Ch. II).
•* Strabo, VII, p. 304.
•»7L5, 986.
’•Namely, cither Imp. XV or Imp XVI. One of these, probably Imp. XV.
must be assigned to the operations of Gaius Caesar in the East (Dio, LV, 10 a, 6—7).,

59
;as it may, even if the despatch of troops from the Balkans to the East is
the easiest explanation of the presence on the Lower Danube of a legion
detached from the army of Illyricum, a presence which it may even be pos¬
sible to date very closely, c. A.D. 2—3 (see below, Appendix), that legion
may in fact have participated in the operations of Lentulus.
In A.D. 6 the army of Moesia appears to have comprised three legions
After A.D. 9 there were only two legions in Moesia, and the Balkan army may
not always have been any larger than this in the period when it was com¬
manded by the proconsul of Macedonia. It would be reasonable to connect
an increase with the setting-up of the command in Moesia. If the origin of
this command is connected with the operations of Lentulus, the establish¬
ment of praesidia along the Danube and an increase in the area of territory
under Roman control, there was permanent need for a larger army — and
a new command. Hitherto the army of Illyricum had been available to
supplement and to help the Balkan army; but with the prospect of a cam¬
paign against Maroboduus, of the conquest and occupation of Bohemia, the
army of Illyricum would have more than enough to do in the future. An
adequate historical reason has therefore been discovered to justify the dating
of the change to the period 1 B.C. — A.D. 6 and even to permit a narrow¬
er dating either c. A.D. 3, when troops may have come back from the
East, or perhaps in the next year when Tiberius returned to the control
of affairs.
This was an expansive period of Roman foreign policy. The Panno-
nian revolt and the disaster of Varus were sudden and catastrophic warn¬
ings. After A.D. 9 the garrison of Moesia, reduced to two legions, is anx¬
iously intent (and with reason) on the task of keeping watch over Thrace.
Until the time of Claudius the Lower Danube is perforce neglected
It would perhaps be presumptuous to expect to find a single solution
of three difficult and complex problems — Lentulus, Catus and the origin
of Moesia. And, even if a theory be coherent with itself and in harmony
both with the evidence and the situation, in so far as known, it is not proved
to be true. The fragmentary and unsatisfactory nature of the recorded history
of this period should be an ever-present warning against rash conclusions;
and the present paper may be taken to have served its purpose if it merely
indicates that the problem is more complex, and that there are more possibi¬
lities to be reckoned with, than have hitherto been apparent and admitted.
Moreover, even if the theory developped above is not accepted as a whole,
it can be presented in two parts — the problem of Lentulus can be severed
from that of the origin of Moesia. It could quite well be maintained that

If we are justified in drawing this inference from a combination of the pas¬

sages Velleius, II, 112, 4 and 113, I, Tacitus, Ann., II, 46. Suetonius, Tib., 16.
For the perennial danger of Thracian risings cf. above. Even in the time of
Tiberius one, if not both, of the Moesian legions may still have been stationed in
the interior, perhaps at Naissus (Ni§). For the conjecturail but highly probably mili¬
tary importance of Naissus in the time of Augustus, cf. Premerstein, o.c., 165; f
A.v. Domaszewski, Die Entwicklung der Provinz Moesia, "Neue Heidelberger Jahr-
biicher”, I (1891), 199.

60
Lentulus was legate of Illyricum c. A.D. 1—4, but that the command in
Moesia had already been set up at an earlier date, perhaps c. 9 B.C. after
the pacification of Thrace: in that case P. Vinicius and P. Silius (if not
Sex. Aelius Catus as well) were not praetorian proconsuls of Macedonia, but
praetorian legates of Moesia (more strictly, of the army of Thrace and Mace¬
donia), a view which has been shown above to be by no means improbable’®..

APPENDIX

Legio XX on the Lower Danube

The following inscription (ILS, 2270) was discovered near the river
Oescus, some forty miles south of the Danube in the region that was later
called Moesia Inferior:
L. Plinius Sex. f. / Fab. domo / Trumplia j mil. leg XX j annorum
XLV I stipendiorum XVII j hie situs est / testamento fieri / iussit j Secun-
dus I L. Plin. et P. Mestri / libertus fecit.
The character of the inscription and all that is known of the history
of the Twentieth Legion point to the time of Augustus. It would be enter¬
taining to speculate exactly how and when a soldier of this legion, which
up to A.D. 9 belonged to the army of Illyricum, found his last resting place
so far down the Danube.
Opinions have varied. Dessau stated that the stone was set up before
A.D. 6. Ritterling, unfortunately, was inconsistent with himself. In one
place he suggests the time of Piso's Thracian war (c. 13—11 B.C.), affirming
that in any case it cannot be later than A.D. 6. In another, however, he sta¬
tes that it may belong to A.D. 6. Premerstein and Filow both favour A.D..
6—9; andFluss, the author of the article on Moesia in Pauly-Wissowa, in¬
fers from the inscription that the Twentieth Legion was the sole legionarj^
garrison of Moesia in the years A.D. 6—9’^. One thing that is certain about
this inscription, however, is that Dessau was right in maintaining that it
must be earlier than A.D. 6. In A.D. 9, after the disaster of Varus, the-
Tw'entieth Legion was despatched to the Rhine. Before this date it belong¬
ed to the army of Illyricum. There is an inscription of one of its centurions
at Bumum (perhaps the camp of the legion): veterans of it are buried at
lader and Sajonae.’® In A.D. 6 the five legions of Illyricum invaded Bohe¬
mia under the command of Tiberius and of Valerius Messallinus, the legate

’3 Above, p. 53
Ritterling, o.c., 1230 and 1770 £.; Premerstein, o.c., 167; Filow, o.c., 6 f.;
Flnss, O.C., 2313. Fluss even assumes that the legion may still have been in Moesia
as late as A.D. 12. Patsch (o.c., 87 f.), attempts no close dating.
•>^CIL, III, 2836 (= ILS, 2651); 2911; 2030.

61
of Illyricum. The Pannonian revolt compelled them to turn back. The van¬
guard of the army, the Twentieth Legion, marched with Valerius Messal-
Tinus (as is explicitly recorded) and, after a battle, reached Siscia, where
it was later joined by the rest of the army. The Twentieth Legion cannot
have been sent from Siscia to the Lower Danube in this year, for the way
was blocked — the insurgents controlled the valley of the Save, and Caecina
Severus, the legate of Moesia, returned to his own province at the end of the
year without having been able to effect a junction with Tiberius. So far
from being in a position to detach troops for service on the Lower Danube,
the army of Illyricum had its hands full with the Pannonian revolt. Re-in-
forcements of legions came, in A.D. 7, but not from Illyricum to Moesia.
They came to the theatre of war — i.e. the Save Valley, from Moesia and from
the East. In that year Caecina Severus appeared again, and with him was
another consular legate, M. Plautius Silvanus, who had brought legionary
reinforcements from the East: their combined army amounted to five
legions
It is therefore most unlikely that the whole or any part of the Twen¬
tieth Legion was on the Lower Danube in the years A.D. 6—9. The inscrip¬
tion must thus be earlier than A.D. 6. Can it be more closely dated? L. Plinius
is described as domo Trumplia. There is no such place known: L. Plinius
comes from the tribe of the Trumplini which, along with other tribes of the
neighbouring Alpine valleys, such as the Camunni and the Sabini,
belonged to the territory of Brixia and was “attributed” to that city. Seve¬
ral other tribesmen, describing themselves merely as Trumplini and Sabini
are found to have served in another legion, XXI Rapax, at an early date.
This fact induced Ritterling to formulate the theory that that legion was
enrolled in 15 B.C., after the subjugation of the Alps'^®. It must be observ¬
ed, however, that the facts do not completely justify that theory— we do
not know for certain that these soldiers conscripted from the Alpine tribes
were all “foundation-members” of XXI Rapax. None the less, conscription
from these tribes is proved, and that in itself is remarkable enough, even
if we cannot be quite certain of the date at which it took place. Holding the
views that he did, it is surprising that Ritterling did not draw a similar
inference from a similar fact — the soldier of the Twentieth Legion. As
the man died after seventeen years of service, and, to adopt Ritterling's
argument about XXI Rapax, was presumably conscripted after the subju¬
gation of the Alps, it might appear that he met his death on the Lower
Danube c. A.D. 2—3. One must therefore ask whether such a close dating
is in fact admissible. In the list of conquered tribes on the Tropaeum
Alpium the names of the Trumplini and the Camunni stand side by side
It is recorded by Cassius Dio under the year 16 B.C. that P. Silius Nerva
conquered the Camunni The easy and natural conjecture that other tri-

« Velleius, II, 112, 2; Dio LV. 30. 1-2.

” Velleius, II, 113, 4.
** Ritterling, o.c., 1225 and 1781.
»» Plinius, NH, III, 136 f.
•• Dio, LIV, 20, 1.

€2
bes in the same neighbourhood such as the Trumplini and the Sabini were
subdued at the same time has therefore commended itself to historians.®^
The conjecture is easy, but is it irresistible? The conquest of the Trumplini
may (for all that can be known) have been achieved earlier than the Alpine
campaign — or campaigns — of P. Silius Nerva. The literary record of
the Alpine wars between the subjugation of the Salassi by Varro in 25 B.C.
and the operations of Silius in 17 or 16 B.C. is a complete blank. It would
be a fatal error to postulate that nothing at all can have happened in that
interval.
It cannot therefore be taken as certain that the soldier coming from the
tribe of the Trumplini was enrolled in the Twentieth Legion c. 16—15 B.C.,
and therefore died c. A.D. 2—3. But it must still be admitted as a reason¬
able hypothesis. In any case, the inscription cannot be dated later than
A.D. 6, and it can hardly be earlier than about 8 B.C. — for nobody would
wish to carry the subjugation of the Trumplini back before 25 B.C.
The inscription, therefore, may well belong to the period within which,
as has been demonstrated, the operations of Lentulus against the Dacians
and Sarmatians should be placed. This at once suggests a new hypothesis.
What caused the whole or a part of a legion of the army of Illyricum to be
sent to the Lower Danube? May it not be connected with the operations of
Lentulus, probably himself legate of Illyricum? At first sight this might
appear to be an attractive conjecture, especially because it brings with it
a possibility of dating the campaigns of Lentulus fairly narrowly within
the period 6 B.C. — A.D. 4, namely to c. A.D. 2—3, a date which has al¬
ready been shown to be plausible on other grounds, because it fits so well
the presumably related operations of Sex. Aelius Catus.
*

* -*

But it would be unsound to connect the presence of the Twentieth

Legion with the operations of Lentulus before enquiring whether there is
not some other event that can explain it. Unfortunately there is. In the
year 1 B.C. the young Gains Caesar was sent to the East. On the way he
visited the camps of the Danube armies, as is expressly stated by Cassius
Dio ®2. Moreover, he probably took troops with him ®®. His mission did not,
in fact, involve”any serious war; and it might well be doubted whether
Augustus intended that it should. None the less, a show of force in dealing
with the Parthians belonged to the best methods of diplomacy. In 20 B.C.
Tiberius had taken troops from the European armies to the East ®^. Gains
was accompanied by Velleius Paterculus who had been serving as a mili-
tary tribune in Thracia Macedoniaque^^. Ritterling inferred, very reason-

Zippel, O.C., 260; G. Oberziner, Le guerre di Augusta contra i popoli Aipini,

81

Rome. 1900, 59 £.;’r. Heuberger, Rdtien, Innsbruck. 1932, I. 227.

8a Dio, LV, 10, 17.
** Cf. Ritterling, o.c., 1231 f.
Suetonius, Tib., 9 and 14; Velleius, II, 94, 4.
•‘Velleius, II, 101. 3; cl. Ritterling, o.c., 1231 f.

63
ably, that a legion also departed from this army, perhaps V Macedonica —
and the army of Moesia in later periods was always the first to meet the
call for troops for the East. So in 1 B.C. one legion, or even two legions,
may have been withdrawn. Their place would not be left empty — there
would be danger of a revolt in Thrace if not of a raid from across the river.
Shortly after Tiberius’ mission to the East there had been trouble in Thrace
(perhaps occasioned by the witdrawal of Roman troops) and M. Lollius had
to come to the assistance of the Thracian king Moreover the outbreak
of the great Thracian rising crushed by Piso may perhaps have been facili¬
tated by the absence of the proconsul of Macedonia and his army. A legion
from Illyricum may therefore have taken the place of a legion withdrawn
to the East in 1 B.C. If this be so, the hypothesis proposed above that the
soldier recruited from the tribe of the Trumplini had joined the Twentieth
Legion c. 16—15 B.C., and met his death c. A.D. 2—3, would receive a
striking confirmation.
Hypothesis for hypothesis, either the departure of troops from the
Balkans to the East or the operations of Lentulus will acount for the pre¬
sence of the Twentieth Legion on the Lower Danube at this date. The for¬
mer is perhaps to be preferred.

III. ADDENDUM

The problems of Vinicius and of Lentulus are cognate, and they inter¬
lock. Most of the items cited in Ch. II, the old and the new, carry some rele¬
vance, notably the latest papers of Premerstein (1933, with its second part
in 1935) and of Dobias (1939). Add A. Stein, Die Legaten von Moesien
(1940). One valuable result has now emerged. In 1900 Groag affirmed that
Cn. Cornelius L. f. Lentulus (cos. 18) was the general on the Danube
(P-W, IV, 1362). Nobody raised dissent. But in 1936 he made out a powerful
case for the homonym, ‘Cn. f.’ That is, Lentulus the augur, the consul of
14, who now gets a handsome presentation, in fact nearly four pages (PIR
C 1379). Surely correct. Groag, however, stated “pro certo diudicari nequit”
(C 1378). Of the other Lentulus nothing now stands on record subsequent
to his consulship.
P. 44 — Literary evidence. For the Cantabrian War of 26 B.C., see
AJP, LV (1934), 309 f. The names and details recorded in Florus, II, 32,
49 f. and Orosius, VI, 21,4 f. (each going back to an epitome of Livy) belong
only to the campaign of that year (and to only one section of the operations).
That has not been evident to ail scholars. For the Alpine War of P. Silius
Nerva (cos. 20 B.C.), see now D. van Berchem, “Mus. Helv.’’, XXV
(1968), 1 ff.

Dio, LIV, 20, 3; cf. Patsch, o.c., 83,

 P. 42 — Evidence for Danubian Wars. Add Suetonius, Divus Aug.
21. 1: coercuit et Dacorum incursiones, tribus eorurn ducibus cum magna copia
caesis. Undatable, but of some value. Apart from Res Gestae, 30 (quoted in
the text) there is no evidence for the defeat of any Dacian Army on Roman
soil, cf. the Addendum to Ch. II. How to distribute by date, region and
Roman generals the unattached notices about the Dacians (these two and
the passages in Strabo) is a delicate matter. A man may easily discover
reasons for revising some of his earlier assumptions.
P. 42 — The character of Lentulus’ operations. The interpretation set
out in the text should be reinforced. Indeed, and further, the language of
VXoxws, ultra ulteriorem reppulit ripam, does not entail a campaign across
the Danube. Thus Dobias, very firmly (o.c., 78). On that showing, an inva¬
sion of Dacia, of some consequence (Res Gestae, 30 and Strabo), should not
go to the credit of Lentulus.
P. 44 — The “Bellum Thracicum” of L. Piso. A great war, and the
date is of some importance because of the interrelation with warfare further
west and with the bringing of troops from the eastern lands. Piso came from
the command in Galatia — Pamphylia. Other consular governors of that
province can be established a little later, viz. P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos.
12 B.C.) and M. Plautius Silvanus (cos. 2 B.C.), cf. the arguments adduced
in JRS XXIII (1933), 24; 27; “Klio", XXVII (1934), 122 ff.
A war may find entry into the historical record by the year of its incep¬
tion, its climax, or its termination. Registered under 11 B.C. by CassiusDio
(also by Livy, Per., 140), this war lasted for a triennium according to Velleius
Paterculus (II, 98, 2). Hence the commonly accepted date 13—11 B.C. Now
the narration of Dio indicates initial difficulties, then some victories, and
in epilogue a recrudescence (LIV, 34, 6 f.). Therefore 11 B.C. should be the
decisive year; and it was in fact proposed that Janus should be closed
towards the end of 11 (LIV, 36, 2). The triennium should be reckoned as
12-10, cf. “Klio”, XXVII (1934), 130.
For Piso’s victory, supplications were decreed and the award of orna-
menta triumphalia, so Dio states. The ornamenta were a recent invention,
devised for Tiberius after his Pannonian campaign of 12 B.C. (LIV, 31, 4,
cf. Suetonius, Tib., 9, 2). To Piso, so I have ventured to suggest briefly,
[Rom. Rev. (1939), 398], may belong the accephalous elogium at Tibur
(ILS, 918). It has generally been claimed for P. Sulpicius Quirinius, often
to the accompaniment of misconceptions or fantasies that advocate for
Quirinius a governorship of Syria (and a census) earlier than and distinct
from the historical transactions of A.D. 6 (i.e., the Date of the Nativity
is in play).
The posts held by the illustrious Ignotus were as follows:
(1) Legate of Augustus in a war that has something to do with a native
prince (probably killed rather than alive) and ended in the subjuga¬
tion of a native tribe. Two sets of supplications were decreed, and the
ornamenta triumpha lia.
(2) Proconsul of Asia.
(3) Legate of Augustus again (iterum), as governor of Syria.
In favour of Piso, facts (and conjectures) can be adduced.

65
 (1) Piso fought his war as legatus AugusH (Velleius, II, 98, 2), The Bessi
had killed Rhescuporis the son of Cotys. And suppUcationes hinae are
appropriate. Not so to the operations of Quirinius against the Homo-
nadenses (?c. 4 B.C.): sieges, not battles.
(2) Piso was probably proconsul of Asia, cf. Groag in PIR C 289.
Groag, however, put his proconsulate too late, suggesting 3/2 B.C.
Nothing stands against 9/8 or 8/7.
(3) On the basis of the inscription at Hierapolis — Castabala (“Jahres-
hefte”, XVIII (1915), Beiblatt 51) it may be conjectured that Piso was
legate of Syria, c.A.D. 1—4. That period is available, cf. “Klio”,
XXVII (1934), 128.
So far so good. A case might still be made for Quirinius, it is true.
Not a “first governorship of Syria” but Galatia-Pamphylia and the Homo-
nadensian War.
P. 44 — A date for Lentulus. See below.
P. 44 — An alleged Balkan campaign of Tiberius in 15 B.C. The
notion of Premerstein and of Patsch did not deserve to be treated so ten¬
derly. It was clearly a mistake. Late and minor compilatory sources exhibit
all kinds of confusions. Not but that Premerstein clung to that campaign,
retaining as valid the notice in the Consolatio ad Liviam [o.c. (1933), 1^].
It is accepted by A. Mocsy, “Pannonia”, P-W, Supp., IX, (1962), 540.
P. 45 — The Dacian incursion into Pannonia in 11/10 B.C. Compare
remarks above, in the Add. to Ch. II. It had no repercussions — at least
in the account of Dio, the sole source. That is important. Premerstein pro¬
duced a victory of Tiberius over the invaders in the year 10 B.C. (o.c., 151).
According to Dio, however, Tiberius, coming from Gaul (he had been there
with Augustus) suppressed a rising of Dalmatians (LIV, 36, 3). Many scho¬
lars (it will be recalled) postulate for this year the campaign of Vinicius
beyond the Danube, with a victory in battle over an army of Dacians and
Bastarnae.
P. 46 — The need for two armies. That is to say, one based on Siscia,
the other on Singidunum or Sirmium. Compare what happened in the second
year of the Pannonian Revolt: Tiberius at Siscia, Caecina Severus and Plau-
tius Silvanus coming up with five legions from Moesia {JRS, XXIII (1933),
26 f.; CAH, X (1934), 372]. The two generals had to fight a hazardous
battle at the Volcaean Marches near Cibalae (Velleius, II, 112, 4 ff.; Dio,
LV, 32, 3).
P. 47 — An alleged Dacorum commotio c.A.D. 11. Orosius asserts
that Janus was opened about twelve years after the closure in 2 B.C. Both
particulars are false — and fraudulent, as Mommsen declared. Stein con¬
curs (o.c. 15). Not valid for dating Lentulus, despite Premerstein's renewed
attempt [o.c., (1935), 60 ff.; 65 ff.]. For the interpretation of this vexed and
over-valued passage, see the Add. to Ch. II.
P. 47 — Aegissus captured by the Getae. The exile at Tomis reports
fresh and alarming news in a poem written in A.D . 12, before the autumn
of the year. Ha had baen absent from his friends at R ome quattuor aufumnos

66
(Ex Ponto I. 8.23). That is, 8—11 inclusive. The date is clear. Troesmis,
however (IV, 9, 79), is another matter. The episode has commonly bean
assigned to the year 15. Thus Patsch, o.c., 121; R. Vulpe, Histoire ancienne
dela Dyhrouija (1933), 112; D.M. Pippidi and D. Berciu, Din Istoria Dobro-
gei, I (1935), 293. It should belong about the same time as Aegissus, or not
long after, cf. A. Stein, o.c., 14. Ovid credits Pomponius Flaccus with the
recapture of Troesmis (IV, 9, 79). This man (cos. 17) was in charge of the
region at the time (IV, 9, 75, cf. 119), that is, a legate subordinate to the
consular Poppaeus Sabinus. The poem patently belongs to the year 16.
There is no sign that Pomponius Flaccus was there as recently as 15. For
the subordinate legates in Moesia under Poppaeus Sabinus see A. Stein,
O.C., 19 f.
P• 48 — The Isaurian War. Dio records it in a resumptive section
under A.D. 6 (LV, 28, 2 f.). The general, it can be divined, was M. Plautius
Silvanus (^cos. 2 B.C.), attested as legate by an inscription at Attaleia in
Pamphylia (SEG, VI, 646) and bringing an army to Moesia in A.D. 7, when
he and Caecina Severus fought the battle against the Pannonian insurgents
(Velleius, II, 112, 4). For this reconstruction, JRS, XXIII (1933), 27;
“Klio” XXVII (1934), 140; CAH, X (1934), 372.
P. 48 — P. Sulpicius Quirinius (cos. 12 B.C.). For the dating, c. 4
B.C. has been propposed, on various grounds ["Klio”, XXVII (1934), 138],
Nothing tells against — and it now finds approbation in the thorough study
of B, Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967), 213.
P. 49 — A pause in warfare. The fourteenth imperatorial salutation
of Augustus, taken for Tiberius’ success in Germany, belongs to the first
half of 8 B.C. (cf. IRT, 319). The next is not registered until at least seven
years have elapsed. Indeed, it can firmly be contended that the third clos¬
ing of Janus took place towards the end of 8 B.C. For the argument, see
remarks on Orosius, VI, 22, 2 in the Add. to Ch. II,
P. 50 — The problem of Moesia. Three armed provinces were left to
the Senate in 27 B.C. — a significant factor in that settlement. It is worth
noting what happened to each of them. The Princeps added Illyricum to
his portion, perhaps as early as 14 or 13 B.C.: Dio, stating 11 B.C. (LIV,
34, 4), is in error, cf. the Add. to Ch, II. As for Africa, the proconsul retained
a legion until Caligula consigned the army to an independent command,
under a legatus Augusti pro praetore. Augustus had dealt with Macedonia
in the same fashion, taking over not the province but the army. From that
act the Moesian command took its origin. The problem can therefore be
precisely formulated, cf. remarks in review of Stein, JRS, XXXV (1945),
109 f.
P, 52 — The status of Macedonia. M. Lollius (cos. 21 B.C.) was here
assumed proconsul of Macedonia. If so, no doubt by special appointment,
but there is a chance that Augustus had taken temporary charge of the pro¬
vince. The next governor is relevant. Under the same year (16 B.C.), Dio
registers “L. Gains” who repelled a Sarmatian raid (LIV, 20, 3). That is,
L. Tarius Rufus (cos. sujj. 16). Confirmation of the conjecture (Ritterling

67
made it), and a welcome supplement emerged: an inscription found near
Amphipolis (AE, 1936, 18): —
IMP. CAESARE
DIVI. F. AVG.
L. TARIO. RVF PRO
PR
LEG. X. FRET
PONTEM. FECIT

The title of Tarius is a problem — only pro pr., not legatus pro pr. Alternate
explanations therefore offer. First, Augustus might for a time have revived
the title for proconsuls of praetorian rank ordained by Pompeius’ law of
52 B.C. Second, the entitlment of Augustan legati exhibits irregularities.
Thus of consular legates of Tarraconensis, Paullus Fabius Maximus is only
legatus Caesaris (CIL, II, 2581: Lucus August!), and P. Silius leg. pro. pr.
(3414: Carthago Nova). However, the omission of legatus is a greater anomaly.
It would have to be justified in the case of Tarius by appeal to the fact that
the name of Caesar Augustus stood at the head of the inscription, as indicat¬
ing clearly the supreme authority and implying that Tarius was a legate.
P. 52 — A. Caecina Severus (cos. suJJ. 1 B.C.). No words should have
been wasted on the view of Rau that Caecina was proconsul of Macedonia.
P. 52 — P. Vinicius and P. Silius. The testimony of Velleius about
these two army commanders (II, 101, 3) was strangely ignored by Stein.
His comments were therefore confined to the dedication to P. Vinicius at
Callatis (IGR, I, 654). That document was registered in the present paper,
discussion being eschewed because of well-grounded perplexities about the
text. Bormann in the original publication discovered in the word] TraTayw a
term uTraTayo^;, not otherwise attested, to carry the meaning of “Heerfiihrer
mit consularischer Gewalt” [AEM, XIX (1896), 108]. The term has been
accepted by Premerstein, by Stein, and by other scholars. Further, Stein
stated that P. Vinicius “als kaiserlicher Legat befehlight and gleichzeitig
Proconsul von Macedonia war” (o.c., 13, cf. 16). The uncritical concur,
and a dogma forms. Observe the recent pronouncement in the article on
P. Vinicius “richtig abschliessend Stein” [P-W, IX, A (1961), 119].
The rubric was not closed. Far from it. A proconsul can command an
army, to be sure. There is no bar; and, through the overriding tmperium
of Caesar Augustus any proconsul might find himself de facto in a position
no better that that of imperial legate. But the same man cannot be both
at the same time. Nor would any contemporary witness be deceived if he
looked to a governor's title and to the total of this fasces (twelve for a pro-
consul, but five only for Caesar’s legate, be he consular or praetorian). Firm
protest was in place, cf.JRS, XXXV (1945), 109 f. And it had to be reiterat¬
ed “Historia”, XI (1962), 148 f.
The present paper left open the question of Vinicius and of Silius:
proconsuls of Macedonia or praetorian legates of “Moesia”. I soon came to
hold the second solution more plausible, cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 400.
Certainty is now to hand. J.H. Oliver made pertinent enquiry about
the inscription, which is in the Museum at Bucharest. The result was grati-

68
fying. The word uj-nrarayw must go. Instead, the reading ajTpaTayv is to
be adopted. To precede which he suggests [7tp£(7[5euTa SepacTou xal avTia].
These results were published by Oliver in review of Stein A JP, LXIX
(1948), 217 f. Whence the brief notice in AE, 1949, 10. Finally an emended
text was reproduced in AE, 1960, 378, from T. Sauciuc-Saveanu, Omagiu
lui Constantin Daicoviciu (1960), 501 ff. But in that version the words
7cpSCT[3euTa xal must be added to produce the proper title of Caesar’s legate,
cf. "Historia”, XI (1962), 149.
That being so, P. Vinicius (cos. A.D. 2) was legatus Augusti pro prae¬
tor e. And so was P. Silius (cos. sufj. 3) soon after.
P. 53 — Sex. Aelius Catus (cos. 4). On the analogy of the two other
army commanders, it would be reasonable to postulate the same post. Light
now comes, though not untroubled, from an Athenian inscription which
was published in 1963 by B.D. Meritt, whence SEG, XXI, 769. Oliver has
produced a revision in “Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies”, VI (1965),
53. Both versions appear in AE (1966), 379. Oliver’s text runs as follows:
[t] ’AjpTQou [TTayou PouXt)]
[Se^tov A’lXioy] KdcToy [TrpEcrpEUTrjv Kalcrapoi;]
[SspacTOu xal dv]6iJ7ra[Tov MaxeSoviai; dp£]
[tt]!; ev]exa xal e[uvola^]

This is a precious document, and the restoration is neat and plausible.

Oliver also discussed it in “Class. Phil.”, LXII (1967), 39 f. He also repeated
the notion that P. Vinicius was at the same time proconsul of Macedonia
and imperial legate. Which at first sight the inscription of Sex. Aelius
Catus seemed to confirm.
I cannot suppress disquiet. If a document in fact styles the same man
imperial legate and proconsul, one should conclude that they are distinct
posts. Further, a slightly different restoration might have something in
its favour; and Catus might have been proconsul of Achaia, not Macedonia.
Therefore the inscription at Athens should be dissociated from Catus’ com¬
mand on the Danube. Stein leaves the question open whether it fell before
or after his consulship in A.D. 4 (o.c., 17).
P. 54 — L. Tarius Rufus (cos. suf}. 16 B.C.). He is now certified by
AE, 1936, 18 (Amphipolis), cf. remarks above.
P. 55 — The position and date of Lentulus. Premerstein stood by
his previous date, A.D. 11. For a convenient summary of his views about
the Danubian operations, see o.c. (1935), 72. As has been shown, that date
depends upon the notice in Orosius — and, to a lesser extent, upon the raid
of the Getae in the year 12, disclosed by Ovid. Alfoldi was discreetly vague —
“apparently in the later years of Augustus’ reign” [CAH, XI (1936), 84].
Especial attention should go to the remarks of Groag at the same time in
PIR 2, C 1379. He expressed a preference for Illyricum over Moesia, “proba-
biliter”. And he assigned to Lentulus, “ni fallimur”, all the nameless opera¬
tions on record in Res Gestae, 30; Strabo, VII, 304 f.; Suetonius, Divus Aug.,
21, 1. Further than that he would not go — “testimonia certa cum ad tera-
pus belli accuratius definiendum non praesto sint, hanc quaestionem nisi
tituli novi in lucem prodeunt expedire non licet”. Stein was also resolu.

69
tely agnostic, and very curt (o.c., 17). However, an entirely new date (10
B.C.) has recently been stated, without any indication of controversy, by
E. Koestermann in his commentary on the obituary notice in Tacitus, Ann.,
IV, 44, 1 (1965).
It might be best to concur in the verdict of Groag and renounce. The
notion that Lentulus was legate of Illyricum in the period A.D. 1—4 (succeed¬
ing M. Vinicius) cannot be disproved, it is true, given the nature of the evi¬
dence. But the time has come for a fresh approach. Tacitus registered trium-
phalia de Getis. That notion should have been accorded its full and proper
meaning. It points to the Moesian section of the Danube below the Iron
Gates. Hence the statement in Rom. Rev. (1939), 401, “Lentulus, usually
assigned to Illyricum, could quite well have been a legate of Moesia in the
period 9 B.C. — A.D. 6”.
The idea was not lost to mind. A clue offered, briefly indicated
in JRS, XLV (1955), 30. Consul in 14 B.C., Lentulus was proconsul
of Asia in 2/1 B.C. (SIG^, 781). The normal interval was then of
five years: observe M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, his colleague in the
consulship, proconsul of Africa in 9/8 (IRT, 319). Therefore Lentulus (the
conjecture is attractive) had been absent on a provincial command when
his year arrived. There are clear parallels. L. Aelius Lamia (cos. A.D. 3)
became proconsul of Africa in 15. The delay is explained. He was occupied
in Germania Illyricoque (Velleius, II, 116, 3). Again, M. Aemilius Lepidus
(cos. 6) missed a proconsulate because he was governor, first of Pannonia or
Dalmatia, and then of Tarraconensis (in 14). He was still available for
Asia long afterwards, in 26 [Ann., IV, 56, 3, cf. JRS, XLV (1955), 29].
A hypothesis could therefore be formulated, as was briefly done in
"Gnomon”, XXIX (1957), 519: Lentulus was in charge of the Balkan army
c. 9—6 B.C. It conveys certain advantages. For his “Bellum Thracicum”
L. Piso took over the legions of Macedonia. It is not likely that they reverted
to a proconsul in the sequel. There may belong the “origin of Moesia”, per¬
haps “the truth of the matter” as was conceded long ago in the present paper.
Piso had been engaged with the tribes of the interior. During that time the
territories along the Danube were exposed and endangered. Compare the
incursion of the Sarmatians repulsed by Tarius Rufus shortly after the
trouble in Thrace dealt with by M. Lollius (Dio, LIV, 20, 3). According to
Florus, Lentulus drove away the Dacians and the Sarmatians. He may be
regarded as the successor of Piso. Furthermore, there is no sign that he con¬
ducted an invasion of Dacia (cf. above).
The gaps and hazards in the recording of the Augustan wars have already
been alluded to more than once. Lentulus gets a mention in Florus. Some
(but not all) of his military items derive from an epitome of Livy. If belong¬
ing to 9 B.C., the operations of Lentulus may (or may not) have had an entry
in that historian. However that may be, they might suitably be placed
before the closing of Janus (towards the end of 8 B.C.). Further, whatever
the date at which Lentulus was awarded the ornamenta triumphalia, his co¬
mmand may have gone on for several years. And finally, to state the hypothe¬
sis in its two parts. The independent Balkan command arises from Piso's war;
and nothing forbids the assumption that Lentulus was the successor of Piso.
 P. 57 — L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 16 B.C.). See now PIR^,
D 128. His command on the Rhine and conflict with the Cherusci was
reported by Dio under A.D. 1 (LV, 10 a, 3). Dio states that previously,
when still holding the governorship of Illyricum, Ahenobarbus had marched
to the Elbe. A notorious problem. D. Timpe has recently argued that Dio
is in error: that march belongs to the time of Ahenobarbus’ German com¬
mand [“Saeculum” XVIII (1967), 284 ff].
P58 — Legates of Illyricum. The elogium from Tusculum (ILS,
8965) is now assigned with confidence to M. Vinicius (cos. 19 B.C.). Nor
can a date c. 1 B.C., in succession to Ahenobarbus, be refuted, cf. the Add.
to Ch. II. As for his German command, the ante triennium of Velleius (II,
104, 2) may indicate A.D. 2 rather than A.D. 1. Further, if the arguments
now adduced are given credence, Lentulus lapses.
P• 58 — Sex. Aelius Catus (cos. A). For the problems presented by the
new Athenian inscription (AE, 1966, 379), see remarks above. There is
still a chance that he commanded the Balkan army as a consular c. A.D. 9,
succeding Caecina Severus. Observe, however, that the tenures of governors
were prolonged both in 6 and in 9.
P. 58 — Conclusion. In the light of the foregoing investigations, a
number of items incur doubt or a different interpretation. Thus Lentulus
to go c. 9—6 B.C. in the Moesian command; and P. Vinicius and P. Silius
as praetorian legates c. 4 B.C. — A.D, 1, not as proconsuls of Macedonia.
There is a paradox about Lentulus — dated too early by Patsch, too late
by Premerstein and others. And too much of the sporadic testimony about
campaigns against Dacians was attributed to him. Vinicius now profits —
if put c. 1 B.C.
P. 59 — Warfare in the period 9 B.C. — A.D. 6. The Homonadensian
War of Quirinius may be put c. 4 B.C., cf. "Klio”, XXVII (1934), 138. It
would draw on troops from Syria in the first instance; and in 4 B.C. the
army of Syria (it is a fact of relevance) comprised only three legions (Joseph¬
us, BJ, II, 3, 1; AJ, XVII, 10, 9). Quirinius may also have had a legion
from the army of the Balkans. Operations against a recalcitrant tribe in
the back country between Cilicia and Pisidia, though arduous, were not
resplendent. They were not inconsistent with Janus remaining closed. The
fifteenth imperatorial salutation of Augustus can suitably be assigned to
a Danubian war in 1 B.C. or 1 A.D. See the Add. to Ch.II,
P. 60 — The size of the Balkan army. Perhaps of three legions under
Piso, and then under Lentulus (if he be admitted), it may have dropped to
two soon after under the praetorian legates P. Vinicius and P. Silius. But
it was later augmented. For three legions by A.D. 6, cf. the argument in
JRS, XXIII (1933), 28. In the next year five legions fought against the
insurgents at the Battle of the Volcaean Marshes (Velleius, II, 112, 4). That
is, three under Caecina Severus, the legate of Moesia, two brought from the
eastern provinces by Plautius Silvanus.
P. 60 — The Moesian legions after A.D. 9. The army was now reduced
to two, viz. IV Scythica and V Macedonica. Where they were stationed is
a problem. Five roads met at Naissus; but no evidence has accrued to con¬
firm the strategic importance of Naissus in the early period. When Poppaeus

71
Sabinus held Moesia along with the charge of Macedonia and Achaia from
15 to 35), he had one legate under him to command the army, sometimes
described as “governor of Moesia” (Ann., II, 66; VI, 29, 1). For the evi¬
dence, four of them being attested, see Stein, o.c., 19. Now Oescus was cer¬
tainly a camp by 44, cf. the dedication of that year (AE, 1957, 286). B. Gerov
has recently argued that it goes back to the last years of Augustus ["Acta
Antiqua”, XV (1967), 85 ff.]. There is early evidence for V Macedonica
there. Gerov suggest that IV Scythica was likewise at Oescus — or perhaps
somewhere else (o.c., 90, cf. 104). Ratiaria, where the road from Naissus
reached the Danube has now yielded the gravestone of a cavalryman of an
ala Gallica (o.c., 102). Five alae can now be attested, on or near the mouths
or rivers, from Ratiaria to Nikopol, which lies half-way between Oescus
and Novae (o.c., 103).
P. 64 — Interchange of legions. Occasions were frequent, and one
must not think only of Syria. There is Galatia-Pamphylia, with consular
legates three times on record, viz. Piso, Quirinius, Plautius Silvanus. For
that argument, JRS, XXIII (1933), 24; 27, etc. The case of Silvanus is
notably instructive — the dedication at Attaleia (SEG, VI, 646), the Isau-
rian War registered by Dio under A.D. 6 (LV, 28, 2 f.), and the two legions
he brought to Moesia in the next year (Velleius, II, 112, 4).
After A^D. 9, Moesia had two legions (IV Scythica and V Macedonica),
Dalmatia also two (VII and XI, the former sometimes styled “Macedonica”).
The legions V and VII, so it appears, were originally in the eastern lands.
Pisidian Antioch was colonised by veterans of V Gallica and of VII (with¬
out cognomen). The first is to be held identical with V Macedonica, the
second with VII Macedonica, cf. JRS, XXIII (1933), 18 ; 29 f.; B. Levick,
O.C., 200 ff. These two legions may have moved several times. Building
inscriptions show cohorts of VII Macedonica active near Lysimacheia, on
the isthmus of the Gallipoli peninsula (CIL, 111,7386; AE, 1938, 141);
presumably a relic of Piso’s war, for the Thracians had broken into that
region (Dio, LIV, 34, 5). Further, a few years earlier X Fretensis (generally
allocated to Syria) was in Macedonia (AE, 1938, 16: Amphipolis).
 IV

THE COLONY OF CORNELIUS FUSCUS: AN EPISODE

IN THE BELLUM NERONIS

Among the minor characters in the history of imperial Rome a place

of some distinction belongs to Cornelius Fuscus, Domitian’s Prefect of the
Guard, who perished in Dacia at the head of a Roman army. His earlier
career was no less dramatic. In the year 69, when procurator of Illyricum
Fuscus came forward as one of the most vigorous of the partisans of Vespa¬
sian. Tacitus in the Historiae gives him a handsome introduction (II, 86):
Tampius Flavianus Pannoniam, Pompeius Silvanus Dalmatiam tene~
bant, divites senes; sed procurator aderat Cornelius Fusctis, vigens aetate, da¬
rts natalibus. prima iuventa quietis cupidine senatorium ordinem exuerat;
idem pro Galba dux coloniae suae, eaqtie opera procurationem adeptus, susceptis
Vespasiani partibus acerrimam bello facem praetulit: non tarn praemiis peri-
culorum quam ipsis periculis laetus pro certis et olim partis nova ambigua
ancipitia malebat.

Two difficulties beset the interpretation of this passage. The first is

this: given the character and actions of Fuscus, it seemed incredible to many
scholars that he should have refrained from entering the senatorial career
for the reason assigned by Tacitus, quietis cupidine. Textual alterations de¬
signed to remove this alleged inconsequence, such as quaestus cupidine
(Grotius) and inquies cupidine (Meiser), have therefore enjoyed a certain
popularity. Despite this there is every reason to retain the reading of the
manuscript. ^ Fuscus’ motive was quietis cupido. What is quies? Commenta¬
tors of Tacitus have not always observed that in the literature of the Flavio-
Trajanic period the word is almost a technical term of political life. Quies
denotes a reluctance to bear the dignity, the burdens, and the dangers of
the senatorial life. It may be applied to senators or to knights. In the for-

^ The language of Tacitus suggests the inference that Fuscus was procurator
of Illyricum (i.e., Pannonia and Dalmatia together) not of Pannonia only, as is
usually assumed, for example, in P-W and PIR C 1365. Cf. ILS, 9200 (Velius
Rufus, under Domitian).
2 As shown by H. Hill in CR, XLI (1927), 124, without, however, discussing
the pecular meaning of the word quies.

73
mer it designates the pursuit of prudence and inaction in the Senate, an
attitude which, on an unfriendly estimate, is stigmatised as inertia. ^ As for
knights, quies deters them from entering the Senate at all. It will be enough
to mention two friends of Pliny. Arrianus Maturus, AUinatium princeps,
preferred to remain a Roman knight though he could easily have risen high¬
er.^ Likewise Minicius Macrinus of Brixia; adlectus enim a divo Vespasiano
inter praetorios honestam quietem huic nostrae anibitioni dicam an dignitati
constantissime praetulit. ® This predilection for honesta quies is not likely
to have been of rare occurrence among the opulent families of Northern
Italy.
Cornelius Fuscus renounced the career that was open to a senator’s son.
TheNeronian Senate with its alternations of discreet inactivity or futile and
often fatal opposition was no place for a man of temperament. The cautious
Agricola might be safe but Fuscus was aware of the dangers to which his
character would infallibly expose him. Moreover there were certain mate¬
rial advantages in remaining a knight. Temperament cannot, however, be
repressed for ever. In the year 68 Fuscus raised the standard of Galba —
idem pro Gctlba dux coloniae suae. In the next year his intervention swept
the Flavian cause forward to victory.
Second, the problem of the colony of Fuscus. This seems incapable
of solution, and it is in no way surprising that only two attempts have been
made to identify the elusive city. When seeking to establish his theory
that the Altar at Adam-Klissi in the Dobrudja not merely commemorated
the defeat which Cornelius Fuscus sustained at the hands of the Dacians
in the year 86 but even indicated the very site of that disaster, Cichorius
conjectured that the nameless prefect occurring on that monument, a man
from Pompeii, was no other than Fuscus, the Prefect of the Guard. A.v.Do-
maszewski dissented vigorously’. “Was ist denn Pompeii fiir die Politik
jener Zeit? Ulubrae.” The verdict may be cheerfully endorsed. Domaszewski
further maintained that the colony of Fuscus must be sought in the south
of Gaul, in his opinion the only scene of hostilities in the civil war of A.D. 68,
and identified as Vienna, in Gallia Narbonensis.
At first sight Vienna is plausible, for that city was flagrantly on the
side of Vindex, the legate of Lugdunensis, when he rose against Nero ®,
and therefore (it might be presumed) also on the side of Galba, the ally
of Vindex. A slight objection arises, however: if strong for Vindex, did
Vienna need to be won over to Galba? But there is more than this. Before

® For quies, cf. Tacitus, Agr., 6; Ann., XIV, 47. Plinius, Epp., X, 58; Martial,
V, 28, 4; VIII, 70, 1; Suetonius, Galba, 7. For inertia, cf. Tacitus, Agr., 6; Sueto¬
nius, Dom., 15.
^Epp. Ill, 2, 2; cf. II, 11, 1.
^Epp., I, 14, 5.
® Tacitus, Agr., 6: mox inter quaesturam ac tribunatum plebis atque ipsum
etiam tribunatus annum quiete et otio transit, gnarus sub Nerone temporum, quibus
inertia pro sapientia fuit.
’ Die Heimat des Cornelius Fuscus, “Rh. M.”, LX (1905), 158 f.
^Hist., 1, 65.

u
Vienna could be accepted, it would be necessary to prove that the south
of Gaul was the only region in which a colony’s espousal of the cause of
Galba was a decisive moment in history, a service to be remembered and
rev/arded. That is by no means the case. An examination of the state of
affairs in the western provinces and in Northern Italy from the outbreak
of the rising of Vindex in the spring of the year 68 to the time when Galba
was recognized as successor to Nero by the Senate and People of Rome —
and, more important than that, by the troops on the Rhine and in Northern
Italy — will suggest that there are two alternatives.
The first of these is Spain. Yielding to the solicitations of Vindex,
Galba, the legate of Tarraconensis, publicly cast off his allegiance to Nero
and proclaimed himself Legate of the Senate and People (April 2, A.D. 68).
This was the beginning, not the end, of his difficulties. The unpopularity
of Nero in Spain was hardly enough to secure unanimous support for a pre¬
tender among the classes that had most to fear from unsuccessful treason,
namely Roman senators and Roman knights in official positions and the
leading families in the towns, many of which were by now supplying Rome
with senators. Nor is there wanting evidence of opposition to the self-styled
Legate of the Senate and People.
It is recorded that Galba put governors and procurators to death.®
Otho, the legate of Lusitania, supported him; but there was trouble in Baeti-
ca. Among the victims of Galba are mentioned the names of Obultronius
Sabinus and Cornelius Marcellus.^® Both were senators; it is not too rash
identify them as the proconsul of Baetica and his legate^^. What of the
quaestor of that province? It looks as though he had a hand in suppressing
his superiors — at least that young man of energy and ambition, A. Caecina
Alienus, quaestor of Baetica, took a risk, declared openly for Galba, and
was promoted by him to the command of a legion^^. There is no evidence
of anything that could be called a war in Spain, but in the first days of
uncertainty the adhesion to Galba of an important city such as Corduba
may have forestalled opposition, impelled the hesitant, and helped to win
ali Spain. It would therefore be permissible to conjecture that Cornelius
Fuscus w^as a Spanish colonial magnate.
So far so good, in default of a better hypothesis. But it is unnecessary
to range so far afield as Pompeii, Vienna, or Corduba when the truth is
perhaps to be discovered in Northern Italy, the seat and theatre of the

® Suetonius, Galba, 12; cf. Tacitus, Hist., I, 37.

^^Hist., I, 37.
Obultronius Sabinus was quaestor aerarii in A.D. 56 (Ann., XIII, 28). Corne¬
lius Marcellus is probably to be identified with L. Cornelius Mnrcellus, quaestor
and legate in Sicily and praetor designate (CIL, X, 7192 = ILS, 6767, 7266). He
was probably legate of the proconsul of Baetica and not legate of a Spanish legion
(as assumed by E. Groag in P-W, IV. 1406), for there was only one legion in Tar¬
raconensis at this time, and it appears to have been commanded by T. Vinius (Plu¬
tarch, Galba, 4).
Hist., I, 53; hunc iuvenem Galba, quaestorem in Baetica impigre in partis
suas transgressum, legioni praeposuit.

75
Bellum Neronis — for that is the name which Tacitus applies to the chaotic
events that preceded the fall of Nero
On the news of the rising of Vindex, Nero looked about him for troops.
The Guard and the urban cohorts would be available; and he set about
recruiting a legion from the fleet at Misenum (the later I Adiutrix). Further,
Nero recalled the troops that had been despatched to the East for his intended
campaign — or campaigns. In his matter the details are obscure and a matter
of controversy, but a certain number of facts may be recovered. It is some¬
times stated that all the troops destined for the East had been recalled
to Italy in time, before the death of Nero This is highly doubtful. Of
the vexillationes from the armies of Britain, the Rhine, and the Danube^®,
the German troops at least can hardly have returned to Italy before Nero’s
death (June 9th). Galba, who did not reach Rome until late in the year,
won their gratitude by alleviating the effects of their painful voyage by
sea from Alexandria, As for whole legions, two are concerned, I Italica
and XIV Gemina. The former had been levied by Nero, exclusively from
Italians, for service in the East, probably in 67. Of its whereabouts nothing
at all is known before January, 69, when it was stationed at Lugdunum;
it had probably been sent there soon after June, A.D. 68 by Galba. It
is possible that it had never left Italy in the last year of Nero, possible
too that it had been brought back in time. About the other legion, however,
there is definite and valuable information. Along with eight cohorts of
Batavians, XIV Gemina had been withdrawn from Britain and was on its
way eastwards, probably in Pannonia, for it was through that province that
the great highway ran, from Aquileia in Northern Italy by Siscia and Sir-
mium 1®. The presence of this legion in Northern Italy in the last days of
Nero is unimpeachably attested Further, an important detail, Nero
has summoned to Italy detachments from the armies of Illyricum. These
latter were certainly in Northern Italy in June of 68
Despite much that must remain uncertain, it is clear that a formidable
army was available under Petronius Turpilianus (a former governor of

“ Hist., II, 27.

For example, in CAH, X (1934), 740.
15 Hist., I, 6; cf. 26 and 31.
1® Hist., I, 31: quod eos a Nerone Alexandriam praemissos atque inde rursus
longa navigatione aegros impensiore cura Galba refovebat.
11 Rather than by Nero in the spring of A.D. 68, as assumed by E. Ritterling,
P-W, XII, 1409; W. Schur, Die Orientpolitik des Kaisers Nero (1923), 108; H.M.D.
Parker, The Roman Legions (1928), 139. There is no definite evidence that the legion
had crossed the Alps, still less that it had got to Lugdunum before the death of
Nero.
1® E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1409.
1® Ritterling, Schur, and Parker suppose that it was in Dalmatia; but a legion
would not normally march to the East through Dalmatia.
^^Hist., II, 27.
*1 Hist., I, 9. Excluding XIV Gemina, there were at this time two legions in
Pannonia (X, XIII), one in Dalmatia (XI), three in Moesia (III, VII, VIII).

76
Britain) and Rubrius Gallus, the men whom Nero had chosen as his generals.
It may be presumed that it was mustering in Northern Italy in the last
weeks of Nero’s reign. That the whole or any part of this army had crossed
the Alps into Gaul, as is sometimes assumed in modern accounts of these
transactions,^^ is nowhere stated or indicated in the ancient evidence.
Had it not been for Nero, the cause of Nero was not lost. Galba for his
part retired in despair to the remote city of Clunia when he heard that Vin-
dex had been defeated by Verginius Rufus, the legate of Upper Germany;
and Rufus, though his attitude was ambiguous, was not an open enemy
to Nero. But Nero was found lacking in intelligence as well as in energy.
What Piso said to troops in the city some six months later might have been
said to any of the armies that had once been loyal to their unworthy Impe-
rator: et Nero quoque vos destituit, non vos Neronem.
Another quotation from Tacitus will illustrate the situation: Nero
mintiis magis et rumoribus qnam armis deptilsus. Exactly what happened
will never be known — was it known at the time? Rumour both anticipated
and determined the course of events, and afterwards there were no doubt
many things to be hushed up or explained away — the men who were loyal
to Nero as long as it was decent or possible would not say much about that
under Galba or under the Flavians. Reports came to Rome that Nero’s
armies were deserting, Jt was alleged that Petronius Turpilianus had
gone over: whether truly or falsely, it is quite uncertain. Many of the legio¬
naries, however, long remained true to Nero, as we may judge from the
attitude of XIV Gemina. That legion was checked and coerced by the Bata¬
vian cohorts in Northern Italy. As for the Rhine armies, tarde a Nerone
desciverant, nee statim pro Galba Verginius.
And so Nero’s doom was sealed. But even now, after Nero’s death in
Rome (June 9), it was far from certain that Galba had triumphed. The
armies of the Rhine showed no enthusiasm, and Verginius was slow to declare

22 On these naen see Hist., I, 6; 37; Plutarch, Galba, 15; Casius Dio, LXIII,
27, 1-2.
23 For example, in CAH, X, (1934), 740.
I, 30.
23 Hist., I, 89.
2« Suetonius, Nero, 47; Cassius Dio, LXIII, 27, 1 — 2.
2^ Cassius Dio, in a fragment preserved by Zonaras, says 6 Ss Nepcov p-aO^v
xal Tov nerpMVLOv 6v xara twv OTavaoTavTcov [xera tou TrXelovoc; TrpoeTreTuofxcpe aTpaTsuparop,
TOC TOij PaXpa cppovljaavTa, ouxet’ ouSepdav eXTreSa twv ottXwv (LXIII, 27, 1 a.
Boissevain). Petronius Turpillianus was put to death at the order of Galba, ut dux
Neronis (Hist., I, 6), cf. Plutarch, Galba, 15. Boissevain (Vol. Ill, p. 91) suggests
that he remained faithful to Nero; cf. CAH, X, p. 740 n. But it is possible that he
deserted Nero without declaring for Galba — compare the attitude of Verginius
Rufus (Hist., 1, 8).
28 The Batavian cohorts later boasted, coercitos a se quartadecimanos, ablatam
Neroni Italiam (Hist., II, 27). Compare further, for the loyalty of XIV Gemina,
Hist. II, 11: longa illis erga Neronem fides.
Hist., I, 8; cf. 52-3.

77
 for Galba. Moreover, in Northern Italy the detachments of the army of
lilyricum sent word to Verginius, offering him the Empire. It was still
in the balance.
This in an ideal setting for the service for which Galba rewarded Fuscus
with the procuratorship of lilyricum. Northern Italy with its wealthy and
populous cities, the source from which most of the Italian-born legionaries
and many of their officers were drawn, was a region of cardinal importance
for political as well as for strategic reasons: in a civil war these two factors
do not always need to be distinguished. Through Northern Italy ran the
lines of communication, westwards and northwestwards to Gaul and the
upper Rhine, eastwards to the Danubian provinces. If, in the confused
situation that prevailed in May and June of the year 68, either just before
or just after the end of Nero, one of the colonies on the great roads, city like
Augusta Praetoria, Verona, or Aquileia, boldly declared for Galba, that
might be enough to turn the scale. If Aquileia, for example, were the colony
of Fuscus its adhesion to Galba would have been momentous. Aquileia lay
on the main road from the Danubian provinces and cut off the legionary
detachments which Nero had summoned to Italy. These troops had no quar¬
rel with Nero; after his death, averse from Galba, they would have preferred
Verginius Rufus.
There is something else that tells in favour of Northern Italy. When
the fleet at Ravenna deserted Vitellius for Vespasian in the autumn of the
following year, it asked expressly that Cornelius Fuscus should be made
its perfect. This request may be taken to presuppose some previous know¬
ledge of the man. The fact that he was procurator of lilyricum might be
enough to account for this — the fleet was recruited mainly from Panno-
nians and Dalmatians. But Fuscus had held that position for only a very
short time. This carries the question a stage backwards. Why did Galba
make Fuscus procurator of lilyricum? Though wisdom may not be taken
as a criterion of Galba's appointments, some familiarity with the Danubian
lands, desirable though not essential in a senatorial governor, would surely
be requisite in a procurator. Once again our attention is turned to Northern
Italy and to Aquileia in particular. As for the commercial relations of that
city with the Dalmatian coast and the Danubian lands, no evidence is needed
to confirm what nobody has ever doubted. Venice, Trieste, Susak rolled
into one suggest but a faint idea of the importance of Aquileia. Given the
nature of the evidence and the negative purpose of this paper, it would be
superfluous and perhaps dangerous to put forward the conjecture that Fus¬
cus belonged to a prominent, perhaps to the leading, family of Aquileia,
with ample resources in landed property and factories. For such a man,
as for Pliny’s friend Arrianus Maturus, Altinatium princeps, a seat in the
Senate was not everything that mattered. Though quies, not quaestus, was

Hist., I, 9: quies et Illyrico, quamquam excitae a Nerone legiones, dum in

Italia cunctantur, Verginium legationibus adissent.
Hist., Ill, 12; classis Cornelium Fuscum prafectum sibi destinat, qui propere
adcucurrit.
32 Hist., Ill, 12.

78
his motive, Fuscus need not be denied the possession of a family business
and the honourable ambition to safeguard and augment it.

* *

The foregoing observations might appear to be nothing more than an

essay in the seductive science of hypothetics. Though a positive conclusion
about the colony of Fuscus cannot be reached, there emerges a negative
result of some value for the study of Roman history. Ever since its discov¬
ery, the Altar of Adam-Klissi in the Dobrudja has played its role in every
reconstruction of the Danubian Wars of the Flavio-Trajanic period, and
Cichorius’ hypothesis that Adam-Klissi was the site of the disaster which
the Dacians inflicted upon Cornelius Fuscus and that Cornelius Fuscus
himself was the nameless prefect on the inscription of the Altar has been
widely accepted. The problems associated with this monument, with
the nearby Tropaeum Trajani which bears an inscription dated A.D. 108/, 9®^
and with the vallum in the Dobrudja, probably of Domitianic date,®® are
numerous and complex. The present enquiry will deal only with the Altar,
and very briefly at that.
Cichorius’ hypothesis must be rejected, either wholly or at least in
part. It is clear that Fuscus perished, not in the Dobrudja, in the vicinity
of the Black Sea coast, but beyond the Danube, in Dacia. Dacian vultures,
according to Juvenal, tore his flesh. Martial, in a poem written when
Fuscus had been avenged and Dacia reduced, in name at least, to the sta¬
tus of a dependent kingdom, uses language which cannot be given its full
meaning unless the grave of Fuscus lay on Dacian soil (VI. 76):
Ille sacri lateris custos Martisque togati,
credita cui summi castra fuere duds,
hie situs est Fuscus. licet hoc, Fortuna, fateri:
non timet hostilis iam lapis iste minus;
grande iugum domita Dacus cervice recepit
et famulum victrix possidet umbra nemus.

This interpretation is confirmed by comparison with another poem which

contains the same optimistic opinion about the state of Dacia (V, 3):
Accola iam nostrae Degis, Germanice, ripae,
a famulis Histri qui tibi venit aquis, etc.

In each case the adjective famulus is employed; in the second poem the
northern bank of the Danube is described as now Roman nostrae ... ripae.

33 C. Cichorius, Die romischen Denkmdler in der Dobrudscha, (Berlin, 1904),

Weynand, P-W, s.v. Flavius, 2563; B.W. Henderson, Five Roman Emperors,
162 ff; 306 f.
34 CIL, III, 12467.
33 Cf. E. Fabricius, P-W, s.v. Limes, 649.
38 Juvenal, IV, 111.

79
 This being so, if Fuscus fell in Dacia, it might still be argued that the
Altar has something to do with the disaster of Fuscus — perhaps a ceno¬
taph. But there are difficulties hardly less great in this. The upper part
of the fragmentary inscription of the Altar runs as follows (ILS, 9107):
.[tr^ib . pot\_.] [in.] memoriam.fovtiss[imorum viro-
rum'\ qui[.] pro rep. morte occubu[erunf\ .[c]ol. Pomp.
domicil. Neapol. Ital., prae[f\.

Below this are the names of many soldiers, praetorians (?), legionaries,
and auxiliaries. The name of the prefect, [c]o/. Pomp, domicil. Neapol.
Ital., in large letters (though not as large as those of the dedication above
it) and occupying so prominent a position, could only be that of the Prefect
of the Guard, so Cichorius argued, and the only Prefect of the Guard who
fell in battle in the Danubian lands in the Flavio-Trajanic period was Corne¬
lius Fuscus.®'^
First, as for the soldiers who, to judge from their Italian origin, would
appear to be praetorians. It could be argued that these men are really legio¬
naries, for it is by no means to be believed that the recruiting of Italians
was abruptly terminated at the beginning of Vespasian’s reign,and in
any case the legion stationed nearest Adam-Klissi was I Italica (at Novae),
a legion which in the early years of Domitian would still have in its ranks
a number of “foundation-members.”®® But in any case, even if the praeto¬
rians be admitted as such, it does not follow that the prefect w'as the Prefect
of the Guard.
Second, the prefect. Pompeii, as Domaszewski showed, was a place
of no political importance whatever and cannot have been the colony which
Fuscus brought over to the side of Galba. Another consideration of some
weight can be added. Fuscus was the son of a senator. Pompeii does not
look like the kind of town that sent senators to Rome. No Pompeian sena¬
tors are known. Indeed, equestrian officials are hard enough to find — the
only Pompeian knight in the imperial service appears to be Seneca’s friend
and correspondent Lucilius — and he may have come from Naples.^®
But this is not all. Dessau found the mention of the domus, rare enough
in Roman knights, almost incredible in the case of the highest in rank of
them all, the Prefect of the Guard.

The peculiar description of the prefect as [c]oZ. Pomp, domicil. Neapol. Ital.
suggests the inference that, after the destruction of Pompeii (A.D. 79), its citizens
were assigned to Naples and so provides a rough indication of the period in which
the monument was set up.
Certain objections can be raised against Rostovtzeff’s theories about legion¬
ary recruiting in the first century of the Empire. ,
As tentatively suggested in JRS, XVIII (1928), 47.
At least he is the only knight mentioned by A. Stein, Der romische Ritter-
stand (1927), 369.
Die Herkunft der Offiziere und Beamten des romischen Kaiserreiches, “Hermes”,
XLV (1910), 5, n. 7. In his note on the inscription ILS, 9107 he remarks“praeterea
praefecti praetorio nomini domum adscriptam fuisse vix credi potest.”

80
 The case against Fuscus seems conclusive. A last objection remains
to be disposed of. What officer but the Prefect of the Guard has the right
to appear so prominently on the inscription?
There are other prefects. The presence of a praefectus orae maritimae
or praefectus ripae Danuvii in this part of the province of Moesia is likely
enough. A.v. Premerstein conjectured that a praefectus orae maritimae was
stationed in the Dobrudja in the last years of Augustus.^- Further, there
is evidence for the existence of some such official under Claudius and Nero.
In communications addressed to the city of Istros by Flavius Sabinus, the
legate of Moesia, two prefects are mentioned, Arruntius Flamma and Asia-
ticus.^^ As nothing had happened since then to modify the organisation
of Moesia, the presence in the Dobrudja during the Flavian period of an eques¬
trian official of some importance need occasion no surprise.
The higher the social standing and the official position of the prefect
the stranger is the mention of the domus on the inscription. It this difficulty
appeared to tell against a praefectus orae maritimae, another hypothesis could
be invoked. The unknown prefect may have been the praefectus castrorum
of a legion. In Augustan days this position seems to have stood at the head
of the militia equestris. From the time of Claudius, however, praefecti casiro-
ruui seem to be drawn from ex-centurions who have risen from the ranks.
So much for the prefect, whether he fell in battle or was responsible
for the construction of the monument. This is not the place to discuss what
was, after all, the event, or events, which the Altar and its casualty-list
commenorate. If the site of a disaster, Oppius Sabinus, the legate of Moesia,
may have been defeated at Adam-Klissi in A.D. 85.^^ But the altar might
be a cenotaph for the dead of Domitian’s Wars, including the disasters
of Sabinus and Fuscus. Nor, indeed, is the time of Trajan absolutely
excluded.
The problem of the Altar must be restored to its original obscurity
— enough has been said to show that it is still to early to employ inferences
from this monument for the reconstruction of the Danubian Wars of Domi-
tian and Trajan.^® But of one thing we may be reasonably certain. Even
if the casualty-list contains (alone or along with others) the names of sol¬
diers who fell with Fuscus in Dacia — and that could still be maintained —
the fragmentary name of the prefect cannot be the name of Fuscus, for Fus-
,cus cannot have come from Pompeii. Vienna, Corduba, or Aquileia: any¬
where but Pompeii.

42 Die Anfdnge der Provinz Moesien, “Jahreshefte”, I (1898), Beiblatt, 194.

42 SEG, I, 329, in the first letter of Flavius Sabinus, laxat e7u.ii.eXe? ’Apouvrow
OXa[ix!i.a] tw inipyoi in the second ’Aaiartxo? 6 e^px®? C. Patsch identifies these men
as praefecti orae maritimae, Beitrdge zur Votherhunde von Siidosteuropa V, 1 “Wiener
Sitzungsberichte”, CCXIV (1932), 153. It is unfortunate that they are not given a
place in the first volume of the new PIR.
44 A. V. Domaszewski, Die Rangovdnung des romischen Heeres {IQOS), 120 f.
45 Cf JRS, XVIII (1928), p. 47. In that case it might be supposed that Oppius
Sabinus himself had a separate monument.
46 Cf. CAM, XI (1936), p. 170.

81
 IV. ADDENDUM

P. 78 — The colonia in question, Pompeii, has recently been revived

by J. Colin, “Latomus”, XV (1956), 57 ff. He points to a Fuscus there in
a house owned by Cornelii. Nothing can be done with evidence of this kind
Observe, for what it may be worth, at the colony of Baeterrae in Narbonensis,
a C. Cor. Fu[scus]: the inscription is described as "optimis litteris saeculi
primU (CIL, XII, 4267).
The hypothesis of Aquileia suggested in these pages must also lapse.
Nobody (it is a surprise) had thought of a town on the coast of Narbonensis.
That region came into the fighting (inconclusive) in the year 69. By the same
token, it mattered also the year before, when Galba made his proclamation
against Nero. In fact, he appointed Q. Pomponius 'Ruins praej. orae marit.
Hispan. Citer. GalUa[e] N[a]rhon. (IRT, 537). Baeterrae, on the high-road
to Spain is not excluded. But there is something better the vetus et inlustris
ForoiuUensium colonia (Tacitus, Agr., 4, 1). Until recently. Forum Julii
had been a great naval base: abandoned (it might be conjectured) after the
annexation of Mauretania. For this hypothesis about thepatria of Cornelius
Fuscus, see Tacitus (1958), 684.
P. 80 — The soldiers on the Altar at Adam-Klissi. First, the ostensible
praetorians (on col. 2, as set forth in CIL, III, 14214 and ILS, 9107). Doubt
should subsist. One of them, to be sure, has Rome for domicilium. But so
has one of the legionaries (on col. 3). An explanation avails — recruits
picked up by one of the Vitellian legions at the capital in 69. Second, the
legionaries. From their origins Ritterling deduced that they had belonged
to a legion on the Rhine [“Germania”, IX (1925), 141 ff.). That is, presum¬
ably V Alaudae. This legion marched to Italy with its eagle. After the
Battle of Cremona in October, the defeated forces were dispersaeper Illyri-
cum (Tacitus, Hist., Ill, 35, 1) — and specifically sent to Moesia (46,2).
V Alaudae, therefore, joined the army of that province; a total of four legions
may readily be accepted. And V Alaudae is the legion that perished with
Cornelius Fuscus in Dacia. Thus Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1579.
The case can now be strengthened. A further fragment from the inscrip¬
tion has been published by E. Dorutiu, “Dacia”, V (1961), 347 (fig. 4 on
p. 359): of nine soldiers whose domicilium is preserved, six are from Agrip¬
pina. Therefore that city accounts for ten oat of the grand total of thirty
(ib. 349). One of the fragments of ILS, 9107 (viz. col. 3) in fact showed a
legion suffering heavy casualties of five signijeri and three imaginiferi.
E. Dorutiu concludes that the list represents soldiers killed in the opera¬
tions of Fuscus both South and North of the Danube (ib. 363). The legate of
Moesia Oppius Sabinus gets only a bare mention (ib. 360).
A brief excursus may here be interpolated. On the fragment registering
the signijeri (col. 3) occur two items below an optio and above a haruspex,
which puzzled Dessau — “quid subsit non perspicio”. They are ACI. and
ACIL. They come out clearly in the photograph supplied by E. Dorutiu
(fig. 8 on p. 363): I myself inspected and copied the items in September of

82
1960. The abbreviation obviously stands for benejiciarius. It also occurs
by good fortune on a document of the same region and epoch. A soldier
of V Macedonica is described asNext, an &ptio, and then a centurion
in the same legion, he was decorated for service in a Dacian War (ILS,
2666*’: near Nicopolis ad Istrum). Hence emerges on the Altar, an officer
called Acilius: perhaps even a legionary legate.
P. 81 — A praejectus orae maritimae. Premerstein, discussing the
organisation of Moesia, duly adduced the Vestalis whom Ovid hailed in
a letter written c. A.D. 15 (Ex Ponto, IV, 7 1 f.): missus es Euxinas quo-
niam, Vestalis, ad tmdasj ut positis reddas iura sub axe locis. A member of
the princely dynasty of the Alpes Cottiae (PIR J 621), he had previously
been in the region as primus pilus of the legion commanded by a certain
Vitellius, and had displayed conspicuous valour at the recapture of Aegis-
sus (15 ff.). That is, in A.D. 12 (cf. I. 8, 9 ff.).
Apraepectus ripae Danuvii at a fairly early date is disclosed by an inscrip¬
tion at Pisidian Antioch (AE, 1926, 80). He had previously been tribune
in IV Scythica. Compare, in the region of Tiberius, P. Baebius Atticus,
primus pilus of V Macedonica (the other Moesian legion), then praejectus
civitatium Moesiae et Treballiae (ILS, 1349).
P. 81 — Conclusion. In any event, the Altar should be claimed as
Domitianic, not Trajanic. In the present paper, as in CAH, XI (1936),
170, emphasis was laid upon the disaster that befell the legate of Moesia
in 85. It can still be argued that Oppius Sabinus was defeated at Adam-
Klissi, or somewhere in the region. It is not certain that soldiers of the
Praetorian Guard can be established on the Altar (cf. above); and, for that
matter, the legion V Alaudae might have incurred some losses in 85 before
perishing in Dacia the next year with Fuscus. Unfortunately, there is no
evidence to show where it was stationed. Durostorum, 60 km. due west of
Adam-Klissi, cannot be certified as a camp until after the conquest of Dacia
(cf. Ch. V).
Adam-Klissi possesses strategic value — for a battle, or for the presence
of a Roman emperor (i.e., Domitian). Several roads meet there, and it
commands a wide prospect (the Danube is distant only about 20 km.). Given
a monument to commemorate soldiers who had fallen there — or in the
region — Trajan’s Trophy acquires a meaning. And the reliefs exhibit not
Dacians but various native adversaries on the lower Danube, cf. I.A. Rich¬
mond in his posthumous study, BSR Papers, XXXV (1967), 29 ff.

83
 V

THE FIRST GARRISON OF TRAJAN’S DACIA

I. The Military Situation

The evidence for the military history of the Roman Empire varies
enormously in abundance and in value from province to province. The
army of the Rhine soon became comparatively stable — at an early date
it begins to supply copious detail about its composition, its stations and
its activities. The Danubian and Balkan territories lag a long way behind.
Neglected both by the imperial government and by the historians of anti¬
quity, they have little enough to say on their own behalf. Not until the
reign of Hadrian does one discover settled conditions, adequate evidence
and the means for composing a proper account of the Danubian frontier of
the Empire.
Under Hadrian, the frontier-zone in the Danubian lands comprises
five provinces governed by men of the senatorial order: the garrison is ten
legions in all. One of these provinces is Dacia, with a praetorian legate and
one legion. But the condition of Dacia in the first decade after its conquest
by Trajan was very different. Dacia then called for governors of consular
rank and contained two or three legions. The earliest state of Dacia is an
attractive topic for speculation, both in itself and because of the intricacy
of certain kindred and associated problems. Before it can even be approached,
however, some kind of recapitulation is necessary, if only to indicate the
hazards and the uncertainties.
The fifty years preceding the ordinances of Hadrian had witnessed
many vicissitudes in the Danubian lands. Vespasian, preoccupied perhaps
with the Rhine and with Britain, regions of which he had personal expe¬
rience, seems to have paid little attention to the frontier of the Danube,
in spite of disquieting symptoms made manifest in the years 68—70. The
storm broke in the reign of Domitian. That emperor was caught up in a
concatenation of wars with the peoples beyond the river from Bohemia
eastward to the lower reaches of the Danube: Dacians, Suebi and Sarmatians
(A.D. 85—92). From a choice of evils, if choice there was, he decided to
recognize Decebalus, the Dacian king, as an ally and vassal of Rome with
the duty of guarding the frontier of the Empire and holding in check his
Sarmatian neighbours in the plains on either side of the plateau of Tran¬
sylvania. On a cool estimate of frontier-policy, dismissing the “traditional”

«4
and schematic contrasts between the acts and personality of “good” empe¬
rors and of “bad”, the settlement made by Domitian can claim certain
merits.
But the Emperor Trajan, new to the purple and eager to justify the
elevation of a vir militaris, refused to tolerate mere compromise and a peace
that could so easily be denounced as ignoble. He made war on Dacia, intend¬
ing to break down the power of Decebalus. Even so, at the end of his first
Dacian War (101—2), Trajan did not make up his mind to turn the land
into a Roman province. That happened only after another war (105—6).
The new policy had momentous consequences. The whole system of defence
was altered. Further, it at last became dear to all that the military centre
of gravity had shifted from the Rhine to the Danube and would remain
there. From the early years of Hadrian onwards, the permanent establish¬
ment is ten legions in the Danubian provinces against four on the Rhine.
The change was not the work of one emperor or of one war; and it would
be instructive to trace the whole process, step by step. Failing better evi¬
dence, the distribution of the legions between the different military pro¬
vinces provides some kind of historical framework. It is not always easy
to construct especially when the legions seem for a time to be recovering
some of their old mobility of Augustan days, not merely supplying detach¬
ments (vexillationes) but moving from province to province. During the
actual campaigns of Domitian and Trajan the task were perhaps best decli¬
ned. There were, however, before Hadrian’s final settlement, two brief
intervals of comparative stability that would appear to offer some prospect
of precision. The first runs from Domitian’s last campaign against the
Sarmatians (A.D. 92) to Trajan’s first invasion of Dacia (A.D. 101); the
second covers the years between the conquest of Dacia and the beginning
of the Parthian War, namely 107—113. Each emperor was executing a defi¬
nite policy: and for each, at the end of his Danubian wars came the time to
make his dispositions with some regard for permanence.
Yet even so, gaps and disturbing factors persist, both in the first period
and in the second. Extreme caution is requisite. Ritterling refrained from
the attempt to determine in detail the distribution of the Danubian legions
in the vears 93 — 100. None the less, something can be done. It looks as
though their total had now been raised to nine. Further, that Moesia, which
in the year 86 had been divided into two provinces, contained five of them
and that Pannonia, with four legions, had suddenly become the most impor¬
tant militarj^ province of the Empire. No other province had more than three,
to which total Britain, Germania Superior and Germania Inferior had recent¬
ly been reduced. But if one goes much further in the laudable but hazardous
pursuit of precision, trouble arises at once. Precious little is known: any
strav fact is enough to mar the most seductive hypothesis or overturn the
most robust construction P

1 On the central theme of this paper, the distribution of legions and the defence
of Dacia, see especially the following works: C. Daicoviciu, La premere division
de la Dade, "Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice” (Cluj), II (1933 — 5), 71 ff.;
B. Filow, Die Legionen der Provinz Moesia, “Klio”, Beiheft VI (1906) ;M. Fluss,

85
 II. Legions in Pannonia and Moesia

There are two uncertain factors, cumulative in their effect, namely

the distribution of the legions and the history of the separate legionary
camps. From the beginning of Vespasian’s reign two legions were stationed
in Pannonia, XIII Gemina and XV Apollinaris (Poetovio and Carnuntum).
Moesia certainly had three legions, I Italica, V Macedonica und VII Claudia
(Novae, Oescus and Viminacium). Perhaps four — it turns upon the fate
of the legion V Alaudae. If V Alaudae survived after A.D. 70, it must have
perished in Dacia along with Cornelius Fuscus, Domitian’s Prefect of the
Guard, in the year 86 But V Alaudae, which has left no trace at all, might
not have exister later than A.D. 70: which simplifies things.
However that may be, the campaigns of Domitian brought in succes¬
sion no fewer than five fresh legions to the provinces of Pannonia and Moesia
during the years 85—92. I Adiutrix may have been on the move from Germa¬
nia Superior even earlier than the outbreak of the Dacian War in 85: though
it is not certainly attested in the Danubian lands until the Bellum Suehicum
of Nerva in 97, it must have arrived before that II Adiutrix came from
Britain — a centurion was decorated for service in a Dacian War, presum¬
ably Domitian’s, likewise a tribune of senatorial rank in a Suebo-Sarmatian
War, namely that of the year 92 IV Flavia felix began its career in Dal¬
matia It was no doubt summoned at once to Moesia by Domitian in 85.
Four years later Domitian came from the Rhine to the Danube, in the spring
of the year 89. He will have brought with him XXI Rapax. In the year 92,

P-W, XV, s.v. Moesia: P-.P. Longden, The Wars of Trajan, CAH, XI (1936), c. VI;
H.M.D. Parker, The Roman Legions (1928); C. Patsch, Der Kampf um den Donau-
raum unter Domitian und Trajan (Beitrdge zur Volkerkunde von Siidosteuropa V,
2), “Wiener S-B." CCXVII, 1 (1937); A.v. Premerstein, C. Julius Quadratus Bassus,
Klient des jiXngeren Plinius und General TrayaMS, “Bayerische S-B.”, 1934, Heft 3;
E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, s.'v\Legio; R. Syme, Rhine and Danube Legions under Domi¬
tian, JRS, XVIII (1928), 41 ff; R. Syme, Flavian Wars and Frontiers, CAH, XI
(1936), c. IV; J. Szildgyi, Inscriptions Tegularum Pannonicarum (“Diss. Pann.”
2, 1, 1933).
2 E. Ritterling, P-W. XII, 1569 f.; R. Syme, JRS, XVIII, 46. The Dacians

captured a 07)[jLeTov (Dio, LXVIII, 9, 3). This might be, however, not a legionary
eagle but a standard of the Praetorian Guard. The Altar at Adam-Klissi may testify
in some way to the disaster of Fuscus, but cannot be taken to indicate its site; and
the prefect from Pompeii, whose name was inscribed on that monument, can hardly
have been the Prefect of the Guard, cf. AJP, LVIII (1937), 7 ff.
2 CIL, V, 7425 = ILS, 2720. Compare also the man decorated by Trajan

for merit in a bellum Germanicum (AE, 1923, 28). He had been a centurion of
I Adiutrix.
*1LS, 9193 (Sirmium); CIL, X, 135 = ILS, 2719 (Potentia).
® CIL, III, 14995 (Burnum).
Sarmatian invaders of Pannonia destroyed a legion. Clearly XXI Rapax,
XIV Gemina then came from Germania Superior to take its place
Five legions, therefore, had been transferred by Domitian to the fron¬
tier provinces Moesia and Pannonia. One of them had perished. And there
is no evidence at all that any of them returned to their former provinces,
no excuse for banishing them from the border-lands to more peaceful provin¬
ces . Hence, in Domitian’s peace-time establishment after 92 a total of
nine legions in Pannonia and in the two provinces of Moesia ® — for Moesia
had been divided by Domitian about the year 86, a measure imposed by the
needs of warfare and of frontier defence, and probably an indication that
the total establishment in those parts was for the future to be of five legions.
So far so good. Where precisely were the legions stationed? Pannonia
should have four. XV Apollinaris, as before at Carnuntum? About XIII
Gemina, all is not clear. Ritterling argues that it left Poetovio and went
to Vindobona c. A.D. 90 The date might be too late — more likely, per¬
haps, too early. Poetovio, its former place of garrison, was made a colony
by Trajan; how soon, no evidence. Again, for all that is known, Brigetio
might be earlier in date than Vindobona. As for two legions, I Adiutrix and
XIV Gemina, which had been brought to the Danube by Domitian, their
earliest traces in these lands point clearly to Pannonia In what camps,
however? The earliest history of both Aquincum and Brigetio is contro¬
versial. Ritterling maintained that they should be dated to the early years
of Trajan (c. 101) But the case for a Domitianic origin, only tentatively
to be put forward in the absence of precise evidence, now seems to be growing

« E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1735 f.; 1788 f.

’ E. Ritterling (P-W, XII, 1388), suggests that the legion I Adiutrix may
have been sent to Dalmatia.
8 JRS, XVIII, 47 ff.; CAH, XI, 186 f.; C. Patsch, o.c., 60.
8 E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1714 ff. A large number of its tiles have been
found there.
I Adiutrix: in addition to the evidence for its participation in the war of
A.D. 97 (CIL, V, 7425 = ILS, 2720; AE, 1923, 28), two inscription of its veterans
established at Poetovio (ILS, 9085; M. Abramid, "Casopis za Narodopisje”, 1931,
p. 191 = AE, 1934, 226). These, together, with the two Dacian inscriptions (CIL,
III, 1004; 1008 = ILS, 2476) are the earliest testimony from Danubian lands. As
for XIV Gemina, Ritterling drew attention to the (? early) tile from Petrievci,
near Mursa (CIL, III, 3755), and to the abundance of tiles from Vindobona (P-W,
XII, 1737), early in date; the tiles made by vexillationes of XIV and XV at Brigetio
(CIL, III, 11365 a and b) are presumably early-Trajanic. There are also a number
of legionary gravestones from Carnuntum (RLO, XVI (1926), 51) perhaps earlier
than A.D. 100; for further examples, see now A. Betz, RLO, XVII (1937), 78 f.
For a tentative suggestion, Brigetio and Aquincum, cf. JRS, XVIII, 51.
The whole subject is very difficult.
12 P-W, XII, 1281; 1738. He is, however, ready to concede the possibility that
Aquincum is Domitianic.

87
stronger and stronger. Aquincum has a Domitianic building-inscription;
and recent excavations at Brigetio have revealed significant evidence
Brigetio and Aquincum belong together — and it could be argued that they
were both occupied by legions in the late years of Domitian, to hold the bend
of the Danube and secure protection against Suebi to the north and Sar-
matae lazyges eastwards. A Roman legion, XXI Rapax, was cut to pieces
by the Sarmatians in 92 — clearly somewhere in eastern Pannonia. Aquin¬
cum? — or perhaps further southwards. The legion XIV Gemina which now
reinforced Pannonia perhaps occupied the camp of XXI Rapax. The whole
problem of the defence of the Danubian frontier from Aquincum as far as
Viminacium is highly obscure. It is not known when Singidunum in Moesia
Superior, some forty miles west of Viminacium, first received a legionary
garrison. And territory westwards from Singidunum, namely the tongue
of land north of the Save before its confluence with the Danube (Syrmia,
as it may conveniently be called), might indeed in this period have been
attached to Moesia Superior
That is not all. Mursa, where the Drave can be bridged just before it
joins the Danube, is a position of no little strategic importance, as Roman
civil wars and Turkish campaigns in more recent times confirm with ample
testimony. Mursa was made a colony by Hadrian, probably at the very
beginning of his reign, in 118 There is no evidence at all that Mursa was
ever a legionary camp. Yet a pair of odd facts deserve mention. A tile of
XIV Gem. was found in the vicinity, at Petrievci . More significant,
Mursa itself has recently yielded the gravestone of a soldier of X Gemina,
presumably Trajanic
So much for Pannonia. Moesia is even worse. Given five legions in the
two provinces at the end of Domitian’s reign, where are they to be placed?
Which province had three legions, which two? I It., V Mac. and VII Cl.,

CIL, III, 14547 2. On the subject of the foundation of Aquincum see espe¬
cially V. Kuszinszky, Aquincum: Ausgrabungen und Funde (1934), 4 ff. He argues
firmly for the time of Domitian. Certain inscriptions of soldiers of II Adiutrix may
be fairly early: but it is doubtful whether II Adiutrix occupied Aquincum in the
time of Domitian. As for tiles, the earliest are probably certain of II Ad. and X
Gem., found together in the same piece of construction (ib., p. 5). See further below,
n. 19.
S. Paulovics in “Aevum”, VIII (1934), 242 ff. and II limes romano in Unghe-
ria (1938, Quaderni dell’Impero, published by the Istituto di Studi Romani), 4 ff.
The pavement of an oven w'as seen to have been built against the stone wall of the
legionary camp. It was constructed of tiles of the legion XI Claudia, at Brigetio
between 101 and 107. This proves that the camp existed already.
15 E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1444; M. Fluss, P-W, XV, 2353.
16 M. Fluss, P-W, XVI, s.v. Mursa, 670 ff.
1’ CIL, III 3755, cf. E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1736.
16 J. Klemenc, “Vjesnik hrv. arh. drustva” XV (1928) = AE, 1928, 157. The
soldier served in the century of Paetus: Klemenc points out that a dedication by
a soldier of I Adiutrix, serving in the century of Egnatius Paetus was discovered
at Sirmium in 1904 [J. Brunsmid, “Vjesnik”, IX (1906/7), 103].

88
as before, at Novae, Oescus and Viminacium. As inPannonia, the new arrivals
are portentously elusive. They were presumably II Adiutrix and IV Flavia.
The earliest indications about II Adiutrix point to the western portion of
Moesia Superior Possibly Singidunum About IV Flavia, no certain
evidence, though some tiles from Viminacium may be early^^.
The disposition of these two legions concerns the history of the sites
Singidunum, Ratiaria and Durostorum. Which again is no less obscure.
Ratiaria, the point at which the road from Naissus (itself perhaps a legio¬
nary camp in the earliest days of Moesia, under Augustus and under Tibe¬
rius) emerges and reaches the bank of the Danube, was made a colony by
Trajan. The colony might have followed a legion as at certain other Tra-
janic foundations, namely Poetovio and Oescus. Further, Ratiaria later
received a legion when Aurelian ordered the evacuation of Dacia and in so
doing recalled the military and strategic necessities of an earlier age.
But there is no evidence at all about Ratiaria Nor is there for Duro¬
storum, which commands an important crossing of the Danube. Patsch
suggests that Durostorum was a legionary camp at the end of Nero’s reign
and under the Flavians which might very well be correct. Though, if

The inscription of the centurion T. Cominius (ILS, 9193) was found at

Sirmium, cf. E. Ritterling, P-W XII, 1445 f.; also a tile from Petrovici, near Sir-
mium. It was long ago, seen that the way in which the transference of the military
tribune P. i^elius Hadrianus from II Adiutrix to V Macedonica (CIL, III, 550 =
ILS, 308) in A.D. 95/6 is described by the biographer, namely, post hoc in inferiorem
Moesiam translatus (HA, Hadr., 2, 3) would lend some countenance to the view
that II Adiutrix was stationed at this time in Moesia Superior. The problem of the
earliest garrison of Aquincum — and the earliest traces of II Adiutrix there is an
added complication. Yet there must have been five legions in the two Moesian pro¬
vinces (CIL, X, 135 = ILS, 2719); and one of them was surely II Adiutrix, to make
up the total.
JRS, XVIII, 47 (admittedly very hazardous).
21 E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1543: a number of tiles from Viminacium, with
the name of the legion indicated by the abbreviation FF (not FL), which appears
to be early (cf. also below, n. 55). A double camp? Rather perhaps a temporary
presence of troops during Domitian’s Dacian Wars. Patsch (o.c., 46 f.), argues that
IV Flavia was at Durostorum under Domitian — also in Pannonia however, in
92 — 97 (o.c., 40): which is a difficulty. On the Dacian tiles of IV Flavia, see below,
n. 54.
22 For the conjecture that Ratiaria was a legionary camp under the Flavians,
B. Filow, “Klio”, Beiheft VI, 63; R. Syme, JRS, XVIII, 48. As for the respective
merits of Ratiaria and Durostorum, in favour of the latter it could certainly be
argued that, when Dacia after Domitian’s settlement became a client-state, it was
no longer necessary to mass legions facing Dacia, but they could now be placed at
those parts of the frontier which were not covered by Dacia.
23 Patsch, o.c., 3, f.; 40 ff; 60. But Patsch would remove IV Flavia from Duro¬
storum. He conjectures the participation of IV Flavia both in Domitian’s Suebo-
Sarmatian War of 92 and in Nerva’s War of 97. The inscription to which he refers
is CIL, XI, 5992. This cannot, however, prove that IV Flavia was stationed in

89
Durostorum were pre-Trajanic, one would perhaps prefer to conjecture the
date 86 or 87 and with it a raising of the garrison of Moesia to five legions.
But the first legion that can be attested there is XI Claudia which arrived
in the Danubian lands during the Dacian wars of Trajan. ADomitianic date
could be argued for Durostorum. Anything earlier is hazardous — Duro¬
storum lay far to the east along the course of the lower Danube, a good
hundred miles beyond Novae. An important position — but also an expo¬
sed position. As in open battle, so in frontier-defence the aiixilia, not the
legion, form the first line. As for Singidunum, in the absence of excavation
or other clear evidence, conjecture can still range between the latter part
of Domitian’s reign and the beginning of Hadrian’s
As already indicated, provincial b^oundaries are a complication. A
part of the subsequent province of Pannonia Inferior might have belonged
for a time to Moesia Superior — namely, the region Syrmia. Again, the
boundary between Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior is stated by Pto¬
lemy the geographer to be the river Ciabrus It may not have been so when
the province was first divided. Were it set a mere thirty miles to the west,
Ratiaria would be in Moesia Inferior. Hence, if Ratiaria were a legionary
camp, three legions in Moesia Inferior in the years 92—100 2®.
The foregoing observations are indispensable as a preface. Many of
the difficulties touching legions and legionary camps are still acute in the
period 107—113, and some have even been intensified.
Trajan inherited nine legions in the three frontier provinces of the
Danube. For his invasions of Dacia he drew at different times three legions
from the Rhine, namely I Minervia, X Gemina and XI Claudia. I Minervia
certainly fought in the second Dacian War ^7; it might have arrived as
early as 102 But I Minervia went back when the wars were over. XI
Claudia probably departed from Vindonissa in Germania Superior as early
as A.D. 100^^; and the active participation of X Gemina in a Dacian

Pannonia in 92 — 97. Note that only one set of dona militaria is mentioned: they
were granted a prioribus principibus, which is a euphemism for one emperor, the not
be named Domitian (as several times in the Panegyricus of Pliny).
** For a Domitianic date, JRS, XVIII, 48 f., very tentatively Ritterling offers
no opinion — and indeed, there is no evidence at all. But the advantageous position
of Singidunum was surely occupied earlier than the beginning of Hadrian’s reign,
the date suggested by Fluss, P-W, III, A, 234 f.
2® Ptolemaeus, III, 9, 1.

Otherwise, if three legions are assumed, the extra camp would be Durosto¬
rum, cf. n. 23.
27 P. Aelius Hadrianus was its legate (CIL, III, 550 = ILS, 308).
2® The name of I Minervia disappears from the inscriptions of detachments
of the Lower German army at work in the Brohltal quarries under the governorship
of Q. Acutius Nerva (cos. suff. 100), CIL, XIII, 7697; 7715; 7716. A detachment of
XXII Pr. (from Germania Superior) takes its place. The inference is clear.
2® It has left no subsequent traces at Vindonissa, R. Laur-Belart, Vindonissa,

Lager und Vicus (1935).

90
campaign is not unlikely X Gemina and XI Claudia remained in the
Danube lands* XI Claudia has left traces of its stay in Pannonia before it
was allotted to Durostorum in Moesia (c. 106?)^^; and X Gemina, finally
to be established at Vindobona in Pannonia Superior (? not till 118), can
be earlier attested in Pannonia Inferior (traces at Aquincum and at Mursa)
In addition, the military Emperor raised two legions to perpetuate his
name. II Traiana fortis and XXX Ulpia victrix. When precisely were these
new formations created?®^ Hardly before the first campaign of the First
War, as has sometimes been argued or assumed. Trajan may not have seen
the need for fresh legions quite so soon; it looks as though, eager for war
and display, he underestimated the difficulties at first. Both legions might,
however, have come into existence in the year 103 — though even this may
be a little too early. Both legions may have fought in the second Dacian
War (105—6), for military distinction could be deduced from their cogno¬
mina, “fortis” and “victrix”. But that is not certain — they commemorate
valour and victory, the Emperor’s, not necessarily their own.
The precise date (and order) of the raising of the two legions is not of
serious moment here. It may be mentioned, however, that there was a double
reason for new legions in 105, namely not onl}^ Trajan’s decision to make
a province of Dacia but his annexation of Arabia (105/6). The new province
of Arabia was garrisoned by one of the three Syrian legions, probably VI
Ferrata It is a fair inference that a legion was sent before long from the
Danubian legions to fill a gap in Syria. Perhaps II Trajana. But this is not
quite certain, and the best piece of evidence about the early history of the
legion, the career of a man who commanded in succession I Italica and II
Trajana c. Ill —114 is puzzling^®. It might have stayed on the Danube

One of the two sets of military decorations of the equestrian officer P. Besius
Betuinianus (CIL, VIII, 8990 = ILS, 1352) may have been earned when he was
a tribune of X Gemina.
Namely, tiles at Brigetio, Odenburg and Aquincum, E. Ritterling, P-W,
XII, 1697; J. Szildgyi, Inscriptiones Tegularum Pannonicarum (“Diss. Pan.", 2,
I, 1933), 62 f. For Brigetio, see also above, n. 14, for recent finds. Also, at Carnun-
tum, two gravestones. CIL, III, 11239; RLO, XVIII (1937), p. 63, n. 23.
The gravestone at Mursa (AE, 1928, 157), above, n. 18; tiles at Aquincum,
J. Szilagyi, o.c., 53 and, especially, V. Kuzsinszky, Aquincum, 5 f. Also from Aquin¬
cum, not merely two veterans (CIL, 111, 15162 and Kuzsinszky, Aquincum, 204 ff.,
no. 409 (with photograph), but a soldier as well (CIL, III, 10517). It is pretty clear
that X Gemina was at Aquincum before II Adiutrix took up its final station there.
On this question see E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1280 f.; 1484 f.; 1822; H.M.D,
Parker, The Roman Legions, 109 ff; R. Syme, JRS, XVIII, 53 f.
The inscr. from Gerasa published by A.H.M. Jones (JRS, XVIII 147 =
AE, 1930, 91) shows that VI Ferrata was the garrison under Hadrian.
35 CIL, III, 6813 = ILS, 1038. The expression leg. legionum I Italicae et
[7]7 Traianae fortis does not prove — or even suggest — a simultaneous command
over two legions. This is the earliest datable piece of evidence about the legion.

91
till 112—113: if so, a different legion was sent to the East in 106, or soon
after However that may be, the other new legion, XXX Ulpia, certainly
remained in Pannonia
It would perhaps be vain to attempt to discover the distribution of the
Danubian armies during and between the two wars of Trajan Further,
as Moesia by Domitian, so was Pannonia divided into two provinces by
Trajan. The date is uncertain. Possibly as early as 103, certainly by 107.
Five legions again, as in Moesia? Indeed, during Trajan’s second war there
were probabl}/ as many as fourteen legions altogether in the Danubian
provinces.
The new peace-establishment, however, should be discoverable. Most
scholars would admit twelve legions after 107 which is fair enough.
Nine had been there already, two had been permanently withdrawn from
the Rhine (X Gem. and XI Cl.), and one of the new formations (XXX Ulpia)
was retained. But how were the twelve legions apportioned among the five
military provinces of Pannonia Superior and Inferior, Moesia Superior and
Inferior, and Dacia? Here agreement ends.
One of the difficulties is Pannonia. The easiest solution is three legions
in Superior, one in Inferior, the Hadrianic total. Yet there might after all
have been five legions altogether in the two Pannonias during the period
107—113. So some assume, though without entering into precise detail

It is certainly the easiest hypothesis that II Traiana departed. Yet, for all
that could be known, XV Apollinaris, which was to remain permanently in the
East, might have been sent there earlier than the outbreak of the Parthian War.
A. Betz has recently drawn attention to a significant and disquieting fact, the absence
of definite Trajanic evidence for XV Apollinaris at Camuntum {RLO, XVIII (1937),
80]. The gravestone CIL, III, 4491, however, should be admitted — it records the
soldier M. Ulpius Dasius from Sirmium, dead after twenty years of service. There
seems, by contrast, to be pretty abundant Trajanic evidence for XIV Gemina at
Carnuntum. On I Adiutrix, which might conceivably have been despatched to the
East before 113, see below, n. 74.
Tiles at Brigetio, Carnuntum and Vindobona: E. Ritterling, P-W, XII,
1822; J. Szilagyi, Inscr. Teg. Pann., 82 f. The altar at Brigetio adduced as evidence
by Ritterling (CIL, III, 10974), might however, belong to a later period, to judge
by the nomenclature of the soldier.
38 For attempts, cf. E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1364; E.T. Salmon, Trajan’s
Conquest of Dacia, “Trans. Am. Phil. Ass.’’, LXVII (1936), 101 f. There is the added
complication that a part of Dacia was occupied by the Romans.
33 The first known legate of Pannonia Inferior is P. Aelius Hadrianus in 107/8
(ILS, 308; HA, Hadr., 3, 9). L. Neratius Priscus was governor of the undivided
Pannonia (CIL, IX, 2454 f. = ILS, 1033 f.) at a date which cannot be fixed, because
the year of his consulate is unknown. His command may well belong to the years
103 — 5 (in succession to Glitius Agricola, legate of Pannonia 100—102 and cos.
suff. II in 103 immediately after).
Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1365.

92
of distribution five legions presuppose and demand five legionary camps,
and which are they? In Pannonia Superior three sites are certain, Carnun-
tum, Vindobona and Brigetio. Poetovio, it is usually supposed, had already
lost its legion, receiving veteran colonists instead and the name and title
of a colonjy Colonia Ulpia. So far as is known, Pannonia Inferior was always
a praetorian province with a garrison of one legion stationed at Aquincum.
And the first attested governor, perhaps the first governor of all, was
P. Aelius Hadrianus, of praetorian rank, just after the end of the Dacian
Wars, in 107/8 Yet, despite this fact, there could have been two legions
in the province for a time. And again, the boundaries of Pannonia Inferior
may have been different to begin with — not to mention the old difficulty
about the defence of the river between Aquincum and Viminacium and the
chance that Mursa on the lower Drave may once have housed a legion
The four legions permanently added by Domitian to the armies of the
Danube (I Ad. ,II Ad., IV Flavia and XIV Gem.) still cause trouble. Even
now, the first three of them cannot quite be fixed and localized. Obscurity
about Pannonia might be dispelled by evidence from the other provinces.
At once a cardinal difficult}^: how large was the first garrison of Dacia?

III. Legions and Legates of Dacia

A widely prevalent opinion tends to restrict it to two legions. These

are XIII Gemina and I Adiutrix The former was the only legion in Dacia
from the beginning of Hadrian’s reign onwards. An admirable and explicit
inscription that has recently been discovered attests the participation of
this legion in the conquest of Dacia — and its assignment to the new pro¬
vince The evidence for I Adiutrix, however, is very different. In fact,
there is none at all. An enigmatic tile-stamp, of which two copies exist,
was read by some interpreters as mentioning the name of I Adiutrix after

E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1365, followed by R.P. Longden, CAH, XI, 235,
H.M.D. Parker (The Roman Legions, 158) conjectures four legions in Moesia Supe¬
rior, which is not very likely at this date.
« JLS, 304; HA, Hadr., 3, 9.
Above, n. 18.
E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1365; 1283 (though with doubts about I Adiutrix) j
H.M.P. Parker, The Roman Legions, 157 f.; R.P. Longden, CAH, XI, 235 f.; C. Put¬
sch, O.C.,158.
AE, 1934, 2 (Corinth): C. Caelio C.j fil Ouf. Mariiali praef.j coh. I Raetorum
quae tenditj in Raetia, irib. leg. XIII Gem. quaej tendit in Dacia, in quo tribunatuj
donis militaribus donatus estjab imp. Caesare NervaTraianolfAug. Germanico Dacico
et copiarumi curam adiuvit secunda expedition[e]l qua universa Dacia devicta est,l
proc. provinc. Achaiae, proc. ferrari[ar.]j [L. Gel]lius Menander amicus.

93
XIII Gemina — leg XIII G. et I Ritterling, however, has argued
and, it would appear, has demonstrated, that the reading is erroneous. We
should discern here, not a second legion on the tile, but a man’s name —
presumably leg. XIII Ge. Tadi(us) That is much more plausible. Nor
is there other testimony. To be sure, two veterans of I Adiutrix have left
inscriptions at Apulum: dedications both, the one to the emperor Trajan,
the other io For tuna Augusta and IheGenius canabensium Not good enough.
Veterans of other Danubian legions as well were settled in Dacia at this
time, as witness the inscription from Sarmizegethusa recording the presence
of two old soldiers, veterans of XIV Gemine and XV ApoHinaris respec¬
tively^®. A candid confession is called for —the reason for supposing I Adiutrix
to have been in Dacia is sheer convenience and lack of proof to the contrary.
Not so the legion IV Flavia felix. It has sometimes been assumed as
highly probable that the first garrison of Trajan’s Dacia comprised not
two legions only but three, precisely I Adi, IV F. f. and XIII Gem. But
there has been no full argument and the evidence for the presence of IV
Flavia in Dacia has commonly been neglected for various reasons, some
extraneous, none quite convincing. The evidence, however, is very strong.
In the first place, inscriptions. A centurion of the legion sets up a dedi¬
cation at Micia Another at Sarmizegethusa, and he is a very interesting
person: M. Calventius Viator in charge of the equites singulares of C. Avi-
dius Nigrinus, who is described as leg. Aug. pr.pr. Last and perhaps most
cogent of all, a centurion of IV Flavia is actually buried at Sarmizegethusa
A single centurion, dead or alive, outweighs a pair of paltry veterans. IV
Flavia has a better claim than I Adiutrix.
Second, tiles made by the legion. A number of these have been found in
the Banat and in Transylvania, especially at Sarmizegethusa All of them

The first is CIL, III, 1628 = 8062 = ILS, 9109, of unknown provenance.
The second was published by G. T6glds, Zur Frage nach der ersten Besetzung Daciens,
"Hermes", XLIV (1909), 617 ff.
41 P-W, XII, 1390 f.; 1717. He had obtained a photograph of the first tile.
While thus demolishing the evidence, he was none the less tempted to retain I Ad.
as a part of the garrison of Dacia, for he saw that the province needed at least two
legions.
«C/L, III, 1004; 1008 = ILS, 2476.
CIL, III, 1196; 1487. Also a dedication at Apulum set up by another vete¬
ran of XIV Gemina, CIL, III, 1158 = ILS, 2477,
R. Syme, JRS, XVIII, 53; V. Christescu, Istoria militard a Daciei romane
(1937), 42; C. Daicoviciu, La Tvansylvanie dans Vantiquite (1938), 40.
“ CIL, III, 1353.
CIL, III, 7904 = ILS, 2417. The same man was later centurion in V Mace-
donica and in charge of a detachment of Hadrian’s equites singulares, cf. the inscr.
from Gerasa, JRS, IV (1914), 13 = AE, 1915, 42.
63 CIL, III, 1480 = ILS, 2654.
64 On this material, E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1544; G. Teglds, “Klio", X
(1910), 497; C. Daicoviciu in “Dacia”, I (1924), 230 and "Dacia”, III-IV (1932),
541 f. and 551.

94
show the abbreviation FF for the name of the legion. This is early — F
alone or FL soon prevails as the regular form, as Ritterling has demon¬
strated A Trajanic date for these tiles may therefore be confidently
assumed.
In fact, all the pieces of evidence about IV Flavia given above were
dated by Ritterling himself to the reign of Trajan. It was therefore para¬
doxical to deny to IV Flavia a place in garrison of Dacia. For what reason,
then? Ritterling wished to assign all these traces to the brief interval be¬
tween the two Dacian Wars of Trajan, at the time when a part of Dacia was
occupied by Roman troops. Further, it was widely believed that C. Avidius
Nigrinus was legate, not of Dacia, as the inscription of itself should indicate,
but of Moesia Superior Nigrinus himself is part of an exciting problem.
He belongs to the company of the Four Consulars, the marshals of Trajan
who were put to death on a charge of conspiracy by order or sanction of the
Senate in the first year of Hadrian’s reign. Premerstein actually suggested
that Nigrinus was legate of Moesia Superior in the year 117, precisely at
the time of the death of Trajan His view did not gain wide acceptance
— Ritterling argued for 103 others suggested 107—110
The situation has now become much clearer, thanks to opportune epi-
graphic discoveries. The new Fasti Ostienses reveal the fact that Nigrinus
was consul in the year 110 he at once falls into line and helps to fill a
gap. Ritterling had seen that Dacia called for consular legates. The first
of them was clearly D. Terentius Scaurianus, founder of the colony of
Sarmizegethusa, who is attested as governor by a military diploma of
February 17 th, 110 The last of the series too is now known. Pergamum
has recently yielded up from oblivion an illustrious military man, C. Julius
Ouadratus Bassus (cos. suff. 105) who was sent by Hadrian to Dacia in the
first year of his reign (117/8), fought a campaign there and died in the midst
of his tasks His place was taken, not by a senator but by a Roman knight,
0. Marcius Turbo, who was given a special command. Evidence, some have
thought, of the gravity of the military situation on the frontiers, but, much

6* P-W, XII, 1544^ Daicoviciu, however, dates buildings in which these tiles
occur to the last years of Antoninus Pius. The whole question calls for careful scru¬
tiny. These are certain unpublished tiles of IV Flavia. Dr. Szildgyi kindly informs
me of three in the museum at Temesvdr (two presumably from Pojejena, one from
Zidovci); also one, of a different t3q)e at Alba Julia (the ancient Apulum).
A.v. Premerstein. Das Attentat der Konsulare auf Hadrian im Jahre 118 n.
Chr.. "Klio”, Beiheft VII (1909), 9 ff.; E. Groag, PIR A 1408 (1933).
®’'‘Klio’', Beiheft VIII (1908), 9, ff.
P-W, XII, 1544.
W. Weber, “Abh. Preuss. Ak. Wiss.”, 1932, 94 (CAH, XI, 303 contains
no notice of any change of opinion); P.L. Strack, Untersuchungen zur r. Reichsprdg-
ung des zweiten Jahrhunderts, II (1933), 166.
1933, 30.
«i CIL, XVI, 57 = ILS, 2004. The foundation of Sarmizegethusa is attested
by CIL, III, 1443; cf. also CIL, III, 1081.
A.v. Premerstein, "Bayerische S-B”, 1934, 15 f. gives the inscription.

95
more likely, of the political insecurity of the new ruler whom the marshals
of Trajan envied and hated. Turbo carried out a reorganization of Dacia.
The province was now divided into two. Dacia Superior being put under
an imperial legate of praetorian rank, while Dacia Inferior was governed
by a procurator. The approximate date of the change and the identity of
the first praetorian governor of Dacia Superior have recently been establish¬
ed in a convincing fashion Julius Severus was legate in the year 120
— presumably Sex. Minicius Faustinus Cn. Julius Severus (cos. suff. 127).
Hence emerges the list, perhaps a complete list, of governors of Dacia
in 110—120. Of the consulars, Nigrinus belongs to the period 110—117,
between Scaurianus and Bassus, and with him the legion IV Flavia as part
of the garrison. At what precise point, however, is uncertain. Premerstein’s
original theory needs only slight modification — the conspirator Nigrinus
legate of Dacia in 117, was at once superseded by Bassus, a general whom
Hadrian could trust This is attractive — one would gladly know more
about the identity of the governors of the great military provinces at the
time of the accession (if it should not be called the coup d'etat) of P. Aelius
Hadrianus, the legate of Syria. An earlier date for Nigrinus is not, however,
excluded. There is no evidence to tell how long Scaurianus governed Dacia
after 110; and there might be room for two consular legates in the interval
between Scaurianus and Bassus, Nigrinus could have been governor c. 112—
115 ®®.
However that may be, the legion IV Flavia certainly belongs to Dacia.
Premerstein supposes that it had been at Singidunum and was brought to
Dacia temporarily, in 113 (to replace troops detached for service in Trajan’s
Parthian War) ®'^. And so it may be. Yet the legion, which has left in Dacia
comparatively numerous traces of its sojourn, may have been there from
the origin of the province. A total of three legions would not be excessive
to begin with. Apart from needs of defence, to place them in a newly con¬
quered territory would involve less disturbance than in the more settled
regions. There is a better reason, however, a reason all too seldom invoked
in imperial Roman history. The function of the legionary soldier is not
primarily offensive or even defensive warfare — there were auxiliaries for
that, cheaper human material. The legionary is much more like an engineer
and skilled artisan. No wonder, then, that the Roman army could do without
specialized corps of workers — all were competent. Hence, even when a
large concentration of legions for a war happens to be attested, as in Ger-

«3C. Daicoviciu, "Ann. inst. st. cl.”, Cluj, II (1933/5), 71 ff.combining two
fragments of a military diploma.
<‘*CIL, III, 2830 = JLS, 1056.
"Bayerische S-B", 1934, 35 ff., accepted by E. Groag, PIR A 1408 add.
(PIR 2 C, p. XVII).
** It is unfortunate that Nigrinus’ only other known provincial command,
that of a specially appointed imperial legate of Achaia (SIG^, 827) cannot be clos¬
ely dated. Presumably praetorian — but it might be consular.
"Bayerische S-B”, 1934, 41: “voriibergehend aus Obermosien (Singidunum
nach Dakien verlegt”.

96
mania Superior in 73 and in 83, the soldiers may not be called upon to do
much fighting. Their turn comes, and their true function arises, when the
fighting is over. Now in Dacia after the conquest there were roads,
buildings and whole towns to be constructed. As early as 108 a road
was made between Potaissa and Napoca The legate Scaurianus
supervised the founding of the colony of Sarmizegethusa Its amphitheatre
also appears to be early in date, if one can argue from the tiles of IV Flavia
found in the walls of that edifice’®.
But the question is not as simple as all that. It is connected with other
problems of distribution and garrisoning. In the first place, the hypothesis
of an army of three legions in Dacia in the years 107—113 leaves nine legions
for the other Danubian provinces. Moesia Inferior, now clearly the more
important of the two Moesian provinces, is reasonably certain with three
legions at Novae, Durostorum and Troesmis. Moesia Superior perhaps had
two, Pannonia Superior three and Pannonia Inferior one Yet there
might have been, as Ritterling has suggested, four legions in Pannonia
Superior ’2. Tiresome difficulties persist — the question of the Danube
frontier between Aquincum and Viminacium, the garrisoning of Singi-
dunum, the possibility even of a legion at Mursa on the lower Drave. Indeed,
for all that is known, Moesia Superior, forfeiting its military importance,
could even have been reduced to one legion in these years, while retaining
its consular legate, as did Tarraconensis and Dalmatia. But not even its
governors are known in this period — there is a complete gap between
L. Herennius Saturninus (at some time between 103 and 107) and L. Coelius
Rufus (120) ’A
Second, Trajan’s Parthian War supervenes, bringing change and aggra¬
vating uncertainties. Trajan needed troops for his campaigns, however
little the opposition to be expected from the incoherent monarchy of Parthia,
and legions to garrison the province — or provinces — which he intended
to annex. He took them in the main from the Danubian armies. But total
and details will ever baffle enquiry. Though both soldiers and officers
of certain units saw service in the East, it is impossible from the nature
of the case to tell whether whole legions went to the East or whether they
merely sent detachments. Further, some troops no doubt departed before
the beginning of the first campaign (which was in 114 — Trajan himself
left Rome in October 113), others later, when reinforcements were needed.
Of whole legions, only XV ApoHinaris, whatever be the date of its
departure, is certain. It remained behind in the East at Satala, as part of

«8 CIL, III, 1627.

CIL, III, 1443.
On Ritterling’s view of the date of such tiles: but see C. Daicoviciu recently,
"Dacia”, III-IV (1932), 521, as in "Dacia”. I (1924), 230.
As suggested in JRS, XVIII 55.
72P-1V, XII, 1235.
’3 Saturninus belongs in the years 103 — 7 (CIL, XVI, 54); Rufus is dated
in 120 by a milestone, Vulid, "Spomenik srpske kraljevske akademije”, LXXI
0931), p. 209, n. 556.

97
the garrison of Cappadocia. It is also conjectured that I Adiutrix went —
which is not quite proved by any of the evidence adduced, but may be
true'^^. I Italica might have been spared from lower Moesia — we do not
know. If I Adiutrix went, that concerns Dacia very closely. Further, there
is a strong indication about VII Claudia that escaped the notice of Ritter-
ling and of other scholars. A fragment of Arrian’s Parthica mentions a com¬
mander of the Seventh Legion Valuable evidence, if only it is precise.
If the whole of VII Claudia departed from Viminacium, the problems of
Danubian camps in this period of confusion become yet more complicated
— and were best postponed for the present. Very little can be established.
If Dacia had three legions, it sank to two during Trajan's Parthian
campaigns, so one might presume, conjecturing the departure of I Adiutrix.
At this point a piece of evidence bearing upon the history of Dacia and the
two troublesome legions I Adiutrix and IV Flavia deserves to be mentioned
though it permits no sure conclusions at all.

IV. The Remarkable career of Maximus

T. Julius Maximus became consul suffect in the summer of the year

112, as the Fasti Ostienses have shown Before this, at some time in the
five years preceding, as the inscription of this cursus honorum records, he
held in succession the command of two legions, precisely I Adiutrix and
IV Flavia Iteration in the command of legions is an alluring subject —
which cannot here be developed. Given the degree of specialization attested
or presumed in the military hierarchy of the Empire, the repeated legionary
command might have been fancied to be both a natural and a frequent

Hadrian is said to have been on friendly terms with Platorius Nepos at

the time of the Parthian War (HA ,Hadr4,2): Nepos was legate of I Adiutrix
at some time in the period 112 — 116 (ILS, 1052). A soldier of the legion is buried
at Cyrrhus in Syria, CIL, III 6706 (E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1932). Note further
that a primus pilus of I Ad. is in charge of numeri stationed at Absarus in Pontus
at the begining of Hadrian’s reign, CIL, X, 1202 = ILS, 2660.)
’®A.G. Roos, Studia Arrianea (1912), 59, refers to Suidas, s.v. U7r6 ol and to
the quotation to Bt I^Soji-ov t^Xo? uTr6 ol xal SXXou; ttoXXoi^;. A section at least
of the legion was certainly in the East (ILS, 9491).
AE, 1933, 30.
” CIL XII, 3167 = ILS 1016: T. lulio Sex. f. Volt. Maximo Ma...l Broc-
cho Servilian. A. Quadron[io]l L. Servilio Vatiae Cassio Cam. ...j leg. Aug. leg. IIII
Flaviae, leg. Aug. leg. I Adiut[r. leg. Aug.] iuridico Hisp. citerior. Tarraconens..
pr., a[ed. cur. q.]/ provinciae Hisp. ulterioris Baeticae, don[ato]l bello Dacico coronis
murali et vallari hjasta pura][ vexillo, trib. mil. leg. V. Macedonic., seviro [equitum]
Rom. turm. I, Xviro stlitibus iudic{andis,] Calagurritani ex Hispania citeriore /
patr[ono].

98
phenomenon. It is not so. Further, when such iteration does occur, it is sel¬
dom, if ever, between legions stationed in the same province. It appears
to be due, not so much to the desire or need for added military experience
as to personal or adventitious reasons.
Young military tribunes of senatorial families are a parallel. They
are often found serving, as is right and proper, in provinces governed by
their kinsmen or friends, to join or to accompany whom they may move
from province to province. Ritterling, examining the career of L. Minicius
Natalis, military tribune of I Ad., XI Cl. and XIV Gem. c, A.D. 114 —7,
investigated all the known cases and established a general rule — the itera¬
tion occurs only when the legions are stationed in different provinces
Thus Natalis certainly went from Moesia Inferior (XI Cl.) to Pannonia
Superior (XIV Gem.) because his father was legate to Pannonia c. 116
and the movements of the young Hadrian, tribune in three legions some
twenty years earlier, invite speculation — to say nothing of Trajan with
his ten stipendia^'^.
This is a very valuable result indeed. Perhaps one could go further and
apply it to iteration in the command of legions. All too seldom can preci¬
sion be attained. What might well be a useful example, C. Julius Quadratus
Bassus, is still a subject of controversy. T. Julius Maximus is worth discus¬
sing. He came from the town of Nemausus in Gallia Narbonensis. ANarbo-
nensian also was D. Terentius Scaurianus, if Groag’s conjecture is correct,
perhaps from Nemausus into the bargain Maximus, therefore, probably
served as legionary legate under Scaurianus, governor of Dacia in A.D. 110.
Either — or both — of his legionary commands may have been in Dacia.
At once a difficulty of dating. Did these commands precede immediately
his consulate in 112? One would have expected him to hold an imperial
province of praetorian rank ^3. if so, it was c. 107—110 that Maximus com¬
manded in succession the legions I Adiutrix and IV Flavia. Yet the inscrip¬
tion recording his career may have been set up at Nemausus on the occasion
of his consulate. At the end of the line recording the last of his numerous
names there would be room for the word cos. If so, the legionary commands
belong c. 109—112.

’»Zm zwei griechischen Inschriften romischer Verwaltungsheamten, “Jahreshefte”,

X, (1907), 299, ff, esp. 310. The rule does not hold for equestrian tribunes, and
that is significant.
CIL, II, 4509 = ILS, 1029; CIL, XIV, 3599 = ILS, 1061. The approxi¬
mate date of the father’s command is given by the diploma CIL, XVI, 64 (of
A.D. 116).
^oiLS, 308, cf. HA, Hadr., 2, 2 and 5.
81 Plinius, Pan., 15, 3.
82 P-W, V, A, 669, adducing the freedman D. Terentius Masculus (CIL, XII,
5211: Narbo) and the freedwoman Terentia Irene (Inscr. lat. de Gaule, 497:
Nemausus).
83 E. Groag, Zu neuen "Jahreshefte”, XXIX (1935), Beiblatt, 199.

99
 The subsequent career of Scaurianus is not known for certain: he may
later have been in the East, perhaps as governor of Syria Nor is Maxi¬
mus attested after his consulate. Yet Maximus might be the consular legate
of that name who was killed in battle in 116 His earlier career certainly
indicates high promise — and high patronage. Men from Nemausus were
well thought of The swift progression, about ten years from the mili¬
tary tribunate in 101 or 102, when he was decorated for service in the Dacian
War, to his consulate in 112, is significant. P. Aelius Hadrianus (tr. mil.
95—8, cos. suff. 108), is a parallel. Hadrian advanced to the consulate after
the command of a legion and the governorship of a praetorian province.
Maximus may have gone straight from a legionary command. This is very
abnormal. The best example is that portentous young man D. Terentius
Gentianus, the son of Scaurianus, military tribune under his father in Dacia,
legionary legate (presumably in the Parthian War) and consul suffect in
116 (when under thirty, perhaps at twenty seven or twenty eight)Even
Hadrian, the son of a first-cousin of Trajan, had received no such favour.
The ill-will which Hadrian later bore to Gentianus can well be under¬
stood
Like the anonymous commander of I Italica and II Trajana in the
period 111 — 114, Maximus, legate in succession of I Adiutrix and IV Flavia,
excites speculation about the movements of legions, of legates, or of gover¬
nors from province to province. Maximus might have changed legions in
order to go and serve under Scaurianus in Dacia. This would fit the hypothe¬
sis that his commands belong to his period 107—110, which is the easier,
for it does not impose the further hypothesis that he passed direct to the
consulate. Or he might left Dacia when Scaurianus was transferred to an¬
other province. From either of these two suppositions it would follow that
I Adiutrix and IV Flavia were in different provinces, not together in Dacia.
On the former argument, IV Flavia and not I Adiutrix would be shown to
be a component of the garrison of Dacia.
It appears to be commonly true that when legionary commands are
iterated, the legions in question do not belong to the same province. But
that is not proved yet — nor would it need to be a rigid rule. If, however,
the two legions were both in Dacia at the same time, an explanation could

84 As Groag suggests (P-W, V, A, 671), referring to the dedication from Dura,

©eoij SacraSou eu^ajisvcx; Sxaupiavoc Ma5i[j.ou (C R. Ac. Inscr., 1930, 272).
85 Dio, LXVIII, 30, 1 f. He was a consular (Fronto, p. 209 N). In Fronto, how¬
ever, Hauler succeeds in reading <A>p<piu>s <S> antra and conjectures that
the man was L. Appius Maximus Santra, perhaps a son of the legate of Germania
Inferior who crushed Antonius Saturninus in 89 (E. Hauler, Zu Frontos Principia
historiae, “Wiener Studien", XXXVIII (1916), 168 ff.).
88 As witness even a person of no known fame, L. Aemilius Honoratus (CIL,
XII, 3164 = ILS, 1048). If, as seems likely (HA, Hadr., 12, 2), Pompeio Plotina,
the wife of Trajan, came from Nemausus, it is a historical fact of peculiar value.
8’^ CIL, III, 1463 = ILS, 1046; CIL, III, 21 = 1046a. The date of his consu¬
late, 116, is now established (AE, 1936, 97).
88 HA, Hadr., 23. 5.

100
be hazarded. When commands change, an officer may sometimes have to
choose between his patron and his regiment: Maximus might have passed
from I Adiutrix to IV Flavia in order to stay behind as a legionary legate
in Dacia under the Narbonensian Scaurianus when the first legion departed.
Hence hypothesis upon hypothesis — I Adiutrix was a Dacian legion and
left Dacia before the summer of 112, which would be valuable news, if true.
Trajan’s enterprise against Parthiawas an aggressive war. It is pretty clear
that he went to the East in no mood for conciliation but determined to settle
the silly “Eastern Question” once and for all. When a pretext arose in the
year 113, Trajan was truculent — and he was ready to take action. Troops
may already have been on the move. Armenia would be the first step, to be
invaded from Cappadocia; and for that purpose the garrison of Cappadocia
may already have been strengthened
Arguments of this sort and stamp are no substitute for solid evidence.
The presumption remains, however, that T. Julius Maximus served under
Scaurianus, the first governor of Dacia, either in 107—110 or in 109—112:
the former date is the more plausible. That is not much, but it is something.
In the decade when Dacia was a consular province only one other legionary
legate can be discovered, namely Q. Aburnius Caedicianus. That is, if
this man is not really a governor of Dacia, under Hadrian.

V. The Defence of Dacia

To resume: a case can be made out for the presence of three legions in
Dacia as its first garrison — or, if they were only two, that they were IV
Flavia and XIH Gemina. Yet it is not possible even now to fix the stations
of all the Danubian legions; and the stability of military dispositions in
the Danubian lands were soon disturbed by movements of legions caused
by Trajan’s eastern wars.
Under Hadrian’s arrangement, with XV Apollinaris remaining in the
East and XXX Ulpia dispatched to the Rhine, there stood in the five
Danubian military provinces a total of ten legions. Of these, only one was
in Dacia, namely XIH Gemina, commanded by a legate of praetorian rank
who was at the same time governor of the province. At first sight this is
perplexing. Dacia a promontory jutting out into a sea of barbarism, a bastion
to separate the nomad Sarmatians west and east should surely have been
the most strongly held of all the Danubian provinces. What is the explana¬
tion? Hadrian, who wisely abandoned the eastern conquests of Trajan, is
taxed by tradition with malignant envy of his warlike predecessor. He

Hence one or other of the three legions which probably left the Danubian
lands in the period 106—114 (namely II Trajana, I Adiutrix and XV Apollinaris)
may have departed some time before the outbreak of hostilities.
»«C7L, III 1089 = ILS, 3010.

101
even contemplated, so it is alleged, the evacuation of DaciaDoes the
presence of one legion only in Dacia then attest and confirm the Emperor’s
lack of enthusiasm about the conquests of Trajan, even to the new province
beyond the Danube? The reduction of the garrison of Dacia may indeed
have appeared, in the judgement of contemporaries, to furnish some evidence
for the sinister intention of Hadrian. If so, the critics showed scant discern¬
ment. Hadrian knew what he was doing.
To keep only legions in view all the time is a delusion and a danger.
To outward show, the legions, the Army of the Roman People, proudly
retain their rank and privilege. The reality is different. The first century
of the Empire witnessed a steady and unbroken advance of the auxilia in
numbers and in importance, whether for war or for peace. The change finds
expression in many ways. In the Antonine period, legionary and regular
foot-auxiliary differ hardly at all either inf origin or in equipment but the
auxilia are much more numerous — and perhaps more useful. The military
importance of certain provinces is now revealed not so much by their total
of legions as of auxilia. For example, Britain and Mauretania. These were
the only two regions that gave serious trouble to Antoninus Pius, the ruler
eponymous of peace. There were also, however, disturbances on the northern
border of Dacia; and Dacia from copious evidence, is seen to possess a very
large auxiliary army indeed, comparable with Britain or with Mauretania.
But this is not all. The division of Dacia at the beginning of Hadrian’s
reign* is a fact that must not be neglected: it is cardinal in Danubian history
now and later. There was only one legion in Dacia Superior, it is true. No
matter — Dacia Inferior covered practically the whole of its eastern and
southeastern frontier. Dacia Inferior, it must be pointed out, did not merely
include Little Wallachia, the region westward of the river Aluta. It embraced
the upper valley of the Aluta in the south-east of Transilvania and so extend¬
ed^ in a wide sweep from the Danube as far as the Oituz Pass in the Carpa¬
thians®^. Dacia Inferior and Moesia Inferior between them kept watch over
the wide plains of Great Wallachia and the nomad peoples of the Sarmatae
Roxolani; and where the interval narrowed to some hundred miles between
the easternmost extreemity of the Carpathians and the mouths of the Danube,
there ran a Roman road from the Oituz Pass by Poiana to Barbosi
(nr. Galati).
The situation is pretty clear. Dacia Superior, which may be briefly
defined as the region about Sarmizegethusa, Apulum and Potaissa, stands
firm and secure with its back covered by Dacia Inferior and the eastern
Carpathians, facing westward and northward: it controls the Sarmatae
lazyges from the east, as does Pannonia Inferior from the west. Moreover,
the garrison of Dacia Superior can draw reserves from its southern neigh-

Eutropius, Brev., VIII, 6, 2; cf. Dio, LXVIII, 13, 6 (a strange report about
the bridge over the Danube).
E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1719 f.; C. Daicoviciu, La Transylvanie dans
I’aniiquitd, 41. The forts of Hoghiz (Heviz), XW. of Brasov (Kronstadt) and Bre^cu
(Be^etzk), towards the Oituz Pass, appear to have belonged to Dacia Inferior.
Cf. Patsch, O.C., 147 ff., for a good account of this road.

102
bour Moesia Superior, which still retains two legions, at Singidunum and
at Viminacium.
Last of all, a primordial reason. Preoccupation with Roman frontiers
and Roman frontier-works sometimes leaves out of sight the land beyond
the frontier. The nature of the relations with the border-tribes determines
the character and the requirements of military defence. If the natives can
be isolated from one another, intimidated — or even conciliated — the
task is easy enough. So it was under the successors of Augustus. It was a
long time before Rome had to bother about the frontier of Pannonia. The
line of the Danube was guarded by her clients: German and Sarmatian,
the Marcomanni. Quadi and lazyges, loyal and serviceable down to the
time of Domitian’s Danubian wars. Subsidies had been paid — certainly
to the Germanic tribes, perhaps also to the Sarmatians®^. Domitian employ¬
ed Dacia in their stead.
Trajan’s conquest of Dacia solved one problem but created others.
Now that Dacia had become a Roman province, it was essential to pacify and
control the adjacent peoples, west, north and east. Trajan had paid subsidies
to the Sarmatae Roxolani. Hadrian was at once confronted by their com¬
plaints, perhaps by their rebellion, in the first year of his reignThe lazy¬
ges also, so it is stated, though not as clearly as one could wish, had been
giving trouble Hadrian’s reorganization of the defence of Dacia was not
purely military — no doubt he imposed treaties of some kind upon these
peoples and granted recognition in return for service and good behaviour.
It is recorded at a later date that the Roxolani and lazyges were sometimes
permitted by the Romans to pass backwards and forwards through Dacia
The frontier of Dacia Superior on the west against the lazyges from
the Mures (Maros) northwards was reasonably secure, being covered by the
Mountains of Bihar and the region of forest lying in front of them. No need
for a limes here. Further north, in the vicinity of Porolissum, between the
Crisul (Koros) and the Somesul (Szamos) is a gap. The earliest history of
this region in the Roman period is obscure. A limes has been reported; and
some would date it as early as Trajan. But the very existence of a limes has
been firmly disputed However that may be (and the question cannot
be discussed here), it is evident that the Romans will have exercised some

Tacitus, Germ., 42, 2 (the Marcomanni and Quadi).

^^HA, Hadr., 6, 8.
HA, Hadr., 6, 6. cf. W. Weber, Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des Kaisers Hadria-
nus (1907), 71 ff.; A.v. Premerstein, “Bayerische S-B”, 1934, 35 ff. An earlier war
against the lazyges when Hadrian was legate of Pannonia Inferior is commonly
deduced from HA, Hadr., 3, 9. It cannot have amounted to much. For an indication,
however, about Dacian territory which Trajan refused to give to the lazyges, the
former owners, cf. Dio, LXVIII, 10, 3.
Dio, LXXI, 19, 2.
On this question, see E. Fabricius, P-W, XIII, s.v. Limes, 641 ff; C. Patsch,
O.C., 137 ff.; G. Findly, Archdologische Funde aus Ungarn 1925—1934, “Pannonia”,

27 (1936), 283 f.; C. Daicoviciu, "Anuarul Institutului de Studii Clasice”, II (1933/5),

240 ff.

103
 control over the native tribes to the north of Dacia: the Anartii, the Costo-
boci and others. Porolissum became the capital of a small province when
Dacia Superiorwas dividedc. A.D. 158. It may well have begun as an auxi¬
liary fort. Napoca, some thirty miles to the south-east of Porolissum, was
certainly made a municipium by Hadrian — presumably in 118 or 119.
Perhaps at the same time there was a small extension of the Roman province
and of the military frontier northward from Napoca by the incorporation
of the region of Porolissum: the native population may have been left to
itself, but under Roman suzerainty, in the first decade after Trajan’s con¬
quest. However that may be, the new town of Napoca would require protec¬
tion. But the bare existence of a centre for civilized life so far to the north
in the border-zone of Trajan’s Dacia, founded so soon after the conquest,
is an indication that the Roman government looked forward to settled
conditions on its northern frontier. The hypothesis of suzerainty and control
exercised over the neighbouring tribes is ready to hand. It should be invoked
here, just as it can be invoked in most if not all of the border-lands of the
Roman Empire. One of them is Dacia — and another is Scotland, beyond
the northern frontier of the province of Britain
The foregoing observations, impaired by inevitable deficiencies of
precise knowledge and constrained to carry a heavy burden of hypothesis,
can lay claim to only a limited value. To be sure, any light is welcome it
if can illuminate, however dimly, the dark places of Danubian history and
tell something of the vicissitude of imperial policy in the central sector of
a frontier that ran from Scotland, by sea and by land, east and south to the
edge of Caucasus and the bank of the river Euphrates. What we really need,
however, is more solid evidence like that which has been revealed by the
long and devoted labours of Valentin Kuzsinszky at Aquincum.

V. ADDENDUM

P. 86 — For the distribution of the legions in Pannonia and Moesia

between 85 and 101 see the long and detailed study of G. Alfoldy, “Acta Arch.
Ac. Sc. Hung.’’, XI (1959), 113: with a table, ib. 141. As in the similar
table in JRS, XVIII (1928), 55, certain items are dubious. For Brigetio,

•* M. Fluss, P-W, XVI, s.v. Napoca, 1692 ff. On an army-list of soldiers of III
Augusta, dismissed from service at Lambaesis (CIL, VIII, 18085), occur no fewer
then nineteen men with the domicile of Napoca. The gentilicia, so far as preserved,
are all Aelii: only five of the cognomina can be fully recovered, and of them three
are ordinary and indeterminate, two palpably Thracian (Tarsa and Bitus). This is
a valuable fact.
1“® Cf. I.A. Richmond, The Antonine Frontier in Scotland JRS, XXVI (1936)
240 ff.

104
Carnuntum and Vindobona, see J. Szilagyi, ih. II (1952), 201 ff. Further
(including Aquincum), A. Mocsy, “Pannonia", P-W, Supp., IX (1962),
613 ff. He rightly lays emphasis on the obscurities in the period from Domi-
tian to the conquest of Dacia — “die am meisten problematische Periode
der Heeresgeschichte von P.”
P. 86 — The survival of V Alaudae. In favour, cf. the Add. to Ch. IV.
Furthermore, Skoplje has now yielded the gravestone of the veteran C. Jul¬
ius Velox from Lucus Vocontiorum (in Narbonensis), who had 35 years of
service behind him: published in “Spomenik Srpske Kraljevske Akademije",
XCVII (1941/8), no. 441.
P. 87 — The legions in Pannonia after 92. G. Alfoldy postulates five
(o.c., 141). That is, the four as here stated plus IV Flavia. The total for a
single command in a period of stability is too high — and lacks precedent
since the days of Caesar Augustus. Moreover, the corollary is only two legions
each for the Moesian provinces.
P. 87 — The camp at Brigetio. A Domitianic origin, with I Adiutrix
for garrison, is conceded by J. Szildgyi, o.c., 201; G. Alfoldy, o.c., 127 f.
P. 88 — The region of Sirmium. Indirect evidence supports the hypo¬
thesis that it was attached to Moesia Superior at this time. Two auxiliary
regiments, the Ala Praetoria and Cohors V Gallorum belonged to the array
of Pannonia in 85 fCIL, XVI, 31). In 93 and in 100 they are registered under
Moesia Superior (31; 39). In 110, however, they belong to Pannonia Inferior
(164). The inference is clear, cf. A. Radnoti and L. Barkoczi, “Acta Arch.
Ac. Sc. Hung.”, I (1951), 198; 201.
P. 88 — Mursa. For the history of this important place see J. Klemenc
in Quintus Congressus Internationalis Limitis Romani Studiosorum (Zagreb,
1963), 59 ff. The early date is more attractive than, for example, 124, when
the Emperor was next in these regions.
P. 89 — Legions in the two Moesian commands. Surely five, the detach¬
ments of which fought in Pannonia in Domitian’s war of 92, cf. ILS, 2719
(Potentia), honouring the tribune of one of them (II Adiutrix), who receiv¬
ed decorations in that war. G. Alfoldy, however, allows only four after 92
(o.c., 141).
P. 89 — II Adiutrix. The cardinal document is Hadrian's service as
tribune c. 96 (HA, Hadr., 2,3). For his tribunates (and the cognate question
of the governors), see JRS, XLV (1945), 115; LIV (1964), 143 f.; “Arkeo-
loski Vestnik” XIX (1968), 101 ff. As for its camp at this time, G. Alfoldy
pronunces firmly, too firmly, for Singidunum (o.c., 140). Hadrian’s friend
Q. Marcius Turbo, it appears, was once a centurion of II Adiutrix: a soldier
who died in service at Aquincum belonged to his centuria (CIL, III, 14399
cf. AE, 1948, 202). But it is not safe to build upon this item, cf. remarks
in JRS, LII (1962), 89.
P. 89 — IV Flavia. This legion is assigned to Aquincum from 89 to
101 by G. Alfoldy, o.c., 139 f.
P. 90 — Singidunum. Clear testimony is still lacking. For the history
of the site, see M. Mirkovic in Limes u Jugoslaviji, I (Beograd, 1961), 109 ff.
P. 90 — XI Claudia. It may be supposed to have occupied Brigetio,
I Adiutrix departing for service in Trajan’s First Dacian War. Before taking

105
up its final station at Durostorum, XI Claudia may have passed some time
at Oescus, cf. the gravestone of a soldier who died in service [AE (1935),
78]. For the history of Durostorum, cf. V. Parvan, "Riv. fil.”, LII (1924),
307 ff.
P. 91 — X Gemina at Aquincum. Add a veteran from Parma (AE,
1965, 121). H. Nesselhauf has recently argued that the legion was not brought
from the Rhine to Pannonia before the eve of the Parthian War [“Bonner
Jahrblicher”, CLXVII (1967), 272]. Surely too late.
P. 91 — The annexation of Arabia. The legion in question is often
held to be VI Ferrata, from Syria. A good case can be made out for III
Cyrenaica, from Egypt. Observe the entertaining letter of the Egyptian
soldier Apollinaris (P. Mich. 466), in 107, Claudius Severus (sujj. 112)
being the governor of the province. For remarks on this document, see
JRS, XLVIII (1958), 4 f.
P. 91 — The departure of II Traiana. The commander c. 113, the poly-
onymous Gallus (ILS, 1038), to be identified with the sujjectus of 119, can
be claimed as L. Cossonius Gallus, cf. brief statement in “Historia”, XIV
(1965), 345: against PIR ^ ,C 1541 and G 71. He gave up the command of
I Italica (at Novae) to conduct II Traiana to the East, it may be conjectured.
Hence, by the way, a presumption that Moesia Inferior had four legions
from 106 to 112.
P. 92 — The departure of XV Apollinaris. Perhaps not at the very
beginning of the Parthian War. The soldier M. Ulpius Dasius from Sirmium
who died at Carnuntum with twenty years of service (CIL, HI, 4491)
tempts to a bold and fragile conjecture, cf. “Arheoloski Vestnik”, XIX
(1968), 101 ff. He might owe his nomen to M. Ulpius Traianus (cos. 91)
— if the latter was governor of Moesia Superior c.95.
P. 92 — The division of Pannonia. It can now be assumed that Pannonia
Inferior was created at the end of the Second Dacian War, the first governor
being P. Aelius Hadrianus {suff. 108). As for L. Neratius Prisons, governor of
the undivided Pannonia, his consulate has now emerged (in 97), and he
can confidently be put after Glitius Agricola. See “Hermes”, LXXXV
(1957), 487 and below, Ch. XH.
P. 93 — Danubian legions, 106—112. The total of thirteen may be
assumed, there being no need to subtract one as a consequence of the anne¬
xation of Arabia, cf. above. One corollary may well be four legions in Moesia
Inferior (i.e. including II Traiana).
P. 94 — IV Flavia in Dacia. Valuable evidence has accrued. Dece-
balus’ capital (the fortress Gradistea Muncelului) yields the name of the
legion inscribed on a piece of marble and on two limestone slabs. See
I. Glodariu, “Acta Musei Napocensis”, II (1965), 128 f.: photographs of
the slabs, ib. 129. The same writer also gives a summary of the evidence
for the legion north of the Danube, ib. Ill (1966), 429 ff. The surprise, how¬
ever, is the discovery of a legionary camp at Resita in the Banat (dimen¬
sions 490 by 410m.), yielding a number of tiles of the legion. See D. Pro-
tase, ib., IV (1967), 47 ff. For a plan, ib. 52; for drawing of the tiles, 50 f.
The site is none other than the ancient Berzobis, on Trajan’s route towards
Dacia in the first campaign — and registered in the famous fragment from

106
the Emperor’s Commentarii. The legion was established here (one assumes)
until Hadrian in 118 transferred it to Singidunum. There is a further reper¬
cussion of this discovery. IV Flavia at Berzobis makes one wonder about
the size of the establishment in Moesia Superior from 106 to 118: on which,
cf. below.
P. 95 — Governors of Dacia. See further Ch. XI.
P. 95 — Army commanders in 117. Cf. Tacitus (1958), 243.
P. 96 — The career of Avidius Nigrinus. His governorship of Achaia
is also attested by an inscription found at Athens: published in "Hesperia”,
XXXII (1963), 24. There is a strong temptation to assume the post consular:
perhaps from 111 or 112 to 114.
P.97 — Distribution of the Danubian legions, 106—112. Probably
thirteen are to be reckoned with, cf. above.
P. 97 — The status of Moesia Superior. A reduction of the garrison
to one legion at this time becomes highly plausible, in view of the new
evidence about IV Flavia (adduced above) which puts that legion in the
Banat, not for distant from Viminacium and from Singidunum. The pro¬
vince now had little need of troops — indeed, a praetorian legate as gover¬
nor either now or during the Parthian war might be envisaged. That pheno¬
menon occurred during the wars of Marcus, cf. the arguments of A.R. Birley,
"Acta Antiqua Philippopolitana” (Sofia, 1963), 109 ff. Calpurnius Julianus
(ILS, 3891: Mehadia) can be claimed for a governor of that status, also
Macrinius Vindex (ILS, 1107) and (Caerellius) Priscus (CIL, III. 6806:
Moguntiacum). Further, IV Flavia was removed from Singidunum c. 171
to be brigaded with I Italica in an independent command under A. Julius
Pompilius Piso (ILS, 1111).
P. 97 — Governors of Moesia Superior. None have since accrued in the
period. L. Herennius Saturninus is now attested for 105 by Hunt’s Pridianum
(BM Pap., 2851), cf. Ch. VII.
P. 98 — 1 Adiutrix in the East. The command of Platorius Nepos
(consul suffect early in 119) precedes his governorship of Thrace (ILS,
1052). The beginning of the latter is defined by the governorship of Juven-
tius Celsus (sujj. ? 117), who succeeded Statilius Maximus in 114, as is
shown by the diploma (still not published) in the Sofia Museum: cf. "Her¬
mes”, LXXXV (1957), 493. For the sojourn of the legion in the East add
AE, 1939, 61 (Heliopolis): C. lul. Pacideio Firf mo hastato leg.f XIII Gem.
Pacideius j Firmusj Tleg. I Adiutricisj patri.
P. 99 —Military tribunes. There is abundent evidence of their service
under a consular parent or kinsman. For dating the three tribunates of
Minicius Natalis (su}f. 139), the year of his quaestorship helps. It is patently
121, for after being Hadrian’s quaestor he joined his father (sujj. 106), the
proconsul of Africa (ILS, 1029): that is to say, he did npt accompany Hadrian
who set out on his journey to the western provinces in that year. The first
tribunate of Natalis, in I Adiutrix, could it be fixed to a year, might date
the departure of that legion from the Danubian lands. Natalis was transfer¬
red to XI Claudia, in Moesia Inferior.
P. 99 — T. Julius Maximus (sujf. 112). The diploma CIL, XVI, 164,
published in 1951, shows him governor of Pannonia Inferior in 110. Variou

107
consequences follow. First, the rapid career, with military tribunate in
101 or 102, which, following Groag, I had adopted, was erroneous, cf. Taci¬
tus (1958), 655; “Historia”, XIV (1^5), 345 ff. Maximus conforms to a stan¬
dard type, born c. 69, military tribune 88 and 89, praetor c. 100, consul
“suo anno”; parallels are adduced. Second, the dating of the two legionary
commands. They should fall in the period 104—8. That is patently prefer¬
able to what is proposed in PIR J 426, viz. the command of I Adiutrix
“ante bellum Dacicum Traiani ut videtur”. Third; the reason for the trans-
ferance from I Adiutrix to IV Flavia is still not obvious.
P. 100 — Legionary legates and consular commanders. The parallel
with tribunes was fallacious. Reflection suggests that the government would
not wish the legionary commanders to stand in any close nexus with the
consulars, cf. "Historia”, XIV (1965), 347. That would constitute a political
danger. No special tie between Maximus and Scaurianus should therefore
be invoked. Maximus, it is assumed, took the place of P. Aelius Hadrianus
as governor of Pannonia Inferior in the summer of 108. Therefore it is still
probable that his command of IV Flavia was in Dacia under Scaurianus,
the governor from 106 to 110.
P. 102 —Hadrian and Dacia. Strictly speaking, Hadrian did not dimi¬
nish the area of the Roman province of Dacia. But, as now emerges, he gave
up a wide expanse of territory beyond the Lower Danube, which had been
assigned to Moesia Inferior. After the first war against the Dacians, the
Romans had established posts at Buridava on the river Olt and at Piro-
boridava (in Moldavia), as is shown by Hunt’s Pridianum (BM Pap., 2851),
on which see further Ch. VH. After the final conquest, a wide zone was
retained. The evidence is twofold. First, certain sites, notably Drajna de
Sus, close by the foothills of the Carpathians. It has yielded tiles of the
legions I Italica, V Macedonica, XI Claudia (AE, 1950, 72). More impor¬
tant, a burnt layer, with two coins of 116 or 117. The fort at Malaiesti
(? Ramidava) not far away also suffered destruction; and there are other
sites such as Pietroasa that convey Roman occupation. For the evidence,
G. Stefan, “Dacia” XI/XII (1948), 115 ff.; Gr. Florescu, Omagiu lui Con¬
stantin Daicoviciu (1960), 225 f. Summarised in M. Macrea, “Acta Musei
Napocensis”, HI (1966), 130; “Dacia”, XI (1967), 127. See also, briefly,
C. Daicoviciu, “Klio”, XXXVIII (1960), 180.
Second, evidence about auxiliary regiments. Discussing the diploma
for Dacia Inferior of 140 found at Palamarca in Bulgaria (AE, 1962 , 264),
B. Gerov established a vital fact. None of the thirteen units had belonged
to the army of undivided Dacia, as attested by the diplomata of 106 and
110 (CIL, XVI, 57; 160; 163). Most of them, indeed, seemed to have been
in the army of Moesia Inferior [“Klio”, XXXVII (1959), 209 f.]. Gerov
drew the conclusion. The new territory across the Danube, and also the upper
valley of the Olt in south-eastern Transylvania, extending to the fort of
Bretcu (facing the Oituz pass) had been assigned by Trajan to Moesia Infe¬
rior. Hadrian, surrendering Wallachia east of the Olt, formed from what
remained the new province of Dacia Inferior in 118 or 119, to be governed
by a procurator. Hence what was then done is not, properly speaking, a
division of Trajan’s province of Dacia.

108
 The next change was the severing of Porolissensis from Dacia Superior
presumably in 124. A diploma of 133 attests the new province, under the
equestrian governor Flavius Italicus: published by C. Daicoviciu and
D. Protase, JRS, LI (1961), 63 ff., whence AE, 1962, 255.
P. 102 — The auxilia in Dacia. See G. Forni, “Athenaeum”, XXXVI
(1958), 3 ff.; 193 ff. A total of about 42 regiments c. 140 was estimated by
J. Szildgyi, “Acta Antiqua”, II (1954), 180. For the strength in Porolissensis,
M. Macrea, “Dacia”, VIII (1964), 145 ff. A list of the Dacian dipiomata
is furnished by C. Daicoviciu and D. Protase, JRS, LI (1961), 69 f.
P. 103 — Warfare in 117/8. The appointment of C. Julius Quadratus
Bassus (sujf. 105) is significant, cf. above. From two passages in the Histo-
ria Augusta (Hadr., 5.2, cf. 6. 6) is commonly deduced not merely trouble
with the Rhoxolani, but a war against the Sarmatae lazyges, cf. W. Weber,
O.C., 71 ff. The source does not happen to specify lazyges. There have been

recent attempts to invoke in support the inscription of (L. Caesennius) Sos-

pes, (ILS, 1017: Pisidian Antioch). This man when legate of XIII Geraina
was decorated for an expeditio Suebica et Sarmatica. Hence a war in 118, H.G.
Pflaum, “Historia”, II (1954), 435, cf. 443; J. Dobid§, Omagiu lui Constantin
Daicoviciu (1960), 147 ff. The notion runs into various difficulties (no need
to specify). Sospes (as many have continued to believe) commanded XIII
Gemina in Pannonia in 92, in Domitian’s war — against Suebi as well
as Sarmatae. Finally, his consulship (retarded) falls in 114, as is disclosed
by the Thracian diploma of that year [“Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 403].
P. 103 — The limes of Porolissensis. See now St. Ferenczi, “Dacia”,
XI (1967), 143. The whole subject stands in sore need of exact investigation.
P. 103 — Porolissensis. For the origin of the province, not c. 158 as was
generally held, but before 133 (cf. AE, 1962, 255), cf. remarks above. The
notion that Trajan did not at once annex the region in 106 was an aberration.

109
 VI

ROMAN SENATORS FROM DALxMATIA

The governing class of imperial Rome was subject to a steady and con¬
tinuous transformation as different regions of Italy and different provinces
in their turn contributed their best men to the Senate. Cicero had spoken
of tota Italia, But it was not until the Dictatorship of Caesar that Italy, and
in particular the peoples so recently in arms against Rome in the “Bellum
Italicum“, came to be adequately represented in the Roman Senate, as wit¬
ness C. Asinius Pollio, of a family dynastic among the Marrucini and
the Picene P. Ventidius who fought and defeated the Parthians with Pop-
paedius Silo the Marsian as his legate or quaestor.^ The Paeligni had to wait
until Augustus when P. Ovidius Naso, spurning an official career, left to
Q. Varius Geminus the honour of being the first Paelignian senator. ^ Along
with Italian partisans, the Dictator admitted several men from the provin¬
ces. The change went on when Dictatorship passed into Triumvirate and
Principate. It was slowed down but not arrested by Augustus, for his rule
is not a reaction but the consolidation of the gains of the Revolution and
the orderly perpetuation of the revolutionary process.
A mass of evidence about the local and provincial origins of knights
and senators in the Roman Empire has been made available through the
tireless investigations of Groag and Stein in the encyclopaedia of Pauly-
Wissowa, in the new Prosopographia, and elsewhere. There are other stu¬
dies of great value ■* *. Stech compiled the list of the Flavio-Trajanic Senate.

^ Pollio’s grandfather, Herius Asinius, was the leader of the Marrucini (Livius,
Per., 73).
2 Dio, XLVIII, 41, 1. Ventidius, captured when an infant at Asculum and
led in the triumph of Pompeius Strabo,is notorious and proverbial for the vicissi¬
tudes of his life. Poppaedius Silo is surely a member of the family that provided the
Marsian general in the “Bellum Italicum”.
® CIL, IX, 3305-6=ILS, 932-932a.
* H. Dessau, Die Herkunft der Offiziere u. Beamten des r. Kaiserreiches, "Her¬
mes”, XLIV (1910), 1 ff.; B. Stech, Senatores Romani qui fuerint inde a Vespasiano
usque ad Traiani exitum, “Klio”, Beiheft X (1912); P. Lambrechts, La composition
du sinat romain de Vaccession au trone d’Hadrien a la mort de Commode (117 — 92), 1936.

110
His work has recently been continued by Lambrechts for the period of the
Antonines. Further, Dessau and Lambrechts have drawn from the facts
general conclusions about the stages in the transmutation of the Roman
Senate. The evidence about provincial origins is all too often fragmentary,
capricious and insecure; and it may be put to alarming uses, as when the
Emperor Commodus in an authoritative work is described as a "Spanish
visionary” None the less, the value of these studies, when pursued in a
sober and rational manner, is admitted and indeed paramount for the light
that they throw upon the development of the hierarchy of government and
the history of the Empire as a whole.
There is more than this. If one observes which provinces supply Rome
with senators, in what proportions and at how early a date, a new source
of information emerges concerning the provinces themselves, their social
and economic structure and the character of their civilization. There was
considerable immigration and settlement of Italians in Spain and in Gallia
Narbonensis; but also in certain parts of those lands the native stocks had
already reached a high level of culture and so were able to develop rapidly,
producing good Romans. Narbo was an ancient Roman colony, established
in 118 B.C. Yet Narbo in its contribution of Roman senators is hopelessly
out-distanced by Nemausus, a town which had grown out of the capital of
a native tribe, the Volcae Arecomici, and by Vienna of the Allobroges.
The earliest provincial senators came from Spain and Narbonensis,
nominees of Caesar the Dictator. Among them were two Spaniards, namely
L. Decidius Saxa (probably a colonial Roman) ® who commanded an army
in the compaign of Philippi and governed Syria for M. Antonius, and L. Cor¬
nelius Balbus the Younger from Gades, quaestor in 44 B.C. The uncle of
Balbus, subsequently promoted, became consul in 40 B.C. The names of
Caesar’s Narbonensian senators have not been recorded, but it is possible
to guess what kind of persons they were Spain sets the tune from the begin¬
ning. But the two Cornelii Balbi, who were not even Roman citizens by
birth, are exceptional and portentous. Narbonensis soon forges ahead and
displays two consuls in the reign of the Emperor Gains, D. Valerius Asiaticus
from Vienna and Cn. Domitius Afer from Nemausus. Spain, it is true, sup¬
plies the first provincial emperors, Trajan and Hadrian: but the grandfather
of Pius came from Nemausus, and Narbonensis blends with Spain in the
pedigree of the Antonine dynasty. The prominence of these provinces in
the history — and in the literature — of the first century of the Empire
and for a part of the second, before the ascension of the Africans and the

®W. Weber, CAH, XI (1936), 392.

« Cicero, Phil., II, 12; XII, 37, etc. He is described by Cicero as a Celtiberian.
Cf. however, R. Syme, Who was Decidius Saxa?, JRS, XXVII (1937), 127 ff.
’’ Note, for example, two Narbonensian friends of Caesar, C. Valerius Procil-
lus, homo honestissimus provinciae Galliae, the son of C. Valerius Caburus the chieftain
of the Helvii (BG, I, 19, 47 and 53; VII, 65) and Pompeius Trogus, his confiden¬
tial secretary, the son of a Vocontian dynast who had served under Pompeius Magnus
(Justin, XLIII, 5, 11 f.).

Ill
Orientals, is striking, but intelligible and appropriate. It suggests comparison
with other regions of the Empire. How then does Dalmatia stand in our
period?
*

* *

The relations of Dalmatia with the opposite coast of the Adriatic in

early times were close and continuous, as both archaeology and linguistic
research can demonstrate. It is well known that Illyrian languages were
once spoken in Venetia, in Picenum and in south-eastern Italy. Further,
the Dalmatian littoral became subject to Roman control at a quite early
date. Penetration and settlement soon followed. During the Civil Wars
organizations of Roman citizens are mentioned at Salonae and at Lissus ®,
while Narona can supply inscriptions of this period Dalmatia was com¬
monly administered in one provincia along with Gallia Cisalpina, as under
the proconsulate of Julius Caesar. More than that, certain Liburnian commu¬
nities as far down as Nedinum, Asseria and Varvaria are reckoned by Pliny
in one part of his Natural History along with the Regio Decima of Italy
some of them possessed the ius italicum, others were immunes. Whatever
the explanation — and the problem is very difficult — this is at least sig¬
nificant. Roman colonies of full citizen rights were established in Dalmatia,
perhaps by Caesar the Dictator (for Colonia Julia Martia Salonae may well
go back to him) and by Caesar’s heir when Triumvir if not also when Prin-
ceps. But the peculiar problems of the Delmatian colonies — among them
their absence from the Res Gestae Divi Augusti — do not concern us here.
Roman and urban civilization had a distinguished history on this coast, per¬
petuated and recalled long afterwards by the empire and the monuments of
Venice and by the imperial aspirations of Italy. All in all, Dalmatia like
Narbonensis should have been designated as Italia verius quam provincia^'^.
So one would have thought, expecting also to find numerous Roman
senators from the towns of Dalmatia. One looks for them — there are hardly
any, in the first two centuries of the Empire from Augustus down to Corn-
modus .
Indeed, not a single senator from Dalmatia can be discovered before
the second century. Borghesi, it is true, thought that L. Tarius Rufus (cos.
suff., 16 B.C.) might be one of them. But Borghesi has not been followed in
this view The Tarii Rufi attested in Dalmatia probably owe their citi-

» Caesar, BC, III, 9; Bell. Al., 43 (Salonae): BC, III, 29 and 40 (Lissus).
»C7L, 7 2, 2288 = 2293 (2291 = 7L5, 7166; = 3354); ILS,
8893, of 36 B.C., from Tasov6i6i, nr. Narona. Other early Dalmatian inscrr. are
CIL, I 2, 2294 = ILS, 5322 (Curictae); 2295 = ILS, 3189, and 759 (Issa).
Plinius, 7777, III, 130 cf. 139; W. Kubitschek, De Romanarum Tribuum Ori~
gine et Propagatione (1882), 82 ff.; A. von Premerstein, Bevorrechtete Gemeinden Libur-
niens in den Stddtelisten des Plinius, “Stxen Buliciana” (1924), 203 ff.
Plinius, 7777, III, 31.
12 See E. Groag, P-W, s.v. L. Tarius Rufus, 2320 ff.
12 CIL, III, 2877 (Nedinum) etc.

112
zenship to this man. Rufus owned large estates in Picenum no distance-
away across the sea, and may therefore have had commercial interests in
Dalmatia. Further, given his known military career (admiral at Actium,
and governor of Macedonia c. 17—16 B.C.), Tarius may well have been
proconsul of the province of Illyricum in the early years of Augustus’ Prin-
cipate.
Hirschfeld, Dessau and Stech all held the opinion that the distinguished
jurist of the Flavio-Trajanic age, C. Octavius Tidius Tossianus L. Javolenus
Priscus was of Dalmatian origin This is far from certain. The man's
nomenclature tells against it — “Tidius” is a central-Italian name, and
forms in — enus like “Javolenus” are typical of Umbria, Picenum and the
Sabine country. When such names are borne by provincials, they often jus¬
tify the hypothesis of immigration from Italy. Might not Javolenus Priscus
then belong to a family of Italian colonists domiciled in Dalmatia? The
inscription which records his career, set up at Nedinum was dedicated by a
personal friend — P. Mutilius p.f. Cla. [C] rispinus t.p.i. amico carissimo
But this is not enough. Nedinum is close to Burnum, the garrison of the
legion IV Flavia felix which Javolenus commanded about A.D. 80. On
that occasion he may well have made the acquaintance of his loyal friend
to whom he owes his commemoration in a Dalmatian town.
The earliest Dalmatian senator is the illustrious military man Sex.
Minicius Faustinus Cn. Julius Severus (cos. suff. 127) whom Hadrian sum¬
moned from his governorship of Britain to suppress the insurrection of the
Jews The long cursus honorum of this man was discovered at Burnum
and there is also a fragment from the colony of Aequum (nr. Sinj) 21, None
of the official posts held by this man had brought him to Dalmatia. It is a
reasonable conjecture that Dalmatia was his province, Aequum the town
of his origin.
Next comes another prominent personage in the Antonine hierarchy of
administration, the consular Cn. Julius Verus (cos. suff. c. 153) who govern¬
ed in succession the great military provinces of Germania Inferior, Britain
and Syria. His inscription was found at Aequum, in two fragments which
Ritterling was the first to join ^2. It is a dedication by his fellow-citizens,
Aequenses municipes. The origin of Cn. Julius Verus is thus beyond doubt;

Plinius, NH, XVIII, 37. Note amphora stamps bearing his name in the muse¬
ums of Este and Zagreb, CIL, V, 8112 III, 12010 cf. E. Groag, o.c., 2323.
Dio, L, 14, 1; LIV, 20, 3 with Ritterling’s emendation; AE, 1936, 18 (nr.
Amphipolis).
Hirschfeld on CIL, III, 9960; Dessau, “Hermes”, XLIV (1910), 13; Stech,
O.C.,30 and 170.
CIL, III, 2864, cf. 9960 = ILS, 1015 add.
CIL, III, 14995, a signifier of the legion. For the date observe the Javolenus'
next post, the command of III Augusta, is fixed to A.D. 83 (CIL, VIII, 23165):
Dio, LXIX, 13, 2.
20 CIL, III, 2830 = ILS, 1056.
21 AE, 1904, 9.
22 CIL, III 2732 + 28714 = ILS, 1057 + 8974,

113
and it is a fair inference that he was related in some way to Julius
Severus.
These two Dalmatians attained to power and glory in the Empire. The
third incurred disgrace: his name was erased from his inscriptions. This
man, a native of Risinium, was legate of Numidia in the year 167, and consul
designate then or shortly afterwards In this function he set up at Lam-
baesis a dedication to the Illyrian god Medaurus, the protecting deity of
Risinium.
moenia qui Risinni Aeacia, qui colis arcem
Delmatiae, nostri publice lar populi,
sancte Medaure domi e[f\ sancte hie,.,, etc.

Three so far. It is not easy to identify any more. Daicoviciu has collect¬
ed the evidence for owners of land in Dalmatia, senatorial in rank 2®. They
are not numerous: C. Raecius Rufus and M. Lusius Severus, of the second
century, and C. Valerius Respectus Terentianus 2®. To them should be added
P. Coelius Balbinus Vibullius Pius (cos. 137)^'^. But is does not follow that
these people originated in Dalmatia. And indeed it is Daicoviciu's princi¬
ple to discover immigrants.
P. Lambrechts has recently compiled the list of the Senate under the
Antonines^®. In addition to the three men from Dalmatia above recorded
and unequivocally attested (nos. 93, 423, and 829 in his book), he brings
forward a fourth (n. 709), P. Coelius Apollinaris {cos. 169). This man how¬
ever, is probably the son of the consul of 137, P. Coelius Balbinus Vibullius
Pius: Groag has adduced good reasons for believing that the family comes
from Baetica
Yet there is probably a fourth senator after all. At Arba on November 8,
173, C. Raecius Leo, the freedman of the senator C. Raecius Rufus dedicated
a fountain to the Nymphs ; and a certain Raecius Rufus was curator aedium
sacrarum et operum locorumque puhlicorum in Rome in the years 166 The
ancestry of this man can be traced. Q. Raecius Rufus, the primus pilus cen¬
turion decorated by Vespasian and Titus for the Jewish war, by Trajan for

CIL, VIII, 4208; 18496; 2581. On him see Pallu de Lassert, Pastes des pro¬
vinces africaines sous la domination romaine, |I (1896), 379 ff. The cause of his sub¬
sequent disgrace is unknown — he may have been a partisan of Avidius Cassius.
**C/L, Vm. 2581 = ILS, 4881.
C. Daicoviciu, Gli Italici nella provincia Dalmatia, “Eph. Dacorom.”, V
(1932), 121.
C. Raecius Rufus, CIL, III, 3116 (Arba); M. Lusius Severus, 1786 (Narona);
C. Valerius Respectus Terentianus, 1989 f. (Salonae), the latter probably either second
or early third century.
Note the following inscriptions from Salonae, CIL, 111,2294; 2295; 2561;
9009; 13925, adduced by Groag, PIR^, C 1241.
** La composition du sSnat remain, etc. (1936).
E. Groag, Zu neuen Inschriften, “Jahreshefte”, XXIX (1935), Beiblatt, 195.
»“C/L, III, 3116 = /L5, 3869.
« CIL, VI, 360.

114
service in Dacia, married Trebia Procula Her father was a municipal
magistrate at Arba The senator C. Raecius Rufus, who owned property at
Arba, is therefore a descendant of that pair.
The historical evidence for matters such as these varies enormously in
the vicissitudes of oblivion and survival; and general conclusions are hazar¬
dous and insecure. None the less, the paucity of Dalmatian senators finds
independent confirmation, under two heads.
First, the Senate under the Empire is regularly and continuously recruit¬
ed from the equestrian order. The Princeps confers upon the sons of the
higher equestrian officials and procurators the latus clavus, the badge of
eligibility for the senatorial career, almost as of right. When a certain region
of the Empire is found to supply a large contribution of senators, enquiry
will often discover a sufficient number of knights in important administra¬
tive posts one or two generations earlier. In the first century of the Empire
this principle holds good for Spain and Narbonensis — and for Northern
Italy, especially for that part of it, the Transpadana, which for so many
reasons might aptly be designated slSprovincia verius quam Italia. For exam¬
ple, both grandfathers of Cn. Julius Agricola from Forum Julii, who entered
the Senate under Nero, were imperial procurators^'*. Now there is a remark¬
able lack of the higher knights in Dalmatia during our period. Dessau men¬
tions only one, P. Atilius Aebutianus, presumably from Asseria who was
Prefect of the Guard under Commodus; and Arthur Stein in his comprehen¬
sive study of the equestrian order can add only one more, the imperial pro¬
curator M. Antonius Firmus, son of a magistrate of Salonae®®.
Second, the argument from Latin literature of the early Empire. The
record would be barren indeed if the western provinces were omitted. Even
under Augustus, Virgil und Livy — sons of the Transpadana — are provin¬
cial in a sense. The contribution of Spain, with the Seneca family. Martial
and Quintilian and many lesser worthies, is splendid and portentous. Nor is
Gallia Narbonensis without honour in oratory and in letters. Tacitus, if not
a Transpadane, probably came from Narbonensis Even Gallia Comata
can supply distinguished speakers and professors of rhetoric. Dalmatia has
no share in this abundance. There are no poets, orators or historians from the
cities of Dalmatia.
*

* *

It would be tempting to speculate about the singular scarcity of senators

from a civilized and a Romanised portion of the Empire, even though

32 CIL, III, 2917 = ILS, 2647. The name "Raecius”, common in Dalmatia,
can be either of Italian (? Etruscan) or of Illyrian extraction, cf. W. Schulze, Zur
Gesch. lateinischer Eigennamen (1904), 44 and 217.
33 CIL, III, 2931.
3« Tacitus, Agr., 4.
3S ILS, 9901, cf. PIR 3, A 1294 ; H. Dessau, "Hermes", XLIV (1910), 13.
3« CIL, III, 2075, cf. A. Stein, Der. r. Ritterstand (1927), 396.
3’ M.L. Gordon, The Patria of Tacitus, JRS, XXVI (1936), 145 ff.

115
 it may not be possible to assess the reasons or establish valid and
irrefragable conclusions. In the first place, the Roman province of Dalm¬
atia, which extends inland from the Adriatic almost as far as the river
Sava and includes the greater part of Bosnia, can be regarded as a single
unit only on an administrative and fictitious sense. Though the basis of
the population was Illyrian in race, geography imposed inevitable con¬
trasts of history and civilization in antiquity just as today, as the tra¬
veller observes when he passes from the Mediterranean to Central Europe,
from Split or Dubrovnik to Sarajevo. A failure to take these differences into
account weakens considerably the force of Rostovtzeff’s otherwise illuminat¬
ing remarks about the condition of Dalmatia in the Roman period
Two, or rather three, zones might plausibly be distinguished in the
Roman province of Dalmatia. The wild interior behind the Dinaric Alps, a
tangle of forest and mountain with intermittent upland plains, bleak and
none too fertile, was occupied by the lapodes of Croatia and the Lika and
by the great Bosnian tribes with their numerous small clans, theMaezaei,
the Ditiones and theDaesitiates. The Roman conquest of Bosnia was late
and difficult. It was the work of the “Bellum Pannonicum” of 13-9 B.C.;
and it had to be done again in A.D. 6—9, when the insurrection of the Pan-
nonians and Dalmatians was suppressed. After that the native peoples were
left in the charge of their own chieftains, at first under the control and super¬
vision of Roman military officials.
Change came slowly. The land was remote and backward; and the Roman
government was not possessed by the passion of hasty innovations. Most, if
not all, of the tribal chieftains of Gallia Comata bear the gentile name
“Julius” ; but it was not until the Flavian period, so it appears, that the^rm-
cipes of the lapodes received the Roman citizenship Even in the second
century the ruler of the Daesitiates prefers to call himself simply Valens the
son of Varro Varro is a native Illyrian name, Valens probably the Roman
translation of another. This man was married to an Aelia Justa and is per¬
haps the parent of the Ulpia Procula, to whom he sets up the inscription, so
he may well in fact have been in possession of the Roman franchise and a
proper Roman nomenclature. The citizenship spread slowly — as witness the
large proportion of Aurelii in Bosnia. Likewise, municipal institutions were
a late introduction, superficial and imperfect in their working. The land
was not suited for them. Bosnia would be no more likely to produce senators
in the age of the Antonines than would Asturia or the tribal districts of
Mauretania. The Illyrian and Balkan lands still lag far behind, of no name or
moment in world-history. Their glorious age is the third century of the Chris¬
tian era.
The rest of the province, however, the territories from the coast of the
Adriatic up to the Dinaric Alps and the watershed between the Me diterra

Soc. and Ec. History of the Roman Empire (1926), 221 ff.
CIL, III, 14234, \T.Fl]avius[..']ditanus {civ.d^on. ab \imp.1 Vespasiano-
Ca[e']sare Aug., pra\e']positus et p[rin']cep[s'] Iap[o]dum [t/.s./.m.]
4® Novitates Musei Sarajevoensis (1930), 8: Ulpiae T.f. [P^rocullael an. XXII
Valens Varron. f. princeps Desitiati et Aelia lusta [S'\ceno{barbiy.

116
nean and the Black Sea, namely Dalmatia and the Hercegovina i tnhe system
of the Dual Monarchy, is in no sense a homogeneous region. There were
Roman colonies here and oppida civium Romanorum. Romans settled further
inland and there was even a regular colony at Aequum in the Sinjsko polje.
None the less, at no great distance from the coast the Illyrian elements per¬
sisted, tenacious of name and costume and revealed by the native style of
sculpture as well. This is especially evident for the interior of Hercegovina
near Konjica, eastwards towards Plevlje and south-eastwards down to Mon¬
tenegro Here and in Dalmatia many tribes were converted into municipia,
mainly under the Flavian Emperors. Yet the process was incomplete. Muni¬
cipal organization masked rather than transformed the tribe. Doclea can
show the family of z.princeps civitatis Doclatium with native names, perhaps
but not certainly earlier than the establishment of the municipium ^2. Again,
native pHncipes subsist in a Dalmatian municipium like Rider which is
only a dozen miles from the coast and from the Roman colony of Scardona.
Rider is likewise conspicuous for the high proportion of Illyrian names among
its population. This is no home of Roman senators. The Dinaric Alps might
have appeared to be both a frontier and a barrier. Yet the immediate hinter¬
land of the coast of Dalmatia and Hercegovina is seen after all to be closely
related to the Illyrian interior.
The four attested senators in the first two centuries of the Empire come
from Aequum, a Roman veteran colony, from Risinium, an oppidum civium
Romanorum, and from Arba, an island off the Liburnian coast which pro¬
bably received municipal rights at an early date. Why are senators so rare
and infrequent?
*

* *

Accident or sentiment may often have determined the admission of

provincials to the Senate. The Balbi from Gades, not even Roman citizens
by birth, are clearly a phenomenon; they explain themselves and are not
material for deductions. But the very existence of one such family might
inspire emulation, in their own city and in others. Patronage again would
certainly bring in relatives and friends; and local or provincial patriotism
might be an added stimulus. These factors were probably operative both in
Spain and in Narbonensis. Dalmatia produced no striking individuals in
the early Empire; and there are no manifestations of a specifically Dalma¬
tian patriotism.
The deeper cause may well turn out to be social and economic in cha¬
racter. First of all, economics. The Roman Senate by the middle of the second
century had come to be representative of the great land-owners of the whole
empire, east as well as west. Already the primacy of the western provinces
seems to have passed. The emergence of a great number of senators from the

« See the acute and convincing observation of C. Patsch, Die Herzegowina

einst, u. jetzt (1922), 93 ff.
ILS, 9411, cf. Patsch. o.c., 93.
*^CIL, III, 2774 == ILS, 7164; 2776 = ILS. 7165.

117
East and from Africa has been recently demonstrated by Lambrechts and
brought into connection with the increasing prosperity of those regions.
Much of the trade of the cities of the Dalmatian coast lay with Italy; and
a decline in the prosperity of Italy may well have had its repercussions upon
Dalmatia, at a time when that region should have been forging ahead and
counting for something in the Empire. This is a large subject and beyond
the scope of the present paper.
Yet it is likely enough that in any case Dalmatia could not show local
magnates comparable to the aristocracies of Asia Minor, Spain, Gaul and
Africa. There were wealthy men in the towns of Dalmatia, it is true, like
M. Flavius Fronto of Doclea The commercial element is strong in the
colonies of the coast, with numerous freedmen, especially at Narona
But, despite certain allegations ancient and modern descendants of freed¬
men were not numerous in the Senate of imperial Rome. The profits of com¬
merce and industry went into land, a secure and reputable form of invest¬
ment. Yet there was probably not enough land available along the Dalma¬
tian coast for the building-up of large estates and the formation of a landed
aristocracy.
Enquiry might have been expected to show that the senators from the
provinces were in the main the descendants of Roman colonists. That is
not borne out by the facts. The study of the nomenclature of the senators
from the western provinces indicates a high proportion of the native stock.
Such at least appears to hold good for Gallia Narbonensis. It is not the colony
of Narbo, but Nemausus and Vienna, originally native capitals, that supply
the most senators. And their names are revealing: many Domitii, Valerii
and Pompeii, suggesting the inference that they are descendants of native
dynastic families who received the citizenship from Roman proconsuls in
the last age of the Republic
The geography and geology of the Dalmatian coast and hinterland mili¬
tated against the existance of large estates. There are few today. Moreover,
the Illyrian native chieftains were not feudal dynasts like the Celtic lords,
but representatives of a more primitive, a more Balkan and a more "demo¬
cratic” social structure; and Illyrians were fanatically conservative. The

** CIL, III, 12695 = ILS, 7159 and other inscriptions. On this man see Rostov-
tzeff, Soc. and Ec. History, 553.
Among the very earliest (? of the Triumviral period) are CIL, I *, 2291 = III
1820 = ILS, 7166 and CIL, I 2. 2289 = III 1784 = ILS, 3354. The same man,
P. Annaeus Q. 1, Epicadus, occurs in both.
*• Tacitus, Ann., XIII, 27: et plurimis equitum, pierisque senatoribus non aliunde
originem trahi. The study of the composition of the Senate of the early Principate
does not bear out the assertion of this Tacitean speech.
Cf. R. Syme, JRS, XXVII (1937), 131, with reference to Caesar’s Narbo-
nensian friends C. Valerius Procillus and Pompeius Trogus. The poet C. Cornelius
Cn. f. Callus also appears to belong here, cf. CQ XXXII (1938), 39 ff. The first
Narbonensian consuls are a Valerius and a Domitius from towns originally native:
Vienna and Nemausus. I hope to deal with this subject more fully elsewhere.

118
quest appears to lead us after all to pre-Roman Dalmatia, back to the Illy¬
rians, where it may be left, for this is only a brief and tentative speculation
about a vast and alarming subject.

VI. ADDENDUM

P. Ill — Senators from Spain and Narbonensis. See the ample exposi¬
tion in Tacitus (1958), Chapters XLIII-V, with App. 78—95. A surprise
was the consulate of Valerius Asiaticus — under Tiberius, in 35, revealed
by a piece of the Fasti Ostienses published in 1947.
P. 112 — Dalmatian towns. See G. Alfoldy, Bevdlkerung und Gesell-
schajt der rdmischen Provinz Dalmatien (1965), with the long and careful
review by J. Wilkes, "Bonner Jahrbiicher”, CLXVI (1966), 646 ff. The cate¬
gories used by the author when adducing nomenclature to separate immi¬
grants from persons of native origin are not always clear and adequate:
hence some over-confident assumptions. Observe also Swoboda's criticism
of Mocsy’s methods as applied to Pannonia [“Gnomon”, XXXIV (1962),
387 ff.].
P. 112 — The status of the Liburnian communities. See now G. Alfoldy,
O.C., 68 ff.
P. 112 — The Roman colonies in Dalmatia. They were not military
in origin, cf. G. Alfoldy, “Acta Antiqua”, X (1962), 357 ff. The same scholar
discusses deductions of veterans in “Historia”, XIII (1964), 167 ff.
P. 112 — L. TariusRufus (cos. su}j. 16 B.C.). For his origin and career,
cf. Rom. Rev., (1939), 362. Mentioning the Tarii at Nedinum in Liburnia
(CIL, III, 2877 f.), Alfoldi says “zweifellos Einheimische”. To be sure, one
can adduce the tribe Tariotae and the place Tariona. But Italy can show
Tariates in the Sabine country (Plinius, NH, III. 107), if the word is correct,
and the river Tarus, an affluent of the Po {ib. 118). And, for what it is worth,
Silius Italicus has a Tarius among the Italian allies of Rome (IV. 253),
The Augustan consular was an active land speculator in Picenum (ib. XVIII,
137); and the distribution of his amphora stamps in the northern Adriatic
is instructive, cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 362. Add G. Brusin, Gli Scavi di Aqui-
leia (1934), 168. Was Tarius perhaps the consular legate whom the Princeps
dismissed for defective orthography? He wrote ixi for ipsi (Suetonius,
Divus Aug., 88). That would accord with the low-born son of a Celto-Illy-
rian region.
P. 113 — L. Javolenus Priscus (sujj. 86). Arguing from the “Octavius”
in his full nomenclature, Alfoldy assigns to the jurist Nedinum for patria
(o.c., 83). But Octavii are no clue anywhere. Iguvium in Umbria discloses
not only the rare “lavolenus”, but also the uncommon “Tidius”, cf. Tacitus
(1958), 761.

119
 P. 113 — Sex. MiniciusFaustinus Cn. Julius Severus (suff. 127). A new
inscription from Aequum (AE, 1950, 45) shows that thepraenomina as print¬
ed in ILS, 1056 should be transposed. Cn. Minicius Faustinus, consul suf-
fect presumably in 117 (CIL, XVI, 62), is patently his adoptive parent,
and is himself, as now emerges, the son of the sujfectus of 91 Cn. Minicius
Faustinus (AE, 1961, 319; the Fasti Potentini are in error about the
nomen). The latter may well be the opulent friend of the poet Martial
(PIR F 127). The normal name of the sufjectus of 127 is to be taken as
■“Sex. Julius Severus", cf. now the testimonia in PIR J 576. For his long
tenure of Dacia Superior (? 119—126), see the Add. to Ch. XI. A new diploma
shows him there at the beginning of 126: referred to in "Historia”, XIV
(1965), 343. It has since been published in “Acta Musei Napocensis”, II
(1965), 135.
P, 113 — Cn. Julius Verus (suff. c. 153). For the date of his first consu¬
late, “c. 151“ was suggested in XLIII (1953), 152 (in review of Degras-
si's Fasti Consolari). Compare now PIR J 618: “potius ca.a. 151 quam
a. 154, ut voluerunt Hiittl et Barbieri". He was designated to be consul
again in 180, but died before he could assume the fasces. Sex. Julius Severus
is to be regarded as his uncle, “probabiliter” (PIR ^). Alfoldy's treatment
of this family is defective, cf. remarks of J. Wilkes, o.c., 653.
P. 114 — P. Coelius Balbinus Vibullius Pius (cos. 137). For the views
of Groag, see PIR 2, C 24. It can be argued that this man was not a gover¬
nor of Dalmatia (thus Jagenteufel), but a resident at Salonae, cf. Ch. XIII.
Add P. Coelius Apollinaris (suff. Ill), his presumed parent.
P. 114 f — Other Dalmatian senators. The Ignotus of the inscription
found at the Amphitheatre of Salonae (AE, 1922, 36) might be a governor
of the province, cf. Ch. XIII. For the problem of Sertorius Brocchus, the
illustrious polyonymus (CIL, III, 13826: Doclea), see “Historia", XVII
(1938), 90 and the Add. to Ch., XHI.
P. 115 — The paucity of senators. Attempts to determine origins and
to classify provincial senators are attended by various hazards. First,
“western" as against “eastern". Second, the category of “eastern" is mis¬
leading when it fails to distinguish the immigrant Romans (whether or no
in coloniae) from native worthies. Third, the epigraphical evidence exhi¬
bits wide variations — especially as between the East and parts of the
Roman West in the age of the Antonine rulers. Statistics are often decep¬
tive. See, for example, the elaborate table of M. Hammond, JRS, XLVII
(1957), 77; he uses for his calculations the figures of Stech, Lambrechts,
Barbieri and others. For Dalmatia the results are peculiar indeed. Thus
the total of senators. One under Vespasian (i.e. Javolenus Priscus), it is
still one under Hadrian, but rises to five under Marcus, dropping to nil
under Commodus.Hence the proportion of Dalmatians among the senators
of provincial origin can fluctuate from 3.3 under Vespasian to 1.2 under
Hadrian; but 6.1 under Marcus, then zero.
P. 115 —The higher knights. Add now Hadrian’s Guard Prefect Q.
Marcius Turbo. The inscription found at Cyrrhus in Syria (AE> 1955 , 225)
describes him as domo Epidauro and he duly bears the tribe Tromentina.
For Turbo see further JRS, LII (1962), 87 ff., and below, Ch. XI.

120
 P. 115 — The origin of Tacitus. A strong case can be made out for some
city of Narbonensis. Either Vasio of the Vocontii, which was a place of
high civilisation, signalised as the patria of the historian Pompeius Trogus,
of Afranius Burrus (Prefect of the Guard), of the consular Duvius Avitus;
or Forum Julii, that vetus et inlustris colonia, which produced L. Julius
Graecinus and his son Cn. Julius Agricola (su}}. 77). All of these persons
are proved or assumed to derive from the native aristocratic families. For
the arguments in support see Tacitus (1958), 622 f.
P.115— Native civilisation. For the tribes and their settlements see
the book of G. Alfoldy, passim. Useful articles about the Illyrians will be
found in the volume Simpozium, edited by A. Benac: “Naucno Drustvo
Bosne i Hercegovine, knjiga IV. Centar za Balkanoska Ispitivanja”, (Sara¬
jevo, 1964).
P. 116 — A princeps of the Daesitiates. Inspection of the photograph
supports the readin g of F, \.q.F (lavius), before the n ame of Fa lens V art on. p.
P. 116 — No senators from the back country. An inscription found at
Ilidza near Sarajevo (AE, 1948, 241) discloses relatives of Sex. Catius
Clementinus, a senator of the time of Severus Alexander (FIR C 564).
Not, however, to be assumed their place of origin. Compare, at Ulpianum
in the Dardanian territory, the property of C. Furius Octavianus (ILS,
1170), in the same period, cf. PIR 2, F 581. Nor is Ulpianum the patria
of the senator M. Pontius M. f. Pup. Varanus Sabinus (AE, 1903 , 284).
His tribe, the Pupinia, is enough to dispel the notion. The first senator
from Pannonia is the great military hero M. Valerius Maximianus— from
Poetovio, a colony established by Trajan. The Danubian Wars of Marcus
won him that rank (AE, 1956, 124).
P. 117 — The municipium Rider. For the nomenclature of its inhabi¬
tants, on abundant show, cf. G. Alfoldy, o.c., 97 f.; D. Rendic — Miocevic,
“Jugoslavenska Akademija Znanosti i Umjetnosti. Arheoloski Radovi i
Rasprave”, II (1962), 315 ff. The latter paper carries a list of Dalmatian
principes.
P. 118 — Colonist or native. Narbonensis is highly instructive. The
primacy of Nemausus, Vienna and Vasio over the Roman colonies is every¬
where patent. Narbo comes off poorly in the comparison — as does Lugdu-
num (neighbour to Vienna, but in another province). Even in Roman colo-
niae, notables may derive from the native aristocrats. Thus Cn. Julius
Agricola at Forum Julii, Pompeius Pauliinus at Arelate (cf. Plinius,
NH, XXXIII. 143). It may come as a surprise, but it is no mystery: the
veteran colonists were small people, and their cities had narrow territoria.

121
 VII

THE LOWER DANUBE UNDER TRAJAN

A papyrus in the British Museum (2851) furnishes detailed information

about an auxiliary regiment in Moesia Inferior, a cohors equitata, namely
Cohors I Hispanorum veterana. Conveniently known from its first editor as
"Hunt’s Pridianum”, the document has much to reveal about military life,
army book-keeping — and imperial history. A revised text had long been
needed. It is now to hand, with new and decisive readings, edited with exem¬
plary care by R.O. Fink. Further, a new date appears to emerge. Not 115,
but 99.1
The document is drawn up in two columns. The first portion of the for¬
mer is very fragmentary. The items it registers probably belong (so it is
inferred) to some other unit, not to Cohors I Hispanorum veterana, because
that regiment and its commander are named lower down (I, 24 f.) Dismissals
of soldiers were recorded (I, 22). The notice of a fourth consulate sur¬
vives, presumably either that of Vespasian in 72 or that of Titus in 75 (I, 15).
Taken with the clear enlistment date in Vespasian’s eight or ninth consu¬
late, that is 77 or 79 (I, 21), this permits a narrowing of the latest possible
date of the Pridianum. Allowing for men kept in service beyond 25 years
(as could happen), the editor would be prepared to go down as far as 106 or
107.
Line 23 stands as a new heading, with '‘]XV. K OCTOBRES” (in capi¬
tals). Next comes
[about 10 letters pr'\id{i']anum coh i hisp veter d stobis The following
line (I, 25) reveals the commander—]. ssa arrg afr[i]cqnus praef. The editor
here avows certain difficulties. He states that afr[i]cqnus can be read, but

^ R.O. Fink, JRS, XLVIII (1958), 102 ff., with photograph, plate XVII.
Professor Fink’s photograph is now with the Papyri collection in the Ashmolean
Museum.
Mr. C.H. Roberts and Dr. J.W.B. Barns devoted time and valuable help to
discussing some of the readings with me. Further and most important, on inquiry
about the item c[o]5 (II, 30), Mr. T.C. Skeat and Professor E.G. Turner inspected
the papjTus. They kindly permit me to cite their findings.
In this paper annotation has been kept to a strict minimum.

122
not Claudius. Since four letters in the name are uncertain (and a fifth without
trace), afy\i'\canus can hardly be said to lead anywhere^. That is important,,
for a man called Ti. Claudius Africanus was prefect of Cohors I Hispanorum
equitata in Egypt in 98 or 99 ®. Like other scholars, the latest editor argues,
that the two cohorts are identical (despite the absence of veterana from the
nomenclature of the regiment in Egypt). But, as will be indicated below,
powerful reasons speak against identity.
The following three lines (I, 26— 28) furnish the total strength of the
cohort (546 men), adding the different categories of soldiers. The first of
these lines has p.k. ianuarias, but apparently no sign of, no space for, a
dating by consuls. Then is introduced in capitals a new heading, that of
troops detached for special tasks, followed by what looks like a consular
date (I, 29 f.):

CEDUNJT [PJOST K. IANUARIAS

barbaro e]t [f]austino c[o]s

The editor has succeeded in reading f qustino. That is precious. The pre¬
vious best was stano, whence Stein’s proposal of Vipstanus Messalla (cos.
115). Now A. Caecilius Faustinas and Q. Fabius Barbaras are attested on a
pair of diplomata as suffecti on August 14, 99
In an earlier entry (I, 26), the Pridianum registered the total strength
p(ridie) k(allendas) ianuarias. The consular names that follow the heading
CEDUNJT [PJOST. K. IANUARIAS are anomalous if linked to January
I and taken to represent the consuls in office at the end of a year, i.e. 99. At
once a difficulty arises. That would pre-suppose something wholly abnormal
in the structure of the Fasti and the tenure of suffecti. In this period no pair
holding office in August is known to have continued to the year’s end. The
term was shorter, four months, sometimes two, as can be established for 98.
and 100. As for 99, that too is likely to have been a crowded year; and, in
any case, the name of Ti. lulius Ferox is probably to be inserted. The prose¬
cution of Marius Priscus terminated in January, 100. At an earlier stage of
the trial, consul designatus lulius Ferox proposed the certain persons be sum¬
moned from Africa to give testimony, and that was done
However that may be, dating by suffecti is not plausible on a document
of this kind. The name [f\austino m^cy not carry a consular date at all. Indeed,,
examination of the original document casts strong doubt on the reading c[o]s..
It appears unlikely, even inadmissible Could there be any other expla-

® The editor makes no se secret of the fragility of af>:[t]ca«Ms (p.c., 105).Furt¬

her, Dr. Barns disbelieves in the /, entirely.
^CIL, III, 14147 2 = 7L5, 8907 (Syene).
‘C/L. XVI, 44 f.
® Plinius, Epp., II, 11, 5.
• Mr. Roberts and Dr. Barns were not able to discover c[ci]s on the photo¬
graph. On inspection of the papyrus, Mr. Skeat and Professor Turner pronunce a-
gainst c[o]s (whether in cursive or capitals). They state, after giving reasons against
each letter, that “the whole reading c[o]5 appears to us definitely unlikely. It is true

12a
nation? The name might be that of some official in Moesia Inferior. Let it
be borne in mind that A. Caecilius Faustinus, the suffectus of 99, was in fact
governor of that province. He is attested by a diploma with the date of May
13, 105.’
So far a perplexity, not easily to be resolved. Light comes from the
second column. Two items should excite curiosity, and they suggest a con¬
cordant date.
*

* ★

I. First, a soldier is listed as remissus ad [he]rennium saturninum (II, 7).

The official can be identified. It is not enough to describe him as L. Herennius
Saturninus, proconsul of Achaea in 98/9 and consul suffect in 100, and leave
it at that. There is something else. A diploma shows that he was governor
of Moesia Superior®. The document permits and approximate dating, be¬
tween 103 and 107 Or rather, between 103 and 106. Among the regiments
under Saturninus'command is Cohors I Brittonum milliaria. ADacian diploma
with the date of August 11, 106, reveals titles of honour won in the Second
Dacian War (105 and 106) — Ulpia Torquata Pia Fidelis Civium Romano-
rum^®. The legate of Moesia Superior in 100 was C. Cilnius Proculus (suff.
87) 11. After Cilnius there is perhaps room for another governor before Satur¬
ninus (see below). Cilnius earned consular decorations in the First Dacian
War 12. Not perhaps asgovernor of the province, but as legate on Trajan's
staff.
Second, another consular governor, this time of Moesia Inferior. The
papyrus, after recording sundry losses or departures, opens a new rubric, in
capital letters, INTRA PROVINCIAM. Next follows (II, 25 f.):
singulares fabi useti lega. [..] ..salarus dem
officii latiniani proc aug

The items concern soldiers detached to the staff of the legate and the
procurator respectively. The identity of the latter can be waived. He might
(or might not) be the Cornelius Latinianus to whom Hadrian addressed a
rescript i®. On that subject, it could be added that a high equestrian official
on a fragmentary inscription at Lugdunum appears to have the nomencla-

that the papyrus has been badly damaged at this point, and one of the horizontal
fibres has come adrift, but even when all possible allowances are made we cannot
bring ourselves to accept c[o]s’’.
1 CIL, XVI, 50.
* CIL. XVI, 54.
» Cf. PIR 2. H 126.
loC/L, XVI. 160.
“C7L, XVI, 46 (dated May 8).
CIL, XI, 1833; „Not. Scav.“, 1925, 224 (Arretium); cf. Groag’s remarks
in PIR 2. C 732.
Dig.. XLVIII, 5, 28, 6.

124
ture "ilius La[ To turn to the governor of Moesia Inferior. The fact that he
has singulares should not be missed. Such a bodyguard of auxiliary soldiers
is a recent innovation that was perhaps due to Trajan. The first clear instance
is a dedication in the Brohltal quarries, set up by a centurion in charge of
the. sin(gulares) ped(ites) and by the commiliion\es s\in (gulares) Lic(im)
Sur(ae) leg(ati) This valuable item certifies as governor of Germania
Inferior the famous Sura, presumably c. 99.
What the Pridianum discloses is a governorship for another person of
lesser fame but considerable resonance. He is a Fabius, his cognomen ends
with the letters ']tus. Can he be any other Fabius than L. Fabius Justus (suff.
102) This is the friend of Cornelius Tacitus, whom posterity knows because
the Dialogus was dedicated to him — and who had other claims in his own
day. Fabius became governor of Syria in 108, succeeding Cornelius Palma
(cos. II 109) 1’.
Writing to a man called Justus about the year 106, Pliny refers to his.
adsiduae occupationes and concedes him a summer season both arduous and
anxious—patiar ergo aestatem inquietam vohis exercitamque transcurrere.
This man is patently the commander of an army. Hence a recent conjecture,,
divining Fabius Justus and suggesting a command at the seat of war c. 106.
That is to say, Moesia Superior after L. HerenniusSaturninus or Moesia Infe¬
rior after Caecilius Faustinas — or, possibly, a post in war not tied to a pro¬
vincial governorship i®.
A diploma registers A. Caecilius Faustinas as legate of Moesia Inferior
on May 13, 105.^® Was he still in the province on the day? Perhaps not..
Some diplomata betray discrepancies. For example, two of them indicate
93 by the imperial titulature, 94 by the suffect consuls in office^^. There

CIL, XIII, 1809. But he might be the a studiis M. Aemilius C.f. Laetus;
(CIL, XIII, 1779 = ILS, 1460: Lugdunum), cf. PIR ^ A 357.
AE, 1923, 33 .Another inscription from these quarries attests the singulares
pedites Acili Strabonis leg. Aug (CIL, XIII, 7709 = ILS, 3456). This Acilius Strabo-
has been assigned to the reign of Vespasian, cf. PIR *, A 82, following Ritterling-
Stein, Fasti des r. Deutschland unter detn Prinzipat (1932), 56 f. But he may belong
about fifty years later. Observe the legate of Numidia, L. Acilius Strabo Clodius
Nummus (PIR *, A 83). This man may (or may not) be identical with C. Clodius.
Nummus (suff. 114), cf. JRS, XLVIII (1958), 5 f.
Dr. Barns allows me to state that he would be prepared to read the word'
as iusti. Mr. Skeat and Professor Turner observe "your conjecture ...fabi iusti seems.
to us all but certain. The only doubtful letter is the s, which is so faint that all one-
can say is that there is nothing in the traces inconsistent with s.”
1’ PIR 2, F 41.
^^Epp., VII, 2, 2.
JRS, XLVII (1957), 131 ff. The conjecture is registered in PIR H 12S
_ where, however, the editors have opted for Moesia Superior. Their choice was
presumably influenced by a belief that Sosius Senecio (cos. 99) was in Moesfa
Inferior c. 106.
20C/L. XVI. 50.
« CIL, XVI. 38.

125
appears to have been delay in the issue of the document, the consular date
being the latest entry. Similarly, a Pannonian diploma shows Glitius Agri-
cola governor on November 19, 102 but he was probably at Rome for
his second consulate (suffect) by January 19, 103, at the latest Glitius
Agricola may have left Pannonia in the autumn. Therefore nothing precludes
the notion that Fabius Justus took up the command a little earlier than May,
105. The time matters. A Dacian attack precipitated the Second War. The
news will have been transmitted quickly, praecipiti... pinna ^4, And Trajan
moved quickly. As the Fasti Ostienses prove, he left Rome for Moesia on
June 4.
If the above deductions from the names of the legates Herennius Satur-
ninus and Fabius [lusjtus in the second column of the papyrus are not sub¬
ject to error or fallacy, it will appear that the Pridianum is dated between
105 and 108. Perhaps indeed to the year 105, prior to the outbreak of the
Second War. If those limits be found acceptable, certain conclusions follow.
*

* **

I. The Governors of Moesia Inferior. From Julius Marinus (attested in

January, 97) down to Caecilius Faustinas in 105, the sequence is complete.
For each of five legates, evidence happens to establish a definite year in his
tenure 2®. As follows:
97 [?L.] Julius Mar inus {suff. ? 93).
99 Q. Pompon ius Rufus (95).
100 M.’Laberius Maximus (89).
103 Q. Fabius Postuminus (96)
105 A. Caecilius Faustinas (99)

The successor of Faustinas now fits in, L. Fabius Justus (suff. 102),
perhaps holding Moesia Inferior until 107 or 108. An eminent scholar has
argued, it is true, that Q. Sosius Senecio (cos. 99) became legate in 105,
and the case has been held proven 2^. The reasons were not adequate. First,
an inference. The son-in-law of Senecio, Q. Pompeius Falco, earned military
decorations when commander of the legion V Macedonica (stationed at Oes-
cus) 28. But the recognition that Falco’s suffect consulate belongs to 108
demolishes the notion that he served under Senecio. Falco’s cursus indicates
that he fought in the First War, not the Second: in 105 was governing Lycia-
Pamphylia or on his way to Judaea. Secondly, the second consulate in 107,
Sosius with Sura (consul for the third time). That high distinction implies

« CIL, XVI; 47.

*8 CIL, XVI, 48.
84 Juvenal, IV, 149.
88^0, XIX.
8* A. stein. Die Legaten von Moesien (1940), 59 ff.
8’ E. Groag, P-W, III A, 1184. Accepted by Stein, o.c., 62 f.
88 ILS, 1035.

126
glory in the war, on Trajan’s staff or commanding an army corps On the
other hand, a Danubian province could be supplied for Senecio — but at an
earlier date. A letter of Pliny, about 102 or 103, shows him a consular legate,
and not at the beginning of his tenure Senecio can be lodged without
discomfort in Moesia Superior about the time of the First War, after C. Cil-
nius Proculus (suff. 87) and before L. Herennius Saturninus (suff. 100).
That is, c. 100-3.
To revert to Moesia Inferior. To have Fabius there from 105 is an advan¬
tage : it helps to define the provinces available to other viri militares in the
period 104—8. The legate in 109, Fabius’ successor, set up the dedication
on the Tropaeum Trajani at Adamclissi®^. If a letter on the last line of this
fragmentary inscription be safe guidance, his cognomen, in the ablative case,
ended m']e. Who was he? A letter of Pliny from Bithynia commends a young
man called Nymphidius Lupus who had served as prefect of a cohort under
Julius Ferox and Fuscus Salinator There is a faint chance that either of
these men, viz. Ti. Julius Ferox (suff. 99) and L. Pedanius Fuscus (suff.
c. 85) was legate of Moesia Inferior (the service of Nymphidius Lupus might
not all have been passed in the same province).
It may be useful to add that P. Calpurnius Macer (suff. 103) was gover¬
nor at a time that falls in the first calendar year of Pliny’s tenure of Bithynia,
before September Pliny entered his province on September 14 of the pre¬
vious year. Which year, one would indeed like to know*®. The legate Cal¬
purnius Macer happens to be recorded on an inscription of 112 There is
nothing to fix the duration of his governorship; but there would seem to be
room for a successor before Q. Pompeius Falco (suff. 108), who is not attested
before 116 *®. He was there in 117; and it was Hadrian (one presumes) who
transferred him to Britain.
*

II. The cohort and its movements. Coh. I Hispanorum veterana first
comes on dear record in August, 99, in the army of Moesia Inferior Perhaps
a recent arrival. Auxiliary regiments were already beginning to pile up for
the intended war. Compare, in May of the next year, the total for Moesia
Superior — three alae and twenty-one cohortes, some of the units drawn from
Pannonia Where did this cohort come from? Since the first publication

” Cf. JRS, XLVII (1957), 132.

30 Epp., IV, 4, 3; muUa beneficia in multos contulisti. This letter was unfor¬
tunately not noticed by Stein.
SI CIL, III, 12467.
^^Epp., X, 87, 3.
S3 Epp., X, 42, etc. For the year of his consulship, AE, 1954, 223.
3« Cf. Tacitus (1958), 659 f.
S5 CIL, III, 777.
36 CIL, III, 12470.
37 CIL, XVI, 44.
^^CIL, XVI, 46, cf. 31 (a Pannonian diploma of 85).

127
of the Pridianum it has generally been held identical with Cohors I Hispa-
norum equitata, which belonged to the army of Egypt in 83, and which is
still in garrison at distant Syene beside the cataract of the Nile in 98 or 99
Better, perhaps, the Cohors I Hispanorum that was in Pannonia in 60 and
in 97 But it would be preferable to identify that regiment with the Cohors
I Hispanorum in Moesia Superior under Herennius Saturninus c. 105
by easy conjecture it can be traced subsequently, and is clearly distinct from
Cohors I Hispanorum veterana.
The Pridianum shows soldiers detached on a variety of missions within
and beyond the borders of Moesia Inferior. At the same time, however, the
headquarters of the regiment were at Stobi in the province of Macedonia
(I, 24). Therefore the cohort was not regarded as a permanent part of the
establishment in Moesia Inferior.
Stobi, where four roads meet, is a position of strategic consequence in
any age Though precise evidence is lacking, it can be presumed that Stobi
was the chief base for military operations in the first period of the Roman
conquest, to be succeeded by Naissus (likewise undocumented). When the
legions of Macedonia were taken from the proconsul, being assigned to the
legate of Moesia, and later posted on the Danube, there would still be need
for a few troops in the rear. A general crisis might have repercussions and
provoke disturbances, such as occurred in the back country on the borders
of Dalmatia and Moesia Superior in the late years of MarcusThere are
various items of sporadic evidence. Indeed, a recent discovery touches Mace¬
donia. The long inscription of that great military man Valerius Maximianus
shows him operating against latrones in 175 or 176 in confinio Macedon. et
Thrac.
In a season apparently normal, Macedonia can disclose a cohort, I Fla-
via Bessorum, in 120^®. It had been in Moesia Superior in 100 Further¬
more, traces of another cohort in the second century have been claimed,
precisely a cohors Hispanorum

CIL, III, 14147 ^ = ILS, 8907. A diploma registers the cohort in 83 (CIL,
XVI, 29). For the other Egyptian evidence, C. Cichorius, P-W, IV, 298; J. Lesquier,
L’armde romaine d’Egypte d’Auguste a DioclStien (1918), 88 f.
CIL, XVI, 4; ILS, 2720 (the inscr. recording the posts of Q. Attius Pris¬
ons, tr. mil. of 1 Adiutrix in 97). Also presumably the tile stamps at Scarbantia,
Poetovio, and Carnuntum, dated to the second half of the first century by J. Szilagyi,
“Arch, ert”, 3, III (1942), 189.
41 CIL, XVI, 54.
42 Below, p. 133.
42 Cf. B. Saria, P-W, III A, 47 ff.
44 C. Patsch, "Wiss. Mitt, aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina", VIII (1901),
163 ff.
45 AL, 1956, 124 (Diana Veteranorum), with the commentary of H.G. Pflaum,
"Libyca”, III (1955), 135 ff.
4« CIL, XVI, 67.
42 CIL, XVI, 46.
48 R.K. Sherk, AJP, LXXVIII (1957), 55 f.

128
 Two inscriptions are adduced. The first, at Thessalonica, has no great
significance It publishes the announcement of a gladiatorial show in 141,
celebrated in pursuance to the testament of a person who may be a Herennia,
with the cognomen “Hispania”, but might be a Herennius, officer in a Spa¬
nish cohort. The space available on the inscription hardly seems to justify
the second alternative.
The other document, however, is valuable. It is a gravestone, with the
image of a cavalryman The inscription, bilingual, reveals him as Flavius
Capito who died at the age of 25 with two years of service in a Spanish cohort
(no number). Furthermore, the inscription carries a date which corresponds
to A.D. 175. The site is Ruvce, about 20 miles to the north of Heraclea Lyn-
cestis, quite close to the high-road leading by Stuberra to Stobi. Not, to be
sure, in the corner where the frontiers of Macedonia and Thrace came
together (compare the inscription of Valerius Maximianus); but this
gravestone of a soldier can be taken as a sign of disturbance in northern
Macedonia, and that is welcome.
To return to Cohors I Hispanorum veterana. Brought to the lower
Danube for the First Dacian War, it did not then or later earn any honorific
titles — at least three regiments acquired “pia fidelis” in the Second War,
among them another Cohors I Hispanorum What happened in the sequel?
The cohort may, it has been conjectured, have been taken away to deal with
the disturbance in Egypt in 116: otherwise how account for the fact that
a fragment from its archives turns up in that country? However that may
be, the cohort is next discovered on the establishment of Dacia Inferior in
129. Its camp w’as at Bretcu on the road that went by the Oituz Pass to Poiana
on the Siret, thence to the Danube opposite the vicinity of Troesmis
The cohortes Hispanorum present a number of perplexities There was
another Cohors I Hispanorum in these regions, attested in Moesia Superior
** Le Bas II, 1359, cf. the revised text of L. Robert, Les gladiatems dans le
monde grec (1940), 78 f.
6® Cited from BCH, IV (1880), 103 by R.K. Sherk (o.c., 55). But his version is
defective and obsolete, as is pointed out by L. Robert, “Bull, ep”., 1958, no. 93. He
ignored the Latin text and failed to see that the document had been correctly
published by N. Vulid, “Spomenik”, LXXI (1931), 178, no. 468 (with photograph);
Arch. Karte von Jugoslavien: Blatt Prilep-Bitolj {(1937),j 35. The JLatin text in
CIL, III, 7318.
CIL, XVI, 57; 163 (diplomata of the Dacian army, of 110). The Cohors
I. Hispanorum p.f. of those documents can be identified as the cohort previously
in Moesia Superior c. 105 (CIL, XVI, 54), without the title of honour.
Possibly, however, the document had been carried off to Egypt by an ex¬
prefect or some other official (as Professor Birley suggests to me),
CIL, XVI, 75. For the evidence from Bre-fcu, see W. Wagner, Die Dislo-
kation der r. Auxiliarforntaiionen in den Provinzen Noricum, Pannonien, Moesien
und Dakien von Augustus bis Gallienus (1938), 150.
Cf. W. Wagner, o.c., 146 ff. Fortunately I Flavia Hispanorum millitaria
(o.c. 151 f.) is easily distinguishable. In Moesia Superior in 93 and 100 (CIL,XVI,
39; 46), it wins the titles “Ulpia” and “c.R.”, in the Second Dacian War (57; 163)
and stays in Dacia.

129
c. 105 under Herennius Saturninus Probably the same unit as I Hispa-
norum pia fidelis in Dacia in 110, in Dacia PoroHssensis in 158 and in 165
Excavations at Porolissum have yielded a number of tiles of a Cohors I
Hispanorum Though it happens to lack “pia fidelis” on the diploma of
129, that omission is no bar to identity.
III. The military situation. After recording the singulares of the legate
Fabius [Ius]tus and the men on the staff of the procurator Eatinianus (II
25, f.), the papyrus goes on to mention detachments across the Danube. The
most notable items are (II, 27—29):
pirobo [ridavae in praesidio
buridavae in vexillatione
trans danuvium in expeditiqnem

First, the precious details of geographical information. Piroboridava

is far away. It is one of the three places on the river Hierasus (the Siret) men¬
tioned by Ptolem3^ the southern — most (the others are Tamasidava and
Zargidava) It has been identified with Poiana in Moldavia, where exca¬
vation has yielded abundant evidance of Roman occupation®®. Poiana lies on
the east bank of the Siret, about 70 miles NW. of the bend of the Danube.
Clearly an important station on the route to eastern Transylvania across the
Oituz Pass. The identification is attractive in the present state of knowledge,
but might not be correct As for Buridava, there can be no hesitations. It
is the Burridava of the Tabula Peutingeriana, a station between Pons Aluti
and Castra Traiana, on the road that went to Apulum in Dacia by way of
the Pass of the Red Tower Buridava will be sought some way north of
Slatina about 80 miles up the Alutus, which joins the Danube a little below
the legionary camp of Oescus.
The cohort has a vexillatio at Buridava, troops in praesidio at Pirobori¬
dava. It remains to ask what is the date and season that best accords with
the existenee of these Roman posts beyond the Danube.
Domitian’s war against the Dacians ended victoriously with a great
battle at Tapae in 88. Honour was redeemed, but the full benefit was impaired
by the defection of Rome's vassals on the Middle Danube — Marcomanni,
Quadi, and Sarmatae lazyges. Faced with confusion all the way from Bohe¬
mia to the Black Sea, Domitian recognized the Dacian ruler as a “King and
friend of the Roman People”, built up his position, and used Dacia as a
means of separating and curbing the tribes on either side. In fact, the Dacian
kingdom served a function like that of Trajan’s province after the conquest.

“ CIL. XVI, 54.

CIL, XVI, 57; 163 (Dacia); 195; 164 (Dacia PoroHssensis).
Cf. C. Daicoviciu’s article on Porolissum, P-W, XXII, 267.
** Ptolemaeus, III, 10, 6.
Cf. most conveniently, R. Vulpe, "Rev. arch.” XXXIV (1931), 237 ff.
For some hesitations, E. Polaschek, P-W, XX, 1723.
C. Patsch, P-W, III, 1070. For the presumed site (Stolniceni) see D. Tudor,
Oltenia Romana (1958), 47.

130
That province, so it is alleged a late writer, was in danger of being eva¬
cuated by Hadrian, envy of his glorious predecessor being the motive®^.
That is a fable, the product ultimately of defamation or sheer ignorance
about the factors of geography, strategy, and policy®*.
Men of understanding could have assessed Domitian’s measures in the
light of what was expedient and possible. But the “prudente s’' at Rome were
prone to malice and invidious comparisons; and no policy associated with
the name of Domitian stood any chance of a fair hearing when a martial
emperor was bent on war and conquest. Nor has equity reclaimed its rights
easily. Domitian’s policy, let it be confessed, has to be defended by argu¬
ment rather than by evidence Facts would be welcome.
They emerge, beyond expectation — if, as is claimed, the Pridianum
reflects the conditions that had obtained for a decade after Domitian’s set¬
tlement. Buridava and Piroboridava are reckoned as belonging to Moesia
Inferior, or at least as coming under the rubric intra provinciam for the pur¬
poses of military book-keeping.
Hesitations might be conceived, for novelty disturbs, and fresh evidence
takes a long time to impinge on comfortable beliefs. Buridava need not
cause alarm, though it is a long way up the Alutus: Roman control, supported
by minor detachments, over friendly natives in Oltenia between the Iron
Gates of the Danube and the river Alutus, is credible enough. Piroboridava
is another matter. Piroboridava ought to create a feeling of disquiet. Even
if not the same place as Poiana, a good 70 miles NW, of the bend of the
Danube below Troesmis, Piroboridava is on the Siret, hanging on the edge
of nowhere, “in barbarico’’.
The Dobrudja itself is out on a far flank, remote from the earliest camps
of the Moesian legions on the lower stretch of the Danube. The earliest of
them attested is Oescus, with V Macedonica, at the beginning of the reign
of Claudius In 69 two of the three legions of Moesia are established in this
region (? at Oescus and at Novae), for they reach Northern Italy later than
VII Claudia®®. That legion may be supposed in garrison at Viminacium (in
what was later the upper province). One of the two, namely III Gallica (a
recent arrival from Syria) had met and defeated a raid of Sarmatians in the
winter of 68/9 ®^. It is unfortunate that evidence is lacking about Durosto-
rum (Silistra) in this period. It began no doubt as the station of an auxiliary
regiment ®*. When did a legion arrive? The earliest attested is XI Claudia,

Eutropius, VIII, 6, 2.
** Cf. arguments adduced in Laurae Aquincenses, I (1938), 284; JRS, XXXVI
(1946), 164.
•«Cf. CAH, XI (1936), 1851.
*» E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1574. Add the dedication of A.D. 42, AE. 1957,
286. The gravestone of a soldier, early and lacking cognomen, is republished in AE,
1957, 298. note likewise CIL, III, 14492.
••Tacitus, Hist., Ill, 10, 1, cf. 9, 2.
•’ Hist., I, 79, I.
•« V. P4rvan “Riv. fil.", LII (1924), 324.

131
 after the conquest of Dacia for this legion, withdrawn from Vindonissa
in Germania Superior in 100 or 101, spent a short time in Pannonia, at Bri-
getio, before it came to Moesia Inferior’®. XI Claudia may not have been the
earliest garrison of Durostorum. A Flavian legionary camp has been postula¬
ted but so far lacks proof. As for Troesmis, any time before Trajan’s wars
(and perhaps the Second) seems to be excluded. The first known legion there
is V Macedonica, brought from Oescus (which was made a colonia by Trajan).
The Roman auxilia, it is true, can be more important for tactics, and
also for strategy, than the legions. Observe the establishment in Roman
Dacia: only one legion now (instead of three in the first years after the con¬
quest), but numerous auxilia Further, the role of water transport in these
territories is highly relevant. None the less, a military post at Piroboridava
as early as 99 ought to be challenged.
A date subsequent to Trajan’s conquest and annexation of Dacia (late
summer, 106) might appear the safest conclusion. None the less, the after-
math of Trajan’s First War is not excluded. The Imperator reduced Dece-
balus, but not without hazard and losses (it was more arduous than he fan¬
cied) . But he still kept Decebalus as an ally, or vassal, of Rome. Severe terms
were imposed, territory was annexed, and a Roman garrison remained in
occupation at Sarmizegetusa.
Decebalus, according to Cassius Dio, was forced to evacuate captured
territory Captured by whom? Some suppose illicit acquisitions by Dece¬
balus before 101. It is more easy to understand a reference to the region con¬
quered by Trajan, including Sarmizegetusa — and, with Sarmizegetusa, the
intervening tract in the Banat north — eastwards across the river from Sin-
gidunum and Viminacium It may be that Oltenia is not there comprised,
as having been already under Roman suzerainty before the outbreak of hosti¬
lities. However that may be, a Roman post at Buridava after the First
War is no surprise. And now even Piroboridava could find its explanation:
a consequence of victory, an exertion of strength beyond the lower Danube,
an outpost against eastern Dacia. Piroboridava also protects friendly natives
in Wallachia from incursions from the east — and Piroboridava can in fact
be reckoned in provincia of the arm}'^ of Lower Moesia.

« it

E. Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1967 f. The earliest document is AE, 1936, 14,
during the governorship of Q. Pompeius Falco (? 115 —8). The legion may have been
for a short time at Oescus (cf. AE, 1935, 78), as suggested by B. Gerov, "Rev. phil.”,
LXXVI (1960), 146.
For its sojourn at Brigetio, J. Szilagy, "Acta Arch. Ac. Sc. Hung.”, II (1952),
201 f.
’1 C. Patsch. "Wiener Ak., phil.-hist. Kl., Sitzungsberichte”, CCXVII, I, (1937),
3; 47. He suggests that V Alaudae (destroyed c. 86) was there replaced by IVFlavia.
72 For the establishment in Dacia from Trajan to M. Aurelius, see G. Forni,
"Athenaeum”, XXXVI (1958), 193 ff.
’2 Dio LXVIII, 9, 5; xal "'T? eaXwxuia? dTroa-rijvai
cf. R.P. Longden, CAH, XI (1936), 229.

132
 Breaking the peace in 105. Decebalus enveigled and captured the com¬
mander of the Roman army of occupation, a certain Longinus, described as
a man of tried merit in Trajan’s campaigns With that advantage, and
Longinus as a hostage, Decebalus made inordinate claims: he asked to get
back the territories as far as the Danube The terminology is too vague to
permit the question whether Oltenia is meant as well as the territory that
had been "captured” by the Romans (see above) when they annexed certain
parts of Dacia, with a garrison at Sarmizegetusa in 102. It should be emphas¬
ized that Roman suzerainty cover various peoples of the plains of Oltenia
and Wallachia probably went back many years.
It is asserted that Decebalus, in the brief interval between the wars,
had been in negotiation with various neighbouring peoples (not specified)
When his attack came in 105, it was a surprise to the Romans. Not only, or
mainly, at Sarmizegetusa. Of the Roman provinces, it was Moesia Inferior
that bore the brunt of this onslaught. The detachments at Buridava and Piro-
boridava will have been wiped out.

To conclude. The first column of the Pridianum presents a perplexity

if the name \F]austinns (I, 30), taken to stand for A. Caecilius Faustinus,
consul suffect in August, 99, is used to date the document to that year. On
the other hand, one ought not to evade (and one may well be tempted to
exploit) the two persons in the second column, Herennius Saturninus (II, 7)
and Fabius [lusjtus (II, 25). Patently governors, and contemporaneous, of
the two Moesian provinces, they point to the period 105—8: either just
before the outbreak of the Second War or soon after the annexation of Dacia’®.

Vlli ADDENDUM

P. 122 — Hunt's Pridianum. It was here affirmed that the papyrus must
belong within the limits 105 and 103, either just before or just after the
Second Dacian War, the period being that during whi ch L. Fabius Justus

Dio, LXVIII, 12, 1. Cf. Fronto, p. 217 N = Haines II, p. 214: in Dacia captus
vir consularis. Possibly therefore Cn. Pompeius Longinus (suff. 90), ci.Tacitus (1958),
52; 647.
Dio, LXVIII, 12, 2:t^v re }(cl)pav 'larpou xO[xiaaca0-ai xal ri xprjpLaTiz
ogol ^ t6v TToXsjjiOv eSeSaTrav^xei dcTToXapetv
” Dio, LXVIII, 10, 3.
As concerns the item f]austino, it will recalled that A. Caecilius Faustinus
was in fact the predecessor of L. Fabius Justus as governor of Moesia Inferior, and
might have left before the month of May, 105 (above p. 28),

133
{suff. 102) held Moesia Inferior. Examining the problems of the papyrus,
J.F, Gilliam concludes „September, 105, as seems most likely" [Hommages
Grenier (1962), 750]. That is highly satisfactory. The „Faustinus* of I. 30
is A. Caecilius Faustinus {suff. 99), attested as governor by the diploma
dated May 13, 105 {CIL, XVI, 50). The date of 99 proposed by R.O. Fink
is however kept by R. Vulpe, "Studii Clasice" II {I960), 337 ff.; “Dacia”,
IV (1960), 325 f.; ib. V (1961), 370.
P. 125 — Fabius Justus. The identification of this legate on the papyrus
has not been refuted — but does not seem to have percolated widely among
students of imperial history.
P. 126 — Legates of Moesia Inferior, 97—112. See also remarks in
“Latomus”, XXIII (1964), 750 ff.; “Dacia”. XII (1968), 331 ff. It is still
necessary to repeat the argument against Stein’s view that Sosius Senecio'
(cos. 99) governed this province. The view persists in the article “M. Ulpius
Traianus", P-W, Supp. X (1965), 1074; 1077. The author is also in error
when referring to Fabius Justus (ib. 1081).
As for M’.Laberius Maximus (supp. 89, cos II 103), the inscription found
at Sexaginta Prista gives him the second cognomen C[rispi]nu (AE, 1966,
356). His daughter was Laberia Hostilia Crispina, as revealed by the inscrip¬
tion at Trebula Mutuesca: published by M. Torelli, “Epigraphica”, XXIV
(1962), 58. She was the wife of C. Bruttius. Praesens (supp. ? 119, cos. II
139) — but presumably not the uxor Campana of Pliny, Epp., VII, 3, 1,
cf. “Latomus”, XXIII (1964), 756.
P. 129 — Cohortes Hispanorum. The unitatteste din Dacia Porolissensis
in 158 and in 164 has duly turned up on the new dipionva of 133 (AE, 1962,
255). Cf. remarks by the editors in JRS, LI (1961), 65.
P. 130 — Buridava. See further D. Tudor, “Dacia”, VIII (1964), 346.
That scholar there publishes a tile with the stamp of the pelites singulares.
As relevant to which, he notes the legates of Moesia Inferior at the time of the
Dacian Wars, admitting Sosius Senecio but ignoring Fabius Justus (ib. 351).
P. 131 — Hadrian’s policy. For the abandonment of Wallachia (which
has been attached to Moesia Inferior), see the new evidence adduced in the
Add. to Ch. V.
P. 132 — The earliest camps on the Danube. See now B. Gerov, “Acta
Antiqua”, XV (1967). 85 ff.

134
 vin
THE CAMPAIGNS OF OCTAVIAN ♦

The campaigns of the years 12—9 B.C., in which Tiberius conquered

“the nations of the Pannonians which before my Principate no Roman army
had ever approached” (Res Gestae, 30), occupy such a small space in the
meagre record of the wars of the age of Augustus that their significance may
easily pass unrecognised. Dessau, for example, devotes to them only five
lines in his Geschichte (1924). The operations of Octavian in Illyricum in
35—33 B.C., however, have escaped this fate and run the contrary danger.
Appian in his Illyrike has preserved a detailed and trustworthy account,
with many names of tribes and places, based on the Autobiography of
Augustus; and he can be supplemented by the narrative of Cassius Dio.
Kromayer published a valuable article on this subject in 1898 (Kleine
Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, V, "Hermes”, XXXIII
1 ff), and Veith in 1914 a thorough study with a wealth of topographical dis¬
cussion (Die Feldzuge des C. JuliusCaesarOctavianusin Illyrien) .FotYvese
is now to be added Dr. Swoboda’s inquiry. He does not cover quite the same
ground as Veith, for he accepts or refrains from discussing Veith’s identi¬
fication of places — and thankful may we be that we are spared the contro-
versay about the site of Metulum. He differs, moreover, from both Kromayer
and Veith in his estimate of the political situation at the time, and of the
extent of territory conquered by Octavianus.
Dr. Swoboda’s dissertation, from the nature of the treatment as well
as from the nature of the subject, does not always make easy reading. It is
divided into four sections; smaller and more numerous sections would have
made the order — and subordination — of topics more easy to follow, and
would have compensated for the absence of an index. A map, even a rough
sketchmap, would have been helpful.
Before Dr. Swoboda’s main thesis is examined, it may be well to attempt
a brief summing-up of his investigations.
The political situation between Octavianus and Antonius; the danger
that might threaten Italy from Illyricum; the designs of invading Italy

• E. Swoboda, Octavian und Illyricum. Verein klassicher Philologen in Wien:

Parerga, Heft I. Vienna: Hdfels, 1932.

135
 from this quarter attributed to Philip V, Perseus and Mithridates (pp. I —17).
The campaign of 35 B.C. against the Pannonians not confined to the capture
of Siscia; Octavianus or his legates conquer Pannonian territory as far down
as Belgrade and the result of the whole war is the conquest of all the area
between the Save and the Adriatic (pp. 17—30). The Daesitiates (pp. 30
33). The campaigns of Tiberius were merely the suppression of revolts
(p. 35). The difficulty of providing food for Octavianus’ army at Siscia
(pp. 37—44). The meaning of “Illyris” and “Ulyrike” in Appian (pp. 47 ff).,
of “Delmatiae” in Dio (60-63). The campaign of 34 B.C., Octavianus'
march southwards from Siscia towards the Dalmatian coast (p. 63 ff.).
Conquests in the southeast, Naresii, Docleatae, etc. (p. 71 ff.) The localisa¬
tion of the Parthini (pp. 85—88). Octavianus cannot have meditated a
Dacian War in 34 B.C. (pp. 88—96).
*

it •*

The view that Octavianus had advanced the frontier of Roman Illyri-
cum to the Save is no novelty. It has been assumed or stated — but not
proved — by Jung, Gardthausen, Ferrero and others. But the opinion of
Kromayer, which Veith's study reinforced, might well have seemed more
convincing, because it has the support of the ancient evidence. Kromayer's
thesis is briefly this: (a) In 35 B.C. Octavianus conquers the lapudes and
seizes Siscia which, according to Appian, he wanted as a base for a Dacian
War. One would therefore expect for the next year a grandiose series of
operations in the Danubian lands, (b) in 34 B.C., however, Octavianus
is found operating against the Dalmatae and capturing their fortresses in
the immediate hinterland of the Dalmatian coast. Octavianus has therefore
abandoned his earlier plan and does not wish to involve himself in a Dacian
War, presumably because in the winter of 35—34 B.C. relations with Marcus
Antonius have taken a turn for the worse, and the danger of a break is appa¬
rent. In all, the conquests of Octavianus were modest in extent. In the north,
in Croatia, his armies did not pass far beyond Siscia. In the south, they
did not cross the barrier of the Dinaric Alps which separates Dalmatia from
Bosnia.
Swoboda contests this thesis. He has no difficulty in showing that the
design of a Dacian War was out of the question, that it is no more be believed
than the proposed expedition to Britain in this same year 34 B.C.,
which is alleged by Cassius Dio. There was therefore no change of plan be¬
tween 35 and 34 B.C. This is a welcome conclusion. It is certain to be gene¬
rally accepted and needs no further discussion here. But this is not all.
Swoboda disagrees fundamentally with Kromayer and Veith about the nature
and extent of Octavianus’ conquests. His thesis is difficult of proof, and its
acceptance would involve far-reaching conclusions about Roman military
history in general, about the aims and methods of Roman conquest, about
the policy of Augustus as well as about that of Octavianus. It may be exa¬
mined under the following heads.

136
 * *

1. The necessity of conquest in 35 B.C. It was desirable in any case

to vindicate Roman honour in these regions and regain what had been lost
during the Civil Wars; and, whether the prospect of war with Antonius
was immediate or remote, it would be necessary to protect Italy where she
is most vulnerable to an invader, on the north-east. Hence Siscia must be
•occupied — for, though Siscia is a good base for further conquests, it is
also a defensive position, blocking the road to Italy over the Julian Alps,
as Tiberius was to find in the crisis of A.D. 6.
The Dalmatian coast would also have to be made secure, for it might
once again, as in 48—46 B.C., become a theatre of hostilities. On that occa¬
sion the native Dalmatae had espoused the Pompeian cause, and the mis¬
fortunes of Gabinius and the difficulties of Vatinius must have been a warn¬
ing to Octavianus. These ends would surely have been attained if Octavianus
had annexed the relatively small area to which, as Kromayer and Veith
claim, his campaigns and his conquests were in fact restricted. Swoboda,
however, claims that Octavianus went farther. But it may well be doubted
whether, at this time, the conquest of the valley of the Save down to Bel¬
grade and of the whole of the interior of Bosnia (to say nothing of a slice
of western Serbia and the Sanjak of Novi Bazar) was indispensable to the
security of Italy. To undertake more than could be won or held would be
w’orse than useless — it would be dangerous, as Swoboda himself recognises
in the matter of the alleged Dacian War. But, even if desirable, were such
wide conquests in fact achieved? Could they have been achieved in
35-33 B.C.?
*

* *

2. The extent of Octavianus’ conquests. Swoboda’s own words are "es

scheint uns jedoch trotz der Diirftigkeit unserer Uberlieferung keine Frage,
daB Octavianus bzw. seine Unterfiihrer ostwarts iiber Siscia hinaus bis zur
moesischen Grenze und auch siidlich der Save ins Binnenland vorgedrungen
sind, daB der Verlauf des ganzen Feldzuges 35—33 alles Land siidlich der
Linie Okra — Savetal — Westgrenze Moesiens bis an die Kiisten des
Adriatischen Meeres in Abhangigkeit von Rom gebracht hat” (p. 20). As
eastern limit he takes the western boundary of Moesia, which, according
at least to Kiepert’s map, ran due southward from a point on the Save only
a few miles to the west of Belgrade. Why he does this is a mystery — here
and elsewhere Dr. Swoboda seems to be unduly influenced by the Roman
provincial boundaries of a later age which, for the time of which he is writ¬
ing, had neither existence nor meaning. In fixing the northern limit he
wavers between the line of the Save and the valley of the Save (p. 21 and
p. 29). It must be observed, however, that for the purposes of the Romans
in their conquest of these regions what was essential, from a military point
of view, was not the occupation of all the land from the coast up to the line
of the Save but the control of the valley of the Save (and thereby the control
of what has always been the great land route between Italy and the Balkans).

137
 Moreover the largest of the Pannonian tribes, the Breuci (whose name
Swoboda does not even mention), dwelt astride the Save, about halfway
between Siscia and Belgrade — Saus per Colapianos Breucosque (sc. defluit),
(Plinius, NH, III, 147). The territory bounded by the limits given by
Swoboda is a huge area. It is, roughly, a triangle, the apexes of which are
Ljubljana, Belgrade and Scutari, the sides of a lenght of 300, 200, and
350 miles; and it includes some of the roughest country and most
formidable fighting peoples in the whole of Europe. We must ask, and
ask again, when and how was this wide area brought into dependence on
Rome; if by Octavianus, why did peace remain unbroken until nearly
twenty years later when some Pannonians raided Istria in 16 B.C. (prob¬
ably during the absence of the proconsul of Illyricum, P. Silius, and
a part of his army)?
*

3. The size of Octavianus’army. Operations as extensive and as suc¬

cessful as Swoboda assumes would demand time and troops. He estimates
that the army which Octavianus brought to the siege of Siscia in 35 B.C.
was of about ten legions. As one who has himself had military experience,
he is alive to the difficulties of transport and provisioning for such a host.
He calculates the foodstuffs that would be required during a thirty days'
siege — for 50,000 men, 61,000 wagon-loads, each of about 500 kilogrammes,
that is to say about 30,000,000 kilogrammes weight (p. 41). (There appears
to be a cipher too many in his calculations here.) But Octavianus could not
bring to Siscia such large supplies. Therefore, so Swoboda concludes, a
large part of the army must have been detached and sent eastwards and
southeastwards; and these troops must have conquered the valley of the
Save and penetrated southwards into Bosnia. His observations about the
difficulty of feeding a large army are timely and to the point — they should
have deterred him from assuming that the army w'as as large as ten legions.
For it is only an assumption, derived from Veith’s estimate of 8—12
legions — there is no direct evidence at all about the size of Octavianus'
army. The argument employed is therefore circular. Food and transport
forbid the assumption of an army of ten legions, and the analogy of some
of the armies in the Augustan wars of conquests can be adduced in confir¬
mation — for example, the army of Illyricum in the period 13 B.C. to
A.D. 6 seems to have been of five legions.
*

* •*

4. The methods of conquest. The interior of Bosnia, as Swoboda is well

aware, can only be penetrated and conquered from the north, from the valley
of the Save. How can the valley of the Save be won, the necessary preli¬
minary? The reconquest of these regions by Tiberius in A.D. 6—9 (i.e.,
the suppression of the great revolt of the Pannonians and Dalmatians)
supplies some useful indications which might with profit have been adduced
to compensate, by comparison and analogy, the absence of definite evidence
about the original conquest. In order to regain control of the valley of the

138
Save in A.D. 6—9 it appears that Tiberius needed, not merely an army at
Siscia, but also another at Sirmium, to operate westwards. Although the
original conquest, whenever it was, had probably not been as difficult as
the reconquest was to prove, the strategical situation was similar. And
it might well be doubted whether an army which, starting in 35 B.C. from
bases in northern Italy or on the Liburnian coast, had conquered the lapudes
and captured Siscia, would be able soon afterwards to conquer — and
to hold — the valley of the Save almost to Belgrade, and penetrate the interior
of Bosnia as well, That would have been a remarkable military performance.

it

5. The absence of definite ancient evidence. Appian’s account of the opera¬

tions of Octavianus is full and detailed. He supplies place-names — for
example, the fortresses of the Dalmatae, Promona, Synodium, Setovia;
he mentions small tribes of whom nothing is known — for example, the
Bathiatae, theCambaei and the Cinambri.But Appian does not even men¬
tion the most powerful of the Pannonian tribes, the Breuci, whose terri¬
tory lay on the way from Siscia to Sirmium, and who later gave their name
to no fewer than eight cohorts in the Roman army; nor does he mention
the Scordisci who dwelt in northern Serbia and on the tongue of land which
Save and Danube form before their confluence at Belgrade.
Silence also envelops the great tribes of the interior of Bosnia. The
Ditiones, in 239 decuriae, dwelt in the north-west of Bosnia. Swoboda argues
that Octavian conquered them and marched southward through their ter¬
ritory into Dalmatia in 34 B.C. — the Ditiones are not mentioned by Ap¬
pian, but the Glinditiones are, and these, he holds, were presumably neigh¬
bouring tribes. But it must be observed on the contrary that the Ditiones,
of 23Q decuriae, belonging to the conventus of Salonae, are probably as distinct
and as distant from the 44 decuriae of the Glinditiones in the conventus of
Narona as are the Chatti from Chattuarii in Germany. The Maezaei (269 decu¬
riae) in the neighbourhood of Banjaluka are also absent. The Daesitiates
(103 decuriae), near Sarajevo, are just mentioned by Appian, it is true, but
not among the tribes subjugated by Octavianus; and nothing is said about
the Pirustae, beyond and to the south-east of the Daesitiates.
All these tribes, with the partial exception of the Breuci and the Scor¬
disci, are comprised in the wide area which, according to Swoboda, was
annexed by Octavianus. They were large and formidable: two of them the
Breuci and the Daesitiates, have the place of honour in the great rebellion
of A.D. 6. If they were subdued by Octavianus or by his generals, why does
not Appian say so? This is an objection which is not squarely faced by
Swoboda. To make his thesis plausible, he has to fall back upon certain
general statement about “Pannonians” and "Dalmatians” in the ancient
evidence. Their nature and value may be briefly indicated here — a full
discussion of this intricate subject would demand many pages.

139
 ★ it

6. Indefinite ancient evidence. It is often very difficult to tell whether

certain names are used in a geographical, an ethnical, or a political sense.
The applications of subsequent political terms and boundaries to earlier
conditions is a common source of confusion, in modern as well as in ancient
authors. It was not until A.D. 9 that Illyricum was divided into the two
provinces which were soon to be known as Dalmatia and Pannonia, and
only after that date can one use these terms without qualification and with¬
out ambiguity. Cassius Dio, who had himself been governor of Dalmatia,
follows the usage of his own time; and, when describing the events of 35—
33 B.C. and A.D. 6—9 he appears to give to the “Dalmatians” an extension
equal to that of the Roman province. Was Appian, however, influenced
by this provincial division? He writes (III., 28); o5to) Tcaaav 6 Kaicrap
T‘j)v TXXuplSa dcpetcTTi^xet 'P<o[j!.ato)v, xat tyjv ou TrpOTSpov UTca-
xo^cracav auxot^ IxpaTiivaro
What does “Illyris” mean in this context? One way of finding out would
be, as Appian uses the word o5tco, to take the tribes the subjugation of which
he has mentioned or described. Swoboda, however, by a process of reason¬
ing which I have been unable to follow, understands it to be equivalent to
“Roman Dalmatia”, i.e. what was, after A.D. 9, the province of Dalmatia,
extending northwards from the Adriatic to a boundary line which runs, on
the average, some twenty miles south of the Save, and includes the whole
of Bosnia. This is the boundary between the provinces of Dalmatia and
Pannonia. But was it the line which, in the mind of Appian, separated
“Illyris” and “Hlyrioi” from the Pannonians, as Dr. Swoboda maintains?
The contrary, I think, can be proved. Appian mentions the extension in
length of the land of the Pannonians from the west eastwards or south-
eastwards (III., 22, cf. 14): uXcI)Sy]<; S’scrxiv 7) Haiovcov xal sTrtfx-i^xT]^,
TaTuoSwv ettI AapSavouc; Swoboda takes these words to mean the valley of
the Save (p. 23). But if Appian meant that, would be not rather have said
as far “as the Scordisci”? The Dardani did not live at the eastern end, or
just beyond the eastern end, of the valley of the Save, in northern Serbia,
but far to the south, in Macedonia, in tfae neighbourhood of Skoplje. The
“forested land of the Pannonians” must therefore include a large part of
Bosnia. It follows that Appian is using a source which is not in any way
influenced by the later provincial boundaries. The “Illyris”, all of which
he says was secured by Octavianus (III., 28), therefore does not cover
Bosnia, for most of Bosnia must be included in “the forested land of the
Pannonians” Another early source brings us to a similar conclusion.

«
* *

7. A passage in Strabo (VII, p. 314): S’ectti. tcov Ilavvo-

vltov BpEuxoi xa't ’AvS(,J^:^T!,ot xal AitIwvEi; xal HEipouaxai xal Ma^atot
xal AaiCTixiaxat, Baxcov y)Y£[i.<l>v, xal aXXa aa7][J.6xepa pLixpa, a StaxslvEt,
(XEYpt AaXpiaxlaq, ctj^eSov Se xt, xal ’ApSialcov lovxt, Ttpo^ voxov. That is
to say, Strabo gives the name “Pannonian” to the great Bosnian tribes

140
and makes the "Pannonians” extend as far south as “Dalmatia” (not,
the province of Dalmatia but the land of the Dalmatae proper, on, or not
far from, the coast of the Adriatic), and the territory of the Ardiaei, in the
Hercegovina. Strabo may be wrong about their ethnical affinities — but
that is not to the point. His evidence is the earliest extant evidence about
most of these tribes. It is clear and consistent with itself. It is not influen¬
ced by Roman provincial boundaries. It is reinforced by Appian (III., 22,
quoted above), and by itself it would suffice to show that the Bosnian tri¬
bes could be called "Pannonian”, that "Pannonian” was the earliest name
applied to them, and that they were perhaps not called “Dalmatian” until
after A.D. 9 when, on the division of Illyricum, they were asigned to its
southern half, the province of Dalmatia. This view, which may or may
not be novel, tells strongly against Dr. Swoboda’s thesis about the area
of the “land of the Pannonians”, and permits the conjecture that some of
the Bosnian tribes were among the “Pannonians” which were reduced by
Tiberius in 12—9 B.C., for there is no evidence at all that tribes like the
Daesitiates had ever before been approached by a Roman army (cf. Res
Gestae, 30).
*

* *

8. The campaigns of Tiberius. Dio, as Swoboda urges, nowhere describes

the campaigns of Tiberius as conquests, but only as the suppression of revolts.
But is Dio to be believed? If he is, it could be argued that Tiberius made
no new conquests at all in Illyricum, not even in the north, between Drave
and Danube, to which area some scholars such as Zippel would restrict
his conquests (although there were no large fighting tribes in that area and
the inhabitants probably submitted with alacrity and welcomed Roman
protection against the Dacians). On this view the Res Gestae divi Augusti
would be proved not merely misleading but mendacious. Dio’s statements
about Pannonians and Dalmatians are vague and general, not detailed and
individual. He appears to have believed that Tiberius merely suppressed
risings of tribes which had already been conquered. If so, he was surely
wrong. It is true, and it is to be regretted, that there is hardly any extant
evidence about the “Bellum Pannonicum” which Agrippa and Vinicius
began in 13 B.C. and which Tiberius carried to a successful conclusion in
12—9 B.C. Velleius Paterculus thought it important and reserved it for a
separate monograph (II, 96, 2—3); and Suetonius (Tib., 9) says: Pannonico
(sc. bello) Breucos et Delmatas subegit. The Breuci here mentioned by Sueto¬
nius are the only individual tribe that is named in the ancient evidence
about the campaigns of Tiberius. Suetonius is not the best of evidence, but
he is all the evidence that we have about how and when the Breuci were
subjugated. The Breuci do not occur in Appian’s account — a detailed
account — of the conquests of Octavianus; and Swoboda nowhere mentions
even their existence. Yet he says: “wir haben bisher an Hand der Quellen
gezeigt, daB die Eroberung des ganzen Savetales in Jahre 35Tatsache gewor-

141
en war”.TheBreuci dwelt in the valley of the Save (Plinius, A'’//, III, 147,
noted above); they commanded the way from Siscia down to Sirmium and
o Belgrade. The only extant evidence states that they were conquered by
Tiberius.
*

* *

That being so, it is unnecessary to say much about the tribes in the inte¬
rior. They could not have been reduced until the valley of the Save was
completely and firmly in Roman hands — compare the “reconquest of
Illyricum” in A.D. 6—9. This part of the problem is really quite simple —
and of subordinate value. No ancient authority records how and when the
great tribes of Bosnia, the Ditiones, Maezaei and Daesitiates became subject
to Rome. The only available argument is one from silence. Appian’s account
of the conquests of Octavianus is provided with the names of many places
and many tribes. The tribes of Bosnia are not among them — can their
conquest belong to Octavianus? On the other hand, the “Bellum Pannoni-
cum” of 13—9B.C. is illustrated by not a single place-name and by only one
individual tribe-name (though that name is decisive). On logical grounds
it would therefore be preferable to date,the reduction of the Bosnian tribes
to the “Bellum Pannonicum” of 13—9 B.C.
Such being the case, for the purpose of the argument it would not be
necessary to prove, though I believe, that it can be proved from the evi¬
dence of Strabo (VII, p. 314, quoted and discussed above), that the name
“Pannonia” in the time of Augustus can cover the Bosnian tribes, and that
the Bosnian tribes are probably included among the “nations of the Panno-
nians which before my Principate no Roman army had ever approached”.
The earliest evidence about these tribes refers to them as “Pannonian”;
but they soon came to be known as “Dalmatians”, either at once, after the
conquest in 12—9 B.C. when it was seen that they had more affinities with
theDalmatae, proper than with the Celtic Pannonians, or soon after A.D. 9
when, along with the Dalmatae, they were assigned to the Roman province
of Dalmatia. The earlier terminology was thus supplanted and forgotten, or
survived only in a curiously confused form, as when Suetonius (quoted
above) says that “Dalmatians” were conquered in a “Pannonian war”. Fail¬
ing to recognise this, many modern scholars have failed to understand the
“Bellum Pannonicum” of Tiberius.
Swoboda does not appear to have been able to disprove the theory of
Kromayer and of Veith that Octavianus’ conquests were relatively modest
in extent, or prove his own thesis that they embraced the whole of the valley
of the Save and all the land from the Save to the sea. The merits of Swoboda’s
work and the importance of the subject seemed to call for a thorough exami¬
nation and a full discussion. In the above observations, however, the claims
of brevity have been paramount. The reviewer trusts that no injustice has
thereby been done to Swoboda’s thesis.

142
 VIII. ADDENDUM

Swoboda's thesis of wide conquests found general acceptance in the

sequel. The arguments formulated in this review were noted and criticised,
it is true, by N. Vulic, JRS, XXIV (1934), 163 ff. For the rest, they tended
to be ignored, as was the renewed statement in 1937, here published as
Ch. I. See the names cited by W. Schmitthenner “Historia”, VII (1958),
189 f. His long and thorough investigation confirms my own point of view,
cf. O.C., 217; 233 f. Octavian’s campaigns were modest alike in design and
in achievement. Swoboda retorted in “Gnomon”, XXXI (1959), 444 f. He
blamed Schmitthenner for concentrating on “Quellenforschung” and neglect¬
ing military aspects. And he came out with the maxim “Geopolitik ist
kein Kriegsgrund”. On the contrary, “Geopolitik” explains the Augustan
conquest of Illyricum.
Swoboda's thesis was also supported by S. Josipovic, “Ziva Antika”,
VI (1956), 138 ff.; E. Pasalic, “Godisnjak Istoriskog Drustva Bosne i Her-
cegovine”, VII (1956), 245 ff. Both lengthy papers. Further, the compres¬
sed statement of G. Alfoldy seems to betray some sympathy for it [Bevdl-
kerung und G^sellschajt der romischen Provinz Dalmatien (1965), 25 f.].
However, he concedes that the mountain country beyond the Dinaric Alps
from the Una to the Drina “wurde nur auf diplomatischem Wege pazifi-
ziert”. That would not be en affective way of dealing with the remote Daesi-
tiates in the region of Sarajevo. See the pertinent remarks of J. Wilkes in
review of the book, “Bonner Jahrbiicher”, CLXVI (1986), 648.
P. 137 — The boundary between Dalmatia and Moesia. See now
G. Alfoldy, O.C., 27f.
P. 138 — Methods of conquest. The “Reconquest of Illyricum” in
A.D. 6—9 furnishes welcome confirmation, cf. CAH, X (1934), 355; 369 ff.
Further, E. Koestermann, “Hermes”, LXXXI (1953), 345 ff.; J. Wilkes,
“Acta Antiqua”, XIII (1935), 111 ff. The identification of Splonum, which
Germanicus Ciesar captured in the final campaign (Dio, LVI, 11, 1) is a
problem. Wilkes locates it at Plevlje (o.c., 121 ff.). G. Alfdldy had opted
for Sipovo [ih. X (1932), 1 ff.]. That site, about 20 km. southwest of Jajce,
is of some interest. It yielded the important inscription of C. Minicius Funda-
nus (cos, sufj. 107); now in the Museum at Sarajevo, reproduced in Tacitus
(1958), 801.
For the routes of penetration into Bosnia, the later Roman system of
roads is instructive, cf. E. PaSalic, “Archielogia Jugoslavica”, III (1959),
61 ff. The prime document is the monument set up at Salonae by P. Corne¬
lius Dolabella (ITS, 5829; 5829 a). The text was improved by M. Abramic,
Vjesnik za arheol. i hist, dalmatinsku (1926/7), 19 ff. Now comes the notable
revision by G. Alfoldy, “Acta Arch. Ac. Sc. Hung.”, XVI (1964), 247 ff.;
“Situla”, VIII (1935), 108 ff. For the road in ITS, 5829 a, 158 miles from
Salonae, he reads
et idem viam ad Batinum /lumen
quod dividit Breuc[o'\s Oseriatibus.
The revision is printed in AE, 1964, 2.

143
 P. 139 — The tribes in Bosnia. For their location, see Alfoldy in his
book (cited above), 50 ff. As for the Daesitiates, the first of the two roads
on ILS, 5829 a shows Hedum castel.j Daesitiatium 156 miles from Salonae.
Further, the stone set up by Valens Varron.j f. princeps Desitiati, was found
at Breza, about 15 km west of Sarajevo: published by G. Cremosnik and
D. Sergejevski, “Novitates Musei Sarajevoensis”, IX (1930), 8.
P. 139 — Daesitiates in Appian. Swoboda and Vulic claimed that this
people was not only mentioned by Appian but in fact conquered by Octa-
vian. Even were the text secure, the conclusion does not follow. The passage
runs:
fxdcXiCTTiX S’’^v(o;^AiQaav auxov SaXacrcrol t£ xat TaTroSei; ol Tiepav ’AXttewv xat
'HitytiyTaiy01 xat AaXixarai xai Aaicjtot t£ xal Ilatovet;, ovzsc, exa? TOip SaXaacoic,
Ol xopuipa^ olxOUCTl Toiv ’AXttewv.

That is, in the text of Viereck and Roos (1939). Previously, since Schweig-
hauser, AaiCTiTiaxiai had been admitted. On this point see W. Schmitthen-
ner, o.c., 213 ff. There is no evidence anywhere that Octavian’s forces
entered the mountains and forests of Bosnia.
P. 139 — cf. 145. The Breuci. As contributing to their location, cf,
Alfoldi’s reading of ILS, 5829 a (above).
P. 139 — The Scordisci. The gravestone of a pY(inceps) praej(ectus)
Scor(discoriim) found at Acumincum (Slankamen, opposite the confluence
of Theiss and Danube), was published by A. Mocsy, "Historia”, VI (1957),
488, whence AE 1958, 73. For their history and territory, cf. A. Mocsy,
ih., 488ff.; G. Alfoldy, “Arch. Ert.”, LXXXIX (1962), 147 ff.; “Acta Anti-
qua”, XII (1964), 107 ff. Allies of Tiberius when he conquered the Breuci
in 12 B.C. (Dio, LIV, 31, 3), the Scordisci had been reduced shortly before
that by a Roman army operating from the side of Macedonia. A campaign
of Tiberius in 15 B.C., excogitated by Premerstein and by Patsch, seems
only a figment, cf. the Add. to Ch. III. It is regarded as “wahrscheinlich”’
by A. Mocsy, P-W, Supp. X (1962), 540.

144
 IX

VASSAL TRIBES *

Dr, Klose, a pupil of Kornemann, has chosen an important subject

and treated it admirably. Though the significance of client-kingdoms in
the foreign and frontier policy both of the Republic and the Empire, espe¬
cially in the East, has always been known and amply recognised, the zone
of dependent principalities and tribes along the northern frontier has not
received the attention which it so manifestly deserves. For the imperial
government, the function of these allies was simple and satifactory — mili¬
tary defence; for the course of history their accidental role in spreading
civilization in Central Europe was to have momentous results. At an early
date the Chatti and the Marcomanni were quick to adopt Roman methods
of warfare but this was not all that a man like Maroboduus found himself
able to learn from Rome.
The diversity of local and temporal conditions is so great that every
instance must be examined on its own merits. Statements of universal appli¬
cation are likely to be as general and as useless as the extended and diluted
iptXia in the Ideal State of Plato. Klose bases his study upon a detailed and
analytical investigation of Roman relations with the peoples beyond the
Rhine and the Danube during the first two centuries of our era. Were it
only as a collection of material, the result of his labours is indispensable
to any serious student of these topics. The very excellence of his work
demands that a review should not confine itself to edifying remarks of a
general character about client-kingdoms and foederati, but should seek to
supplement, if possible, his observations. In proportion to the myriad details
of the book, such additions will be found few and modest indeed.
In his treatment of the Rhine, Klose goes back beyond the time of Au¬
gustus and discusses, as is appropriate, Roman relations with the Germans
of Ariovistus and with the Ubii. There follows a digression upon the exist¬
ence cf a Roman province Germania, recently debated and denied by
Wilcken — “Germanien ist niemals Provinz gewesen" (“Berl. S-B”, 1932,
11). Following Kornemann [Staaten, Volker, Manner^ (1934), 117], Klose

* J. Klose, Roms KHeniel-Randstaaien am Rhein und an der Donau. Breslauer

historische Untersuchungen, Heft 14, (1934).

145
argues that a province of Germany was established shortly after the death
of Drusus (9. B.C.) by Tiberius, but that tribute was first exacted by Varus.
This latter restriction is in any case necessary in the light of the words with
which Velleius, not a writer prone to understatement, describes the activity
of Tiberius in the years 8 and 7 B.C.: sic perclomuit earn ut in formam paene
stipendiariae redigeret provinciae (II, 97,4). Perhaps some of the difficulties
presented by this problem are due to vagueness of concept or inadequacy of
terminology. Everybody would be prepared to admit that the provincia
of a legate like Sentius Saturninus or his successor Varus extended a long
way east of the Rhine — as far, in short, as Roman control could be effec¬
tive. But Kornemann and Klose mean much more than this.
It is time to proceed with Klose’s examination of the dependent tribes
in the post-Augustan period. The following observations suggest them¬
selves. The Bructeri (pp.45—7) receive only as much space as is allotted to
the Canninefates. This is out of proportion. Klose conjectures that Veleda,
the priestess of the Bructeri, may have conducted negotiations for peace
with the Romans after the end of the Batavian War. He adduces Tacitus,
Germ., 8: vidimus sub divo Vespasiano Veledam. But if the quotation is
completed with the words diu apud plerosque numinis loco habitam, it is
at once evident that the reference is quite general in application. Nor, indeed,
need it apply to the capture of Veleda by Rutilius Gallicus at some time in
the years 75—8. This was not the end of troubles with the Bructeri. A little
more space might have been given to the operations of Vestricius Spurinna
(Plinius, Epp., II, 7), and the massacre of the Bructeri by their neighbours
(Tacitus, Germ., 33). About the date of the "campaign” of Spurinna, Klose
is inconclusive. If we reject 97 or 98 (despite Premerstein's recent cham¬
pioning of that date (C. Julius Quadratus Bassus, “Bayer. S-B”, 1934,
12) we can not only, with Groag (in Ritterling, der romischen Deutsch¬
land unter dem Prinzipat (1932), ^), date that elderly gentleman "noch in
domitianische Zeit”, but even go further back and place him near the beginn¬
ing of Domitian's reign, c. ^-4, and connect the imposition of a king
upon the Bructeri with Domitian’s re-organisation of the German frontier.
Yet another remark about the Bructeri. Masyos, king of the Semnones, paid
a visit to Domitian accompanied by a prophetess called Ganna — Tcai>9-lv(>;
(zStoc xrjv OueXT^Sav Iv KsXtix^ (Dio, LXVII, 5, 3). Klose
infers from Dio’s words that Ganna belonged without doubt to the tribe
of the Bructeri. Tacitus’ account of the religious primacy of the Semnones
(Germ., 39) suggests that they would not have any difficulty in getting
a prophetess nearer home.
Of the smaller tribes beyond the Rhine the Usipi might perhaps have
been mentioned (cf. Tacitus, Agr., 28). May not their position have been
analogous to that of the Mattiaci? About the Mattiaci, Klose’s views might
be modified a little in view of the fact that the Cohors II Mattiacorum is
attested, not merely at the end of the first century (p. 56), but as early as
78; cf. the Moesian diploma GIL, XVI, 22.
Ultra hos Chatti. Klose says that the Chatti were never in alliance with
or dependence on Rome — a relationship which he assigns to almost every
other people along the frontiers of Rhine and Danube. In the absence of

146
convincing evidence, caution is prescribed. Dio (LXVII, 3, 5) disguises
Domitian's serious and successful war against the Chatti in the words
XsyjXaTTQcra; Tiva Toiv Ttspav'Di^vou tcov svctttovScov. But, nobody would
be tempted to use this highly subjective account as evidence for
the status of the Chatti before A.D. 83. After Domitian’s war, however,
the Chatti may have been constrained to contract a foedus with
Rome. In January of the year 89 the pretender Antonius Saturninus is said
to have summoned to his aid a host of Germans (Suetonius, Dom., 6). These
Germans have usually been indentified with the Chatti. The story is more
plausible if the natives were foederati. But is the story true? The Chatti cert¬
ainly entered Roman territory, to burn and destroy — there is clear evidence
of their passage. But is it quite certain that they came at the invitation of a
Roman governor? For all that we know this may be a piece of "official"
history, designed to discredit Saturninus and enable Domitian to repre¬
sent victory in a civil war as victory over Germans — "de Germanis” instead
of “de germanis". So far the case is not strong enough. The words of Statius
may now be invoked: victis parcentia foedera Cattis (Silvae, III, 3, 168) and
das Cattis Dacisq^le fideni (1,1,27). They support, but naturally do not prove,
the existence of a foedus, after 89 at any rate. The words of a poet must be
accepted with every reservation. But Statius’ remarks may be something
more than an adulatory way of saying that Domitian in his clemency had
refrained from annihilating these peoples — the presence of the words
foedus and fides in a contemporary source deserves attention (cf. Klose,
passim).
The measures taken by the emperors of the Flavian house secured peace
along the German frontier. There was nothing left for Trajan to do. Has
the Germania, published in the year 98, any relevance to contemporary
conditions? Klose quotes with approval a judgment of P.L. Strack —
"there is no doubt that Tacitus in his Germania, wished to support and justify
the policy of Trajan". But there is doubt, plenty of doubt. It may be observ¬
ed that when Tacitus published the Germania it was by no means certain
what the policy of Trajan would in fact be. To some, at least, the accession
of a military emperor may have appeared to herald a policy very different
from that of the Flavians, a policy of real conquest in Germany. What
Tacitus thought of the work of the Flavians can be discovered in the Germa-
nia — the casual and indeed contemptuous reference to decumates agri
(c. 29), and the bitter phrase proximis temporibus triumphati magis quam
victi (c. 37). So far from justifying Trajan for his continuance of the ignoble
policy of the Flavians, Tacitus, so one might deduce from his own words,
expected something very different. He implies (c. 37) that the year 98 may
well mark a turning point in the long history of Roman relations with the
peoples of Germany. Tam diu Gerynania vincitur.
But Trajan turned to the Danube, already the more important frontier.
Before the great crisis in the time of Domitian, the friendship of the Ger¬
mans and of the Sarmatae lazyges preserved the tranquillity of the Panno-
nian frontier. The military protection subsequently needed (four legions
in Pannonia) is striking by contrast. Klose provides a valuable account of
the tangled problems connected with the Regnum Vannianum. Of the prin-

147
•s
ces of the Marcomanni and Quadi, Tacitus relates (Germ., 42) raro armis
nostris, saepius pecunia iuvantur. From the word saepius Klose infers that
these subsidies were not regular yearly payments. Is this certain? We must
not neglect the antithesis raro... saepius; and saepius may be, like raro, a
typical Tacitean understatement. So far as we know — and it is in keeping
with Roman policy.cf. XII, 29 — there had never been any armed inter¬
vention. The sentence can therefore be taken to mean that the princes of
the Marcomanni were never supported by force but only and always by
subsidies. With respect to the Sarmatae lazyges it is unfortunate that the
exact date of their arrival in the Hungarian plain is not known. It is doubt¬
ful, however, if their earliest acknowledgment of Roman suzerainty is to
be dated quite as late as the year 69, as inferred by Klose from the words
of Tacitus (Hist., Ill, 5) principes Sarmatarum lazugum... in commilitium
adsciti. This has reference merely to a campaign.
The fragmentary and difficult inscription usually assigned to Tampius
Flavianus (iLS, 985) ought to have at least a mention in any discussion
of the frontier policy of the sixties, for it contains the words opsidihus a
Tran[sdanu]l[vianis acceptis, lim'\itibus omnibus exploratis,]j[hostibus ad
vectig]alia praestanda [adactis'\. It would be tempting to make this the Pan-
nonian counter part to the operations of a legate of Moesia, Ti. Plautius Sil-
vanus Aelianus {ILS, 986).
The wars of M. Aurelius against the different Transdanubian peoples
are treated by Klose separately and in very great detail (pp. 77—94, 105—
114, 119—123), perhaps beyond the proportions of his theme. Especially
valuable is his summary of the evidence for the existence of certain forts
established beyond the middle course of the Danube in the Antonine period,
for not all of it is easily accessible to scholars in western Europe. The pre¬
sence of a detachment of the legion II Adiutrix at Trentschin far up the
valley of the Waag, nearly a hundred miles north of the Danube, had long
been known from the inscription ILS, 9122. Recent discoveries of legionary
tiles and structural remains attest the existence of forts at Stampfen, Still-
fried on the March, the Oberleiserberg and Muschau.
In view of the space allotted to the wars of M. Aurelius it is difficult
to refrain from expressing two criticisms about the proportion of the work.
In dealing with the Danubian lands Klose has not, as in his treatment of
the Rhine, gone back to Augustus and even earlier. Some mention of the
role of the dependent kingdom of Noricum in frontier defence would have
had an integral and illuminative part in this theme. It is only a schematic
kind of history that assumes statesmen to have been more influenced by
memories of the past than by the needs of the present. But it might be worth
speculating whether the Roman experience with Noricum may not have
encouraged the beUef that a similar policy, if adopted towards the more
civilized of the Transdanubian peoples, the Germans and the Dacians,
might be productive of no less happy results.
Second, Dacia. This topic receives barely three pages. Klose states
(p. 124) that before the time of Nero Roman relations with the Dacians
were unimportant. This opinion is not supported by what survives, in how¬
ever fragmentary a form in our evidence. The unknown general of the inscrip-

148
tion ILS 8965, almost certainly M. Vinicius, entered into relations with
the Anartii, to the nord-west of Dacia, as well as with the Cotini and the
Osi. If he, along with Cn. Cornelius Lentulus and Sex. Aelius Catus, whose
transplantation of Getae deserves comparison with the activity of Ti. Plau-
tius Silvanus, is to be omitted, at the very least something should be said
about the words of Augustus himself {Res Gestae, 30). His army “compelled
the tribes of the Dacians to submit to the commands of the Roman people.”
Klose argues for the existence of a foedus between Rome and the Dacians
before Domitian’s war. This is inferred from a phrase of Tacitus, Dacorum
gens numquam fida (Hist., Ill, 46), and from the well-known passage in
Jordanes (Getica, XIII, 76); Domitiano imperatore regnante eiusque avaritiam
metuentes foedus quod dudum cum aliis principibus pepigerant Gothi solventes,
ripam Danuhii... vastaverunt. A certain caution is here necessary. Jordanes,
by no means the only historian to hold peculiar views about the continuity
of race and language in Dacia, identifies the Dacians with the Goths; it
is quite possible that his mention of a foedus also reflects the conditions of
a later age, namely the relation of foederati in which the Goths so long stood
to Rome. However that may be, it is likely that some at least, of the Dacian
tribes acknowledged Roman suzerainty — at intervals, under Augustus
(Res Gestae, 30), under Nero {ILS, 986), and perhaps again under Vespasian.
“Domitian beginnt die Expansion gegen Dakien” (p. 125). Klose pro¬
vides no evidence or argument to justify this opinion. One is emboldened
to ask, is this any more than an inference from the suspect cause assigned
by Jordanes to the outbreak of the war, the avaritia of Domitian? Further,
is it probable that Domitian was pursuing a policy of aggression beyond
the Danube at a time when Germany and Britain were witnessing an advance
of the Roman frontier? We shall never know. Evidence, there is certainly
none. Drobeta on the north bank of the Danube has sometimes been held
to be a municipium Flavmm. That theory depended on a highly speculative
and certainly erroneous reading of obscure letters in the inscription CIL,
III, 8017. Nor can there be many west of the Theiss or south of the Danube
who may be inclined to believe that Parvan’s hypothesis of a Roman origin
for the great vallum in Wallachia (Dacia, 1928, 181) would be made any
more plausible by a modification of his dating and a transference from the
Julio-Claudian to the Flavian period. It might, perhaps, be conjectured
that hostilities between Rome and the newly resurgent power in Transyl¬
vania were caused by a clash of interests beyond the Danube in the Banat
and in Wallachia, where there were probably Dacian tribes over whose des¬
tiny Rome claimed to exercise some control.
Despite its brevity, Klose’s account has the great merit of recognising
the true nature of the “shameful peace” which Domitian “bought” from
Dacia. Against Domitian speaks that “voice of history which is often little
more than the organ of hatred or flattery.” Klose quietly points out that
the agreement between Rome and Dacia was a “Klientelvertrag” and that
the subsidies were paid in return for services — “diese Zahlungen werden
fiir den Grenzschutz geleistet, den die Daker von nun an ubernehmen”
(p. 126). This sober transaction requires a sober estimate, remote from the
exaggerations both of Pliny and of Martial. Martial affects to regard Dacia

149
as having been realy conquered; compare especially VI, 76, 5, grande iugum
domita Dacus cervice recepit. But nothing is gained for history by substituting
a panegyric of Domitian for a panegyric of Trajan.
To illustrate further this question, which is a question of frontier policy,
not of the vices and virtues of individual emperors, it will be recalled that
Trajan paid subsidies to the Sarmatae Rhoxolani: they complained to Ha¬
drian in his first year of a reduction of their stipends (HA, Hadr., 6, 8).
Further, at a much earlier date, the Romans had been paying the Marco-
manni and Ouadi (Tacitus, Germ, 42). But in the year 89 the Danubian
Germans broke loose from Rome. No emperor could contemplate the pros¬
pect of hostilities with most if not all of the Transdanubian peoples from
Boheinia to the Pontus, if it could in any way be avoided. Tradition and
common sense indicated the remedy — Tiberius with all Illyricum insur¬
gent had made peace with Maroboduus and had recognised him as king and
friend of the Roman people. Domitian’s treaty with Dacia could be regard¬
ed as a transference of subsidies from Germans to Dacians. Whether this
involved much — if any — additional expenditure is not known.
The above remarks are not intended to detract in any way from the value
of Klose's work or dispute either his axioms or his conclusions, with which,
indeed, the reviewer is happy to express himself in comiplete agreement.

IX. ADDENDUM!

P. 145 — Other regions are instructive for comparison, notably Britain.

For the Brigantes, see I.A. Richmond, JRS, XLIV (1954), 43 ff.; and there
are other items of value in the volume edited by that scholar, Roman and Native
in North Britain (1958). At this late date it will not be necessary to repeat
that the old Roman habits of amicitia and clientela furnish the clue, not formal
treaties. And the practices of diplomacy come in, not concepts of "interna¬
tional law", such as have unprofitably been invoked by H. Ziegler, Die
Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
des Volkerrechts (1964).
P. 145 — Germania as a Roman province. On the positive side, cf.
D. Timpe, "Saeculum”, XVIII (1967), 289 f.
P. 146 — The prophetess Veleda. For the Greek verses in her honour
discovered at Ardea (AE, 1948, 48), see G. Walser, P-W, VIII A (1955),
617 ff.
P. 146 — The operations of Vestricius Spurinna. For the dating early
in the reign of Domitian, see JRS, XVIII (1928), 43; Tacitus (1958), 634 f.
P. 146 — The Usipi. Mommsen’s view that their territory (in the Neu-
wieder Becken) was annexed by Domitian in 83 is restated by H. Nessel-
hauf, "Hermes", LXXX (1952), 237 f.

150
 P. 146 — The Mattiaci. Compare the annotation on Ge^m. 29, 3, and
30, 1, in the edition of J.G.C, Anderson (1938).
P. 146 — Domitian’s war against the Chatti. See R. Syme, CAH, XI
(1936), 162 ff.; H. Nesselhauf, “Hermes”, LXXX (1952), 222 ff.; H. Braun-
ert, “Bonner Jahrbiicher”, CLIII (1953), 97 ff.
P. 147 — The significance of the Gennania. For this thesis, cf. Tacitus
(1958), 46 ff.
P. 148 — Tampius Flavianus. Restorations of ILS, 985 have been pro¬
pounded by A. Alfoldi, “Arch. 6rt.”, LII (1939), 103, whence AE 1941,
11; A. Mocsy, ih., XCIII (1966), 206, whence AE 1966, 68. The latter ver¬
sion is over-ambitious and highly vulnerable.
P. 148 — Plautius Silvanus. See D.M. Pippidi, Contributii la Istoria
Veche a Romdniei (1958), 137 ff., with summary in German, 310 ff.
P. 148 — Roman posts across the middle Danube. See E. Swoboda,
“Carnuntum Jahrbuch 1959” (1961), 17 ff.; “Romische historische Mit-
teilungen”, IV (1960/61), 11 ff.; and in the volume Les Empereurs romaius
d’Espagne (1965), 195 ff. Further, a number of the papers in Limes Romanus
Konperenz Nitra (Bratislava, 1959).
P. 149 — Augustus and the Dacians. See the Add. to Ch. II and Ch. III.
P. 149 — Domitian’s policy. Cf. CAH, XI (1936), 187 f.

151
 X

THE DACIAN WARS *

Im ersten Abschnitt des 5. Bandes seiner Beitrage stellte Patsch die

romische Eroberung der Balkanlander bis zur Thronbesteigung des Kaisers
Vespasian dar. Nach einem Zwischenraum von fiinf Jahren ist jetzt der
zweite Abschnitt erschienen; er umfaBt die Zeit von den Flaviern bis zu
Hadrian. In der Geschichte der gesamten AuBen-und Grenzpolitik Roms
zwischen den august ischen Eroberungskriegen und der groBen Kris is des
3. Jahrhunderts sind diese 50 Jahre der entscheidende Abschnitt — in sie
fallt die Verlegung des railitarischen Schwerpunktes vom Rhein zur Donau.
Die Kriege, welche die Feldherren des Augustus in diesen Gebieten
fiihrten, waren haufig und schwierig, ihre Gebietserweiterungen ausgedehnt:
ja man kann die Eroberung Illyriens als das Zentralthema der ganzen augus-
tischen AuBenpolitik ansehen. Obgleich die Uberlieferung fragmentarisch
und verworren ist, zeigt die erneute Unterwerfung nach der groBen Revolte
im Jahre 6 n. Chr. die Wahrheit. Nach Augustus waren die Stamme jenseits
der Donau entzweit und machtlos, und die Hauptaufgabe der Legionen war,
die Bevblkerung im Innern niederzuhalten, in Bosnien, Serbien und Bulga-
rien. Von Claudius an wurde offensichtlich dem Unterlauf der Donau mehr
Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Die Burgerkriege von 68 und 69 riefen Einfalle
der Barbaren hervor und offenbarten groBe Gefahren. Nichtsdestoweniger
scheint Vespasian wenige Veranderungen in der Verteidigung der Donaugren-
ze vorgenommen zuhaben, — und es standen noch immer acht Legionen am
Rhein. So schwer war es, von der Tradition und Gewohnheit loszukommen,
die Germanen jenseits des Rheines als die Hauptgefahr fiir das Reich anzu-
sehen. Domitian muBte dafiir bezahlen. Am Ende seiner Regierung werden
nicht weniger als neun Legionen an der Donau entlang aufgestellt. Die Ar-
meen an der Rheingrenze schrumpfen zusammen — sie kdnnen es sich wohl
leisten. Jetzt genugen dort sechs Legionen und 20 Jahre spater nur vier.
Domitians Kriege in den Jahren 85 bis 92 mit zwei Niederlagen auf
romischem Boden und zweien jenseits der Donau sind ein trauriges Zeichen

* Carl Patsch, Der Kampf um den Donauraum unter Domitian und Trajan
(Beitrage zur Volkerkunde von Siidosteuropa V/2.) “Sitz.-Ber. Ak. Wiss. Wien,
phil.-histor. Klasse”, CCXVIl, 1.

152
'des Niedergangs gegeniiber der glanzenden Eroberung Daziens durch Trajan.
So wenigstens mag es scheinen, und viele sind mit dem bloBen Schein
zufrieden gewesen. Sie kbnnen sich auf die literarischen Ouellen, die
damit iibereinstimmen, berufen. Aber es ist etwas anderes, sie zu lesen und
sie zu verstehen. Patsch hat den bequemen Weg vermieden. Er lehnt es ab,
einer feindlichen und liignerischen Uberlieferung zu folgen, einen ober-
flachlichen und schema!ischen Unterschied zwischen “guten” und “schlech-
ten” Kaisern zu verewigen. DieTugenden und die Easter der einzelnen Kaiser
sind reichlich belanglos. Die richtige und einzige Frage ist am Ende die —
was ist zweckmaBig ftir die Grenzpolitik in irgendeiner bestimmten Lage?
Domitians Feldherr ftigte schlieBlich den Dakern und ihrem geftirchteten
Konig Decebalus eine schwere Niederlage zu. Der Krieg war, obgleich er
zwei Einfalle der Rbmer in Dazien mit sich brachte, seinem Charakter nach
defensiv. Rom war nicht darauf aus, zu annektieren — und ein schneller
Ablaut von Ereignissen stellte die Annexion auBer Frage, selbst wenn sie
von Domitian beabsichtigt gewesen war, was aber unwahrscheinlich ist. Die
abhangigen germanischen und sarmatischen Volker jenseits der Donau, von
Bohmen ostwarts bis Siebenbtirgen, rissen sich los von der romischen Kon-
trolle. E"m dieser Gefahr zu begegnen, erkannte Domitian Decebalus als
Konig und Freund Roms an, in der Absicht, Dazien zu benutzen, um die
romische Grenze zu decken, die sarmatischen Nomaden zu trennen und auf
die Ebenen zu beiden Seiten des Karpatenhochlandes einzuschranken. Daher
die Hilfsgelder (denn Hilfsgelder waren vorher den Konigen der Markoman-
nen und Ouaden gezahlt worden) und das Ausleihen von geschickten Sach-
verstandigen zum Erbauen von Befestigungen. Man muB daran erinnern,
daB Trajan nach der gliicklichen Beendigung des ersten dakischen Krieges
Tioch zogerte, den entscheidenden Schritt zu tun, das Land in eine romische
Provinz zu verwandeln.
Patsch fiihrt diese Ansicht iiber die politische und militarische Situa¬
tion ganz konsequent weiter (S. 31 f.) und erwahnt — Mommsens Urteil iiber
einen unliebenswiirdigen, aber intelligenten und tiichtigen Kaiser billigend
— “einer der sorgfaltigsten Verwalter”. Es versteht sich von selbst, daB er
allenthalben die Kenntnis dieser kaum greifbaren und diirftig bezeugten
MaBnahmen gefordert hat.
In den meisten geschichtlichen Darstellungen wird iiber die Kriege
Trajans ausfiihrlicher berichtet, nicht weil die literarische Bezeugungirgend-
wie besser sei — sie ist tatsachlich auf ihre Art gleichmaBig schlecht — aber
es gibt einen zusatzlichen, vielleicht verwirrenden Faktor, namlich die Reliefs
auf der Trajanssaule. Doch davon spater mehr.
Der Titel und das Thema der Arbeit ist militarische Geschichte; und
-es muBte auch an den Grenzen von Trajans neuer Provinz noch gekampft
werden. Am Anfang seiner Regierung beorderte Hadrian den Offizier C.
Julius Quadratus Bassus nach Dazien, jenen bemerkenswerten Mann, der
nur von einer Inschrift her bekannt ist, die kiirzlich in Pergarnon entdeckt
wurde. Bassus jedoch starb — ext, CTTpaTeu6ji.Evo? sv Aaxta Ein romischer
Ritter, Hadrians Freund, Marcius Turbo, nahm seinen Platz ein und yol-
lendete sein Werk. Aber genug von Kriegen und Tumulten. Die Organisie-
rung der neuen Gebiete und die Art, mit der sie verteidigt wurden, ist in

153
jeder Hinsicht ein lohnenderes Thema. Hier haben wir endlich eine Darstel-
lung, die so vollstandig ist, wie sie nur gegeben werden kann. Sie ist nicht
auf Dazien beschrankt: die Anpassung eines neuen Landes an die bestehende
Struktur der Donauprovinzen brachte fiir deren soziales und wirtschaftliches
Leben bedeutende Folgen mit sich. Von da an datiert ein erhohter Wohi-
stand und ein bemerkenswerter Fortschritt. Thrakien wird nun eingeteilt
in civitates. Etwa ein Dutzend Gemeinden verdanken ihren Ursprung der
Regierungskunst Trajans, und einige bezeugen es durch ihre bezeichnenden
Namen.
Dazien selbst bekam offizielle Kolonien romischer Veteranen sowie-
einen groBen Zustrom von Zivilbevolkerung, die aus den donaulandischen
und den ostlichen Provinzen einwanderte, besonders aus dem Innern Dalma-
tiens. (Die Pirustae, tiichtige Bergleute, sind gut bezeugt; siewurden nach
Dazien verpflanzt rait einem princeps ihres eigenen Stammes.) Doch kamen
wahrscheinlich keine Thraker. Patsch diskutiert und erlautert die Griinde-
fur diesen Gegensatz — es sind vornehmlich wirtschaftliche. In bezug auf
die urspriingliche Bevdlkerung von Dazien gibt die Uberlieferung wenig
aus. Einige Schriftsteller des Altertums sprechen von einer Entvdlkerung
des Landes, und Cichorius entdeckt eine Austreibung von Dakern auf der
Trajanssaule. Seiner Interpretation ist man weit und breit gefolgt. Patsch
bestreitet sie — wir haben hier lediglich die Riickkehr von ausgewanderten
Dakern nach dem Krieg. Ferner weist er mit Recht auf die Existenz dakischer
Auxiliartruppen hin. (Ein wichtiger Hinweis hat sich kiirzlich in Britannien
gefunden, namlich eine Inschrift, die sich auf Aelius Dida, einen Centurionen
der Coh. I Dacorum, ungefahr 122 n. Chr. bezieht, Weiter konnten hier, wenn
ich nicht irre, gewisse Tatsachen angefiihrt werden, die das municipium von
Napoca bettreffen.) Wir kennen, das muB eingestanden werden,wenig mehr
als das romische Rahmenwerk von der Provinz Dazien. Doch uberall in den
romischen Provinzen wird durch ein intensiveres Studium, durch ein neues.
Interesse an der Vorgeschichte und durch neue Methoden der archaologischen
Technik unter der Oberflache die Existenz einer beharrlichen einheimischen
Bevolkerung entdeckt, die durch die Romanisierung der wohlhabenden Klas-
sen wenig beeinfluBt wurde.
Heutzutage wird der Historiker und Archaologe, der eine romische Pro¬
vinz erforscht, immer auf Spuren der vorromischen Bevolkerung und Kultur
achten. Was den dakischen Limes betrifft, wird einiges jetzt klarer. Die
Romer annektierten das ganze Banat von Temesvar und gliederten den groBe-
ren Teil davon der Moesia superior an. Der Lauf des Mures war hier die Grenze
bis zu seinem ZusammenfluB mit der TheiB bei Szeged. In Szeged selbst ist
kiirzlich eine romische Inschrift entdeckt worden (veroffentlicht von A.
Alfoldi in “Gli Studi Romani nel Hondo”, 2, 1935, 273); trotzdem kann die
Moglichkeit noch bestehen, daB diese Inschrift von irgendwoher dorthin
verschleppt wurde.
Was die Nord-westgrenze von Dazien betrifft, so gibt es dort gut bezeugte
Reste in der Umgebung von Porolissum: aber siidwarts von dieser Linie
nach dem Mures zu bleibt der Verlauf des Limes, vom dem Teglas so vertrauens
voll berichtete, immer noch ein Ratsel. Zwischen den Karpaten und der
Miindung der Donau jedoch erinnem uns die Entdeckungen, die man bei

154
Poiana am Sereth (dem alien Piroboridava) gemacht hat, daran, daB eine
romische StraBe vom Oituz-PaB nach Galatz lief, und zeigen, dass die Romer
es nicht versaumten die weiten Ebenen der Walachei zu kontrollieren.
Ein Typ von historischen Quellen steht noch zur Diskussion, namlich
die Monumente, belastet mil ganz erheblichen Abweichungen hinsichtlich
Deutung und Auffassung. In erster Linie der Altar und das Siegesdenkmal
bei Adamklissi in der Dobrudscha. Cichorius erorterte, daB Fuscus der Pra-
fekt Domitians, und seine Armee in der Dobrudscha geschlagen worden
seien. Aus diesem AnlaB wurde der Alter errichtet. Auf seiner Verlustrri
liste stand der Name eines Prafekten, mit der Heimatangabe Pompeji. Aber,
wie viele gesehen haben, geht das iiberhaupt nicht. Fuscus ist sicher in Dazien
gefallen (vgl. bes. Martial 6, 76, wenn die Stelle genau und richtig interpre-
tiert wird), ferner kann Fuscus — obwohl diese Frage von Patsch nicht
bertihrt wird — nicht aus Pompeji stammen.
Wenn nicht Fuscus, dann vielleicht Oppius Sabinus, das Opfer der Nie-
derlage zu Beginn der Kriege in Moesien? Patsch ist jedoch gegen diese
Interpretation. Er vermutet, daB Adamklissi der Ort einer unbezeugten
Schlacht im Jahre 85/86 war, einer Episode in der Austreibung von Eindrin-
glingen (nicht nur Dakern) aus Moesien; der Altar selbst ist, wie er meint,
wahrscheinlich ein gemeinsames Denkmal fiir die Soldaten die in samtlichen
dakischen Feldziigen Domitians gefallen sind. Das ist ein verniinftiger
SchluB, sow^eit er den Charakter und die Funktion des Altars betrifft, obgleich
es naturlich voreilig und gewagt ist, solch ein Zeugnis dazu zu gebrauchen,
den Verlauf der militarischen Operationen zu rekonstruieren. Oppius Sabi¬
nus kann nach allem ganz gut hier besiegt worden sein, und nicht, wie Patsch
annimmt, in der Gegend von Novae: sein einziger Grund fur diese Vermu-
tung ist die Existenz einer traianischen Griindung in der Nahe von Novae
mit dem bezeichnenden Namen Nicopolis.
Aber wie steht es mit Trajans groBem Siegesdenkmal in Adamklissi?
Dieses ratselhafte Monument, das durch die Laune der Kunstkritiker von
einem Jahrhundert ins andere gesetz worden ist, ist jetzt in allgemeiner
Obereinstimmung auf sein offenkundiges und richtiges Datum zurtickge-
ftihrt worden. Der domitianische Altar erlautert das trajanische Denkmal,
das ein „Suhnedenkmal“ ist. Die meisten der Barbaren jedoch, die auf den
Reliefs dargestellt sind, sind keine Daker. Patsch identifiziert Sarmaten,
sogar Roxolanen, obwohl hier keine Spur von ihrer Reiterei vorhanden ist.
Ein anderer Typus (am deutlichsten zu sehen auf Metope 17) ist zweifellos
germanisch und wird allgemein als Darstellung der Bastarnen angesehen
[vgl. bes. St. Paulovics,"Germania”, 18 (1934), 271 ff.]. Patsch stellt jedoch
in Abrede, dass diese Bastarnen Germanen waren, eine Frage, auf die hier
nicht eingegangen werden kann.
Beriihmter und auf den ersten Blick weniger zweideutig als historische
Quelle ist die Trajanssaule. Patsch, der damit einer langen Reihe hervorra-
gender Gelehrter folgt, leitet von den Reliefs einen geordneten und ausfiihr-
lichen Bericht der militarischen Operationen ab. In dem Eroffnungsfeldzug
des ersten Krieges begriindet er damit einen Vormarsch gegen das Eiserne
Tor in zwei Kolonnen mit zwei verschiedenen (obgleich nicht sehr entfern-
ten) Obergangen fiber die Donau bei Lederata und bei Dierna, im nachsten

155
Jahr einen Einfall in Dazien dutch den Rotenturm-PaB. Patsch glaubt jedoch
nicht, dass das groBe romische Hauptheer sich von Hermannstadt iiber das
Gebirge westwarts nach Muncel gewandt habe; und darin hat er wahrschein-
lich recht. Beim Ausbruch des zweiten Krieges reiste Traian von Italien zur
See und dann zu Land dutch die Balkanlandet an die Donau. Det Reiseweg,
den et einschlug, ist det Gegenstand gtoBet Meinungsvetschiedenheiten gewe-
sen. Einige mochten Ttajan zu einem gtoBen Umweg iibet Cotinth und Athen
vethelfen. (Webet wat tatsachlich fahig, keine getingete Petson als Hadtian
in einet athenischen Volksmenge zu entdecken.) Patsch will keine dieset
Exttavaganzen zulassen. Et stimmt fiit einen glaubwiitdigen Weg, namlich
flit die Hauptsttasse von Salonae dutch Bosnien nach Sittnium. Vielleicht
hatte et den zwingenden Atgumenten von Stuatt Jones fiit Lissus-Ulpianum-
Naissus meht Beachtung schenken sollen.
Wie detn auch sein mag, eine gtundlegende Ftage ethebt sich bei dieset
wie bei jedet andeten Datstellung det dakischen Ktiege: Wie weit diitfen
wit iibethaupt hoffen, histotische Einzelheiten auf dem Monument zu ent¬
decken? Was wat die Absicht des Kiinstlets, als et die Szenen wahlte, was
wat die Absicht det Regietung, als sie sich entschloss, eine Saule in det selt-
samen Att eines Spitalteliefs zu schmiicken? In dieset Angelegenheit wetden
die schatfsinnigen Beobachtungen von Richmond von alien Fotschetn in
Rechnung gezogen wetden miissen [Trajan’s Army on Trajan’s Column,
“Papets of the British School at Rome”, XIII (1935) 1 ff.]. Richmond legt
dar, daB die Reliefs aus dem Skizzenbuch eines Kiinstlets stammen, und daB
niemals beabsichtigt war, sie so zu reproduzieren und daB sie manchmal
in det Tat von den Bildhauern nicht verstanden wurden.
Was den Zweck des Monumentes betrifft, so bezeugt es nach Richmonds
Worten hauptsachlich, wie unter kaiserlichen Auspizien die Soldaten an
ihre Aufgabe gingen. Es stellt wirklich ein Stiick Geschichte dar, abet meht
die Arbeit, dutch welche Geschichte gemacht wurde. Wenn daher das Thema
heiBt „Die Armee am Werk“, so wird folglich die Moglichkeit entsprechend
geringer, daB die erhaltenen Szenen einen sorgfaltig erarbeiteten topogra-
phischer und historischen Berichte det Feldziige datstellen. Wit verlieren
eine histotische Quelle — oder besser fragwiirdiges Material, iiber das Histo-
riker disputieren konnen —, nabet wit gewinnen viel, namlich in Bezug auf
historisches MaB und in Bezug auf genaue Kenntnis det Waffen, det Ausriis-
tung und det Beschaftigungen det romischen Soldaten. Wit letnen damit
einen typisch romischen Gedanken kennen; Kriegsdienst ist nicht Glanz und
Bewegung sondern schwere Arbeit.
Schwierig ist auch die Aufgabe, Tatsache fiit Tatsache eine Geschichte
aufzubauen, die noch nie geschrieben worden ist. Bei det gegebenen Natur
det Quellen wetden noch viele Piinkte det UngewiBheit oder det Kontro-
verse iibrigbleiben: es ist die Pflicht eines Rezensenten, einige von ihnen zu
erwahnen, nicht um zu kritisieren, sondern um sie in Erinnerung zu bringen.
Die Chronologie und die Einzelheiten det Ktiege Domitians sind besonders
dunkel. Patsch legt ihren Beginn in den Winter 85/86 in det Annahme, daB
die Daker erst den Fluss iiberquerten, als er zugefroren war. Abet das ist
nicht erwiesen, und det Konflikt konnte leicht ganz friih im Jahre 85 aus-
gebrochen sein. Das pannonische Militardiplom vom 5. September 85, das

156
die Verleihung von Privilegien und die Entlassung von Auxiliartruppen
verzeichnet, beweist keinen Friedenszustand: wir haben ein ahnliches Doku-
ment fiir Moesia superior, datiert vom 8. Mai 100 n. Chr., gerade zu Beginn
der Kriege Trajans. Daher konnte man die Expedition des Fuscus iiber die
Donau in das Jahr 86 datieren (nicht wie Patsch es tut, erst in das Jahr 87.
Fiir die erfolgreiche Wiederaufnahme der operationen im Jahre 88 liefert
uns jetzt das syrische Militardiplom vom 7. November 88 {CIL, XVI, 35).
einen niitzlichen Anhalt, indem es zeigt, dass Domitian damals zwei impera-
torische Akklamationen (XVI und XVII) verzeichnen lieB.
Die Bewegungen und die Stationen der Donaulegionen unter Domitian
und Trajan sind ein schwieriges Problem, selbst in den beiden Zeitraumen
verhaltnismaBiger Stabilitat (93—100 und 107—112), wenn man daran den-
ken will, daB Genauigkeit erreicht werden konnte. Nach 93 nimmt Patsch
neun Legionen an der Donau an, vier davon in Pannonien, fiinf in den beiden
moesischen Provinzen. Aber wo waren die moesischen Legionen stationiert?
Es ist nicht genau bekannt, wannDurostorum und Singidunum zuerst Legions-
lager bekamen, ob Ratiaria in dieser Zeit iiberhaupt ein Lager war. Weiter
gibt es keinen bestimmten Beweis fiir die Anwesenheit der Legion V Alaudae,
welche, wenn sie nach 70 noch bestand, in der Katastrophe des Cornelius
Fuscus vernichtet worden sein muB. Patsch vermutet, daB die V Alaudae
und die IV Flavia felix abwechselnd Durostorum besetzen. Die Geschichte
der letzteren Legion ist fiir ihre ersten 30 Jahre an der Donau beklagenswert
dunkel. Obwohl weder Ritterling noch Patsch es gelten zu lassen scheinen,
gibt es wirklich einen ausreichenden Beweis dafiir (viel besser sogar als fiir
die I Adiutrix), daB die IV Flavia felix fiir einige Jahre nach der Eroberung
durch Trajan in Dazien war. Infolgedessen miissen drei Legionen als die
urspriingliche Besagtzung dieser Provinz in den Jahren 107—112 gelten. Aber
iiber dieseund verwandte Dingekannhier nicht weiter diskutiert werden.
Es ist eine groBe Ehre, iiber ein Buch von einem so verehrten und erfahre-
nen Forscher wde Carl Patsch berichten zu diirfen. Seine friiheren Studien
iiber die rbmische Provinz Dalmatien waren an und fiir sich ein geniigender
Anspruch auf dauernde Anerkennung. Trotzdem hat er unermiidlich weiter-
gedrangt. Man kann nur hoffen und bitten, daB er hier nicht stehenbleiben,
sondern die Kraft und den Mut finden moge, die Donaukriege des Marc Aurel
zu behandeln, ein Gebiet, das neuer Untersuchung bedarf, und in das darauf
folgende Jahrhundert fortzuschreiten, als die kriegerische Kraft illyrischer,
pannonischer und thrakischer Romer das Reich rettete — die virtus lllyrici.

X, ADDENDUM.

P. 152 — The policy of Domitian. See also CAH, XI (1936), 185 f.

P. 153 — The generals Quadratus Bassus and Marcius Turbo. For the
detail, cf. Ch. XI.

157
 P. 154 — Dalmatians transplanted to Dacia, For the full account,
C. Daicoviciu, “Dacia”, II (1958), 263 ff.
P. 154 — The survival of the natives. Cf. the Add. to Ch. XI. The scene
on Trajan's column has evoked various interpretations. According to Daico¬
viciu, inhabitants of the great hill fortresses in the neighbourhood of Gra-
distea Muncelului (the capital of Decebalus), are being displaced, to occupy
settlements on the plain [“Dacia”, III (1959), 311 ff.].
P. 154 — Regiments of Dacians. The centurion Aelius Dida on the
inscription at Denton Hall CAE, 1938, 118) in fact has a name that is pal¬
pably Thracian.
P. 154 — Evidence about Napoca. The reference is to the group of sol¬
diers in the African legion III Augusta, recruited early in Hadrian's reign
CCIL, III, 18085). No fewer than nineteen have Napoca as domicilium.
Of their cognomia so far as surviving, two are patently non Latin, viz.
“Bithus” and “Tarsa”. There is also an “Aelius Mucatra” (domicilium not
extant). I was once emboldened to claim them for native Dacians, “Rev.
et. anc.”, XXXVIII (1936), 185. The names are Thracian, as A. Alfoldi
pointed out, Zw den Schicksalen Siehenhilrgens im Alter turn (Budapest, 1944),
31. To be sure, it is not easy to draw the line between Dacian and Thracian.
But these instances seem clear. Hence an argument against the thesis of
Patsch that Trajan's Dacia did not receive immigrants from Thrace.
P. 154 — The boundaries of Trajan's Dacia. There is little to speak
for the notion that a part of the Banat was attached to Moesia Superior.
For the question of Wallachia, cf. the new evidence adduced in the Add.
to Ch. V.
P, 155 — The Altar at Adamklissi, For the problems see above, Ch. IV.
P. 155 — The Trophy at Adamklissi. See the complete and handsome
publication of F.B. Florescu, Monumentul de la Adamklissi: Tropaeum
Traiani (Ed. 2, 1960). For the interpretation of the reliefs, the posthumous
study of I.A. Richmond, “BSR Papers”, XXXV (1967), 29 ff. The fragments
of the inscription CIL, III, 14214) show a dedication to Mars Ultor by
the Emperor Trajan, by his titulature in the year 109. Below, of the next
three lines, can be recovered (1) exerclituls ox per exerclitulm . (2) sufb. (3)
The ablative e of the governor's name. The monument, however, need not
be interpreted as commemoration of any specific victory of Trajan.
Rather, so Richmond suggests, actions of the legions of Moesia Inferior;
the repulse of invaders and retribution falling on them. The adversaries
are Rhoxolani, Bastarnae, Getae (not Dacians from the kingdom of
Decebalus).
In epilogue, a fragment discovered in 1909 in a wall of the municipium
of Tropaeum Traiani, but never published, and no longer extant, deserves
notice. It is supposed to come from the monument, which is assumed to
have carried an identical dedication on each fa9ade. See E. Doru|;iu-Boila,
“Studii Clasice“, VII (1965), 209 ff., with a drawing (212). This justifies
the reading exericitu D[acorum. Where, for the present, the matter may
be allowed to rest.
P. 156 — Trajan's journey in 105. For Brundisium (and not Ancona)
as the Italian port of departure, A. Degrassi, "Rend. Pont. Acc. Rom. di

158
Arch.“, XXII (1946/7), 167 ff., reprinted in Scritti Vari di Antichitd, I
■ (1932), 567 ff. Degrassi takes Trajan across the Adriatic to Dyrrhachium
•and to Lissus. After which, the Roman road by Ulpianum to Naissus, as
proposed long ago by H. Stuart Jones, "BSR Papers”, V (1910), 448 ff.
P. 156 — The interpretation of Trajan’s Column. For the cautious and
sceptical approach, renouncing exact topography, see also C. Daicoviciu,
"‘Dacia“, III (1959), 311 ff.
P. 156 — The chronology of Domitian’s Wars. Like Patsch, Stein puts
the disaster of Cornelius Fuscus in 87, Die Legaten von Moesien (1940), 37 f.
'On Stein’s reconstruction of the events, the Dacian invasion in which
Oppius Sabinus, the legate of Moesia, perished belongs to the spring of 86,
the expedition of Cornelius Fuscus to 87; and Stein brings Domitian twice
to Moesia, in 86, and again in 88 (before the victory of Tettius Julianus at
Tapae). That reconstruction is vulnerable on several points. An alternative
-can be stated and defended — Oppius Sabinus in 85, Fuscus in 86. Thus
CAR, XI (1936), 168 ff., and, with the detail of argument, JRS, XXXV
'(1945), 110 f. (in review of Stein’s book). On that showing, Domitian paid
two visits to the Danube frontier in these years, viz. in 86 and in 89. On
the latter occasion he fought against the Marcomanni and Quadi and superin¬
tended the conclusion of hostilities with the Dacians.
P. 157 — The legions in Moesia. Uncertainties subsist, cf. Ch. VI. But
it is now clear that IV Flavia belongs to the garrison of Trajan’s Dacia. It
should never have been doubted.

159
 XI

GOVERNORS OF DACIA *

A military emperor and an aggressive war, novel phenomena at Rome

after the inertia Caesarum, refreshed the national pride with an inspiration
of youth and vigour. The Dacian Wars are a stirring challenge. Quae denique
tarn poetica et quamquam in verissimis rebus tarn fabulosa materia? So Pliny to
his friend Caninius, with an exhortation to celebrate not battles only but
the triumphs of engineering — dices inmissa terris nova flumina, novos pontes
fluniinibus iniectos (Epp., VIII, 4, 1 f.). The conquest of Dacia might enthral
a poet or a panegyrist. Others will discover their satisfaction only when the
fighting is over. They will turn to the things that elude commemoration in
prose or verse or monument — Dacia annexed according to plan, a new orga¬
nization of the Danube frontier, colonists brought in from far and wide to-
people a desolate land, and the typical forms and institutions of provincial
life, not maturing as elsewhere by growth or persuasion, but prefabricated
and imposed by policy and command.
Dacia, the latest province, ought to be fairly straightforward. Yet
obscurities and controversies subsist. For example the boundaries, the subse¬
quent divisions of the whole territory the defence of the frontiers. Was there
a limes across the gap between the Mountains of Bihar and the Carpathians
in the region of Porolissum where Transylvania lies open to invasion from
the north-west? It has been firmly asserted and strenuously denied. Explo¬
ration is an urgent need; in the meantime, air photographs may have some¬
thing welcome to reveal. Again, the disputes about population, race, and sur¬
vivals. Did any men of Latin speech remain behind when Aurelian evacuated
Dacia? Or for that matter, going further back, how many Dacians survived
the wars and were incorporate in the Roman province? Personal nomencla¬
ture might be decisive. Hence a thoroughgoing attempt to distinguish Dacian
names from Thracian, cf. A. Alfoldi, Zu den Schicksalen Siebenbiirgens im
Alterum (Budapest, 1944). The nineteen recruits from Napoca drafted at the
beginning of Hadrian’s reign into the African legion III Augusta {CIL,
VIII, 18085) arouse curiosity. Napoca was a. municipium Aelium {ILS, 7150),

♦ Arthur Stein, Die Reichsbeamten von Dazien (“Dissertationes Pannonicae”,.

Ser. I, Fasc. 12, 1944).

160
first constituted about that time. Which serves for a reminder that all is
not clear about the internal organization of the province — and were there
any tribal territories within the limits of Trajan’s Dacia?
These questions hardly concern the study entitled Die Reichsheamten
von Dazien. As was observed in a discussion of Die Legaten von Moesien
(JRS, XXXV, (1945), 108 ff.), registers and digests of this kind serve to
elucidate not so much a single province as the general history of the Empire,
military, administrative, and social. That is to say, prosopography in the
forefront. Though not as remunerative asMoesia, for it spans a shorter period
with fewer men of consequence on the roll of governors, Dacia contributes
much that is instructive. Especially three consular legates in the first epoch
of the province (A.D. 106—117/8).
D. Terentius Scaurianus is attested as governor on February 17, 110
(CIL, XVI, 57 = ILS, 2004). His name also appears on two other diplo-
mata that have recently turned up at Porolissum [C. Daicoviciu, “Dacia”,
Vn/VIII (1937-1940), 330 f.; 333 f. = AE, 1944, 57 f.]. The second of
these is dated July 2, 110. The first contains an incongruity. It bears the
date August 17, with the appropriate suffect consuls of the year 106 — a.d.
HI idiis Aug. with L. Minicio Natale, Q. Silvano Graniano cos. But the impe¬
rial titulature is that of llO, as on the two diplomata, the old and the new,
of that year, namiely trih. potest. XIII, imp. VI, cos. V. Moreover, the privi¬
leges are granted, not on discharge, but ante emerita stip (endia). Stein (p. 6)
explains as follows the discrepancy between consular and imperial dates.
The document was originally drawn up in 106 for a soldier ante emerita stip.
But it was not in fact issued until 110, about the same time as the other
diploma (of July 2); the lists of witnesses are identical, and the beneficiaries
belong to the same regiment, coh. I Brittonum milliaria Ulpia torquata
civium Romanorum. It can therefore be concluded that Scaurianus was
governor as early as August, 106. Hence proof that the Second Dacian War
was now terminated. It did not, as some have believed, last into the next
year.
Other diplomata exist with discordant datings. Thus CIL, XVI, 38 and
39 (= ILS, 9053) show the year 93 by Domitian’s titulature, 94 by suffect
consuls, as Lhe Fasti Ostienses now prove {AE, 1940, 92). In this case, so Stein
conjectures (Die Legaten von Moesien, 39), the suffecti were subsequently
added to the formula. Again, CIL XVI, 62 (= ILS 301) with Trajan trib.
potestat. XX, imp. XIII, procos., cos. VI seemed to belong to September 8,
116. The name of one of the suffecti is discerned on the document, Cn. Mini-
cius Faustinas. But the suffecti of 116 are now known {AE, 1936, 97), and
Faustinus is not among them. Therefore he was consul in September, 115,
presumably (114 and 117 are ruled out, for different reasons). Now it appears
on this evidence that either the consular date (as in CIL, XVI, 38 f.) or the
imperial date (as in AE, 1944, 57) may represent a later entry. A disquieting
possibility arises from these manifestations of bureaucratic inadvertence or
incompetence —why not the governor’s name as well? The diploma origi¬
nally dated August 11, 106, by the consules suffecti Natalis and Granianus
was subsequently provided with Trajan’s titles of 110, the year of the man’s
discharge.

161
 The legate of Dacia was then Scaurianus. There is just a chance that he
might not have been legate on August 11, 106. However, every other reason
indicates that Scaurianus was the first governor after the conquest. The colony
of Sarmizegethusa honours him as founder (CIL, III, 1443). Scaurianus, it
might be guessed, had held a command in the Second Dacian war, whether
as a provincial governor (? Moesia Superior) or as an imperial legate leading
an army corps (like C. Julius Ouadratus Bassus and, perhaps, 0. Sosius
Senecio).
Scaurianus came from Gallia Narbonensis, if Groag is right (P-W, ^"A,
669). His son Gentianus won the favour of Trajan and a quick consulate in
116 before he was thirty (ILS, 1046a, cf. AE, 1936, 97). Another Narbonen-
sian worth observation is T. Julius Maximus (cos. suff. 112), especially if,
like young Gentianus, he passed straight into the consulate from a legio¬
nary command (ILS, 1016, cf. remarks in “Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1936
281 ff.). Maximus’ home was Nemausus, a city conspicuous in the Antonine
pedigree with Trajan’s wife Pompeia Plotina, and wdth the maternal grand¬
father of Antonins Pius. It is strange that the unknown senator of a broken
inscription from Nemausus (CIL, XH, 3169) has never tempted speculation.
The Ignotus, related in some way to a lady called Pompeia Marullina, earned
the dona militaria appropriate to a legate of consular rank. The fragment
can be supplemented without discomfort to show him legionary legate under
Nerva and Trajan, and then governor of a praetorian province. His consulate
would therefore fall about 103 or 104 — which fits Scaurianus, with consular
decorations for the Second Dacian War. But prudence recalls that Nemausus
teemed with senators, that other eminent consulai's existed whose careers
are a blank, notably, and before all, that enigmatic person L. Publilius
Celsus (cos. II 113),
Scaurianus’ work, the organization of a province, was the kind of rou¬
tine achievement that generally escaped the annalists or biographers of
imperial Rome. With the death of Trajan, Dacia and its governors leap into
prominence in that most exciting episode of political history, the eleven
months between Hadrian’s proclamation at Antioch by the army of Syria
(August 11, 117), and his arrival in Rome (July 9, 118), there to confront a
Senate that had recently been instructed to sanction the execution of four
of Trajan’s marshals on a charge of conspiring to assassinate the new ruler.
The criminals were Lusius Quietus the Moor, L. Publilius Celsus, A.
Cornelius Palma Frontonianus, and C. Avidius Nigrinus. The whole affair
is highly mysterious, as might be expected, the “conspiracy” not altogether
convincing. The fullest inquiry is that of A.v. Premerstein, Das Attentat
der Konsulare auf Hadrian im Jahre 118 n. Chr. “Klio”, Beiheft VIII (1908).
Premerstein there argued that one of the “Four Consulars”, Nigrinus (suff.
110) was legate of Moesia Superior at the time of Hadrian’s accession and for
five or six months thereafter. The straightforward interpretation of the inscrip¬
tion from Sarmizegethusa (ILS, 2417) indicates, however, not Moesia but
Dacia, as would now be generally conceded, cf. the same writer’s later obser¬
vations, C. lulius Quadratus Bassus, Klient des jungeren Plinitis und General
Trajans, “Bayerische S-B”, (1934), Heft 3, 40 f. With this modification,
Nigrinus emerges as governor of Dacia at the time of Trajan's death, being

162
removed by Hadrian (like Lusius from the command in Judaea). That is
not quite certain. Nigrinus’ tenure might fall elsewhere in the period Hi¬
ll? (cf. “Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 278 f.); and Stein (pp. 10 f.) prefers
to assume that Nigrinus was not still in Dacia in August, 117. Another legate
was there, appointed before Trajan died.

This is C. Julius Ouadratus Bassus, suffect consul in 105 and army com¬
mander in the conquest of Dacia. An inscription found at Pergamum, two
texts on the same block, reveals his career, the occasion of his death — and
many perplexities therewith (“Bayerische S-B” (1934), Heft 3, 15 f.).
The first text, a dedication by the city called “Seleucia at the Bridge”,
otherwise Zeugma, takes him as far as the governorship of Dacia. The
second was inscribed later, by another hand: according to Premerstein
(o.c. 34), at no long interval, early in the reign of Hadrian, though
the formulation tells the other way — that emperor was dead. The
text explains how Bassus died on a campaign during his governorship,
— how his body was conveyed to Pergamum by a guard of honour under the
instructions of Hadrian. On Premerstein’s interpretation it is Hadrian who
sends Bassus to Dacia, there to replace C. Avidius Nigrinus. Stein, however,
assigns the appointment to Trajan (p. 13). Bassus was a senior consular,
with military experience in the Second Dacian War and recently legate of
Syria. The measure is therefore exceptional. It is to be explained by the hypo¬
thesis of trouble on the borders of Dacia. The disturbances mentioned at the
beginning of Hadrian's reign (B.A, Hadr., 5, 2; 6, 6) were already threat¬
ening. This might be so. The earlier of the Pergamene texts, showing
Bassus legate of Dacia, might have been inscribed before, Trajan’s death,
for Trajan is not described as Divus: it designates Bassus as cTpaxTjXaTTQv
YSv6fj,£vov Aaxixou 7roXe[XOU auvxaS-eXovTa xov Ixet 7r6X£g.ov auxoxpaxopt. Tpaiavw.
But it might not. Trajan is imp. Caes., etc. (though not Parthicus) on a dedi¬
cation to Pompeius Falco set up not earliest than the year 123 (ILS, 1035);
and similarly on the recently discovered inscription of Vettius Latro, pro¬
curator of Mauretania Caesariensis, 128 or later (AE 1939 81). It is premature
to decide outright. Premerstein's reconstruction makes the better story —
Hadrian at once taking the province from the unreliable Nigrinus and dis¬
patching Bassus, whom he could trust. In Britain Pompeius Falco was
Hadrian’s first legate, previously governor of Moesia Inferior: one would
like to know the identity of his predecessor. In a season of political insecurity
such displacements tell their own story. There were none in A.D. 14, and
none that mattered when Marcus succeeded Antoninus Pius.
The new emperor in his march across Asia Minor reached Juliopolis in
Bithynia on November 11, 117 (SIG^, 831). Where he wintered is not known
—perhaps Byzantium or Nicomedia, combining the amenities of the Marmara
with the strategic advantages of the imperial highway to the west. Early
spring found Hadrian on or near the lower Danube, and he placated the prince
of the Rhoxolani, resentful at the reduction of his subsidy (HA, Hadr., 6, 8).

163
The "Conspiracy of the Four Consulars” occurred, or was invented, in the
course of spring or early summer. The new evidence about Bassus helps to
fill out the story, but does not make chronology any more precise. All that
can be said is that Bassus died during the winter of 117/118. What matters
is this — Hadrian appointed in his stead not a senatorial legate but a Roman
knight, with special powers, Q. Marcius Turbo.

★ ★

Stein prod ucesa valuable excursus about the occupations of this remark¬
able man in swift sequence during the years 117—119 (pp. 14 ff.). Trajan
charged him with the task of quelling the Jewish insurrection in Egypt
and Cyrene — perhaps a special mandate, as Stein argued in P~W, XV,
1598, though he now suggests that Turbo may actually have been Prefect
of Egypt in 117. The gap available is narrow. M. Rutilius Lupus is still in
office on January 5, and Q. Rammius Martial is turns up before the end of
August (Stein cites the evidence on p. 15). Hadrian then sent Turbo to Maure¬
tania (the inscr. from Rapidum, in Csesariensis, AE, 1911, 108, accepted in
P—W, XIV, 1597, is here omitted as referring to another man). Next comes
the Danubian command, not easily to be defined, HA, Hadr., 6, 7: Marcium
Turbonempost Mauretaniampraefecturae infulis ornatum Pannoniae Daciaeque
ad tempus praefecit; 7, 3: Romam venit Dacia Turhoni credita titulo Aegypiia-
cae praefecturae, quo plus auctoritatis haheret.ornato. Most discussions of
Turbo’s command assume that he had charge not of both Pannonian pro¬
vinces, but only of Pannonia Inferior along with Dacia (in order to deal
with the Sarmatae lazyges lying between the two). L. Minicius Natalis,
legate of Pannonia Superior at Trajan’s death, continued under Hadrian
(ILS, 1029), but there is no evidence for how long Natalis was presumably
not an enemy of Hadrian, and perhaps a friend, though he got no conspi¬
cuous marks of honour (despite Groag, P—W, XV, 1834).
The precise and legal definition of Turbo’s command has exercised the
ingenuity of scholars. Premerstein ["Klio”, Beiheft VIII (1908), 19 ff.],
deducing two stages in his attributions from the two notices in the HA,
supposed that Turbo first of all held the rank of praefectus annonae (or vigi
lum), 0.S, pro legato of the legions in Dacia and Pannonia Inferior, cum iure
gladii; then, when the Emperor left the Danube lands on his way to Rome,
he was styled praefectus Aegypti agens vice legati Augusti pro praetore pro-
vinciae Daciae. The two stages are not an entirely necessary assumption —
and these precisions, juridically utopian, arouse distrust. Hirschfeld was
able to be positive in another direction, denying that procurator belonged
to Turbo’s titulature — “Turbo, der allerdings wohl nicht den Titel procu-
rator gefiihrt haben wird (Die kaiserlichen VerwaliungsheamtevA (1905)
438). And now Stein lays emphasis on the actual title of praefectus Aegypti
— “dass ihm, wie gesagt, der Titel eines Prsefecten von Aegypten verliehen
Oder belassen wurde’’ (p. 15).
Despite these authoritative pronouncements, one cannot but hesitate.
Surely the HA is only trying to say that Turbo had a rank equivalent to
that of d.praefectus Aegypti. Would one expect to find him officially so desig-

164
nated, for example, on an inscription in Dacia? There are in fact two Dacian
dedications to Turbo (CIL III, 1462 = ILS, 1324; 1551), and they style
him praefectus praetorio — but this is the office to which he acceded on leav¬
ing the province in 119. In so far as it was practicable to define his extra¬
ordinary command, the term procurator pro legato might have done, vague,
discreet, and not actually mendacious. The nearest precedent, describing a
peculiar situation under Domitian about the year 89, applies a periphrasis,
not a title — proc. provinciae Asiae quam mandatu principis vice defuncti
procos. rexit (ILS, 1374). Anything like ^roc. Aug. pro consule would have
been rather frightening.
Whatever the title of Q. Marcius Turbo, his function and utility is
evident. Not purely military, as though there were no senator competent to
govern Dacia and intimidate Sarmatians — the danger was not perhaps
very grave — only a tumultus (HA, Hadr. 6, 6) and the Rhoxolani at least
proved amenable to negotiation — but rather political, a flagrant sign of
the Emperor’s insecurity. This is not properly brought out in some modern
accounts (for example, W. Weber in CAH, XI, 303). Turbo kept his post
when Hadrian proceeded to Rome (summer, 118) — and with it, perhaps
the command of a large army, namely troops brought back from the eastern
wars. Among them was a vexillatio of the African legion III Augusta, to
judge by recruits that it picked up, both Oriental (CIL, VIII, 18084) and
from Dacia (ib. 18085).

★ it

Stein has also some incidental remarks of value about the man from
Pergamum, C. Julius Ouadratus Bassus (op. 11 ff.). He is sceptical about
Premerstein’s attribution of the two fragments from Heliopolis of Syria
(CIL, III, 14387 d + w. cf. "Bayerische S-B” (1934), Heft 3, 53 ff.). But
that is a mere trifle. Ever since the discovery of the Pergamene inscription,
four names are a plague and perplexity, (I) C. Julius Quadratus Bassus, the
consular marshal, (2) C. Antius A.Julius Quadratus (cos. suff. 94, cos. II
105), (3) C. Julius Bassus (cos. suff. 105), (4) Julius Bassus the proconsul of
Bithynia, whom Pliny defended.
Briefly put, the debate now stands as follows. Weber conflated (1) and
(2), producing a monster. Herzog identified (1), (3), and (4). This was accept¬
ed by Premerstein, whose long exposition (“Bayerische S-B” (1934), Heft 3)
sought to establish the equation proclaimed by the title of his essay between
Trajan’s marshal and Pliny’ client. Premerstein was positive about the
validity of the combination — it “muss als vollig sicher gelten” (o.c. 13)
Others followed, as M. Schuster (edition of Pliny’s Letters in the Teubner
series), not shunning the word “iiberzeugend” (“Phil. Woch.”, 1935, 231 ff.)
Now comes a calamity — or a blessing. Stein avows disbelief (p. 12), and
so, we are informed, does Groag (P—W, Supp., VII, 311 f). Julius Bassus
the proconsul of Bithynia had previously been quaestor in that province (Pli-
nius, Epp, IV, 9, 6). Neither post occurs on the Pergamene cursus, and it took
strange arguments to explain the omissions. No less disturbing was it to
earn that the man of many tribulations, homo laboriosus et adversis suis cla-

165
rus, and well advanced in years, in procero corpore maesta et squalida senectus,
shook off his disabilities, stepped alertly into a consulate, led a victorious
army, and governed the provinces of Cappadocia, Syria and Dacia. Pliny
indulged in special pleading for a client who, homo simplex et incautus, only
took a few presents on his birthday or in the festive season. The modern advo¬
cates had a shakier case. Pliny’s client is not Trajan’s general. Three per¬
sons are to be distinguished, (1) -f (3), (2) and (4).
These controversies have wide and intricate ramifications. Generously
conceding to the deplorable proconsul a decent interval for decontamination,
Premerstein tried to throw back the prosecution several years — not 103
or 104 (as Mommsen), but 100 (o.c., 72 ff.). This modified the date for the
trial of Varenus, which occurred not long afterwards; and Premerstein con¬
sequently put that affair in 102. Premerstein’s operations not only affected
the chronology of Bithynian governors, senatorial debates, and Plinian cor¬
respondence. They invaded iheFasti, they menaced the proconsuls of Asia.
Caepio Hispo intervened at the trial of Julius Bassus (Plinius, Epp., IV, 9,
16), probably an ex-consul. More explicity, he is M. Eppuleius Proculus Ti.
Caepio Hispo, proconsul of Asia (ILS, 1027) — and proconsul in 117/118
or 118/119, if he is the same person as Galeo Tettienus Severus Ti. Caepio
Hispo (SEG, IV, 532), which Premerstein assumed (and Groag doubted,
P~W, VA, 1103 ff.). Premerstein dated the consulate of Caepio Hispo to
99 {o.c., 77). Not very comfortable and he omitted the notice that a Proculus
was consul suffect in 101 (CIL, XIV, 2243), a Proculus best not to be identi¬
fied with Trebonius Proculus Mettius Modestus, procos. Asiae in 119/120
(833). Again, at the first stage of the proceedings against Varenus,
Cornelius Priscus consularis spoke in the Senate (Plinius, Epp., IV, 20, 7).
If this happened in 102, as Premerstein argued (apparently accepted by
Groag, PIR^, C 1420), the consulate of Cornelius Priscus must fall in or
before 102, at a date earlier than that which his proconsulate (fixed at 120/
121, cf. SIG^, 833) would imply, viz. 103 or 104.
The validity of these objections might not be immediately apparent...
and, scarcely set down in writing, they are rendered superfluous by the emer¬
gence of a small fact, namely [L.Acilius] Rufus, suffect consul in March
of the year 107 (AE, 1945, 35). Thicman was consul designate when the
attackon Varenus was launched (Plinius, Epp., V, 20, 6). The chronology of
Mommsen stands vindicated. At least he was nearer the truth about the trial
of Varenus Rufus than Premerstein — or than Hanslik, who put its begin¬
ning in May, 105, at the latest [Der Prozess des Varenus Rufus, “Wiener
Studien’’, L (1933) , 194 ff.].
*

* *

It is time to leave the labyrinth. C. Julius Quadratus Bassus, the legate

of Dacia, is a factor to be reckoned with in the early months of Hadrian’s
reign. A friend, it is presumed, of Hadrian — and yet, so little do we know,
he might have come to grief had he survived, however solid or conspicuous
his services to that jealous prince. Even Turbo was quickly discarded. There
was ample space for a clash of personalities or ambitions. The whole affair

166
of the Four Consulars deserves fresh investigation. Premerstein drew atten¬
tion to anew source, the account of an attempt on Hadrian’s life in the Ouatoy-
vcofT-ovixa of Polemo the Sophist, a work of which onljA the Arab transla¬
tion survives [R. Foerster, Script, phys. Gr. etLat., I (1893), 138 ff.]. Polemo
delineated in loving detail the features of the miscreant, a repulsive person
called “the man of Qwrnyn”. Premerstein identified him with Lusius the
l\Ioor and used the narrative for reconstructing Hadrian’s movements in
117/118 [“Klio”, Beiheft VIII (1908), 46 ff.; cf. “Bayerische S-B” (1934),
Heft 3, 39 f.]. The matter cannot be gone into here, but it will be noted that,
whereas Groag in discussing Lusius (P~W, XIII, 1875 ff., esp. 1887) was
prepared to accord the hypothesis a fair degree of probability, Stein maintains
a firmly sceptical attitude, preferring to bring the incident into connection
with a later journey of Hadrian in 123/4 (p. 11). Certainly the account of
Hadrian’s movements in 118, as postulated by Premerstein to fit the story
in Polemo, is not at all plausible.
Hadrian’s reversal of foreign policy no doubt vexed many of the marsh¬
als. There were other causes of annoyance and enmity, aggravated by the
death bed adoption at Selinus. Malcontents might quote or anticipate their
Tacitus — per uxorium ambitum et senili adoptione inrepsisse (Ann., I, 7).
And they were not sure that the adoption was authentic. ...
Hadrian gave up Trajan’s conquests in the East. According to Eutro-
pius (VIII, 6, 2) he tried to surrender Dacia, but was deterred by his friends;
and Cassius Dio (LXVHI, 13, 6) has a strange story about the removal of
the superstructure of the Danube bridge. Premerstein took these statements
very seriously — not only was the decision made, but the military evacua¬
tion had begun (“Klio”, Beiheft VIII (1908), 9). His later expressions were
more cautious, though he still referred to Hadrian’s “original plan” (Baye¬
rische S-B” (1934), Heft 3, 45), compare also Stein (p. 17). It is conjectured
that Bassus and Turbo w^ere among the friends whose advice the Emperor
asked and approved. Reasonably enough, were the whole story safe and
plausible. But it is not. The motive alleged, jealousy of Trajan, is obvious
and suspect, the argument that prevailed, ne multi cives Romani barharis
traderentur, was enough not merely to decide but to preclude a debate. If
Hadrian’s lips were not always sealed, his hands were bound by eleven years
of history. Dacia was not a recent, rapid, and precarious acquisition; it had
been deliberately created as the bastion of the Danube defences, organised
and consolidated as an integral member in the Roman provincial system.
The malevolent or the superficial might indeed have pretended that
they had a clue. The Emperor cut down the garrison of Dacia to a single
legion, XIII Gemina. The original establishment was larger, including
surely IV Flavia (cf. ILS, 2417) and probably I Adiutrix, though it must
be added that nothing proves the presence of the latter legion. Argument
from legions only is illusory. One must reckon the auxilia, the primary arm
for battle of for the defence of frontiers. They are a safer indication of the
military needs of a province in the Antonine period (cf. “Laureae Aquincen-
ses”, I (1938), 284 f.). Dacia, like Britain, was amply equipped. Stein (p. 18)
assumes a diminution of the forces, referring to Wagner [Die Dislokation
der r. Auxiliarformationen, etc. (1938), 230], whose remarks do not, however.

167
take one very far in that direction. The two diplomata of 110 added together
give 4 alae and 23 cohortes. The Hadrianic strength may not have been short
of this total. For the reigns of Hadrian and Pius, down to 157, one can arrive
at a minimum of 11 alae and 19 cohortes (Wagner’s statistics from diplomata
and inscriptions).
*

* *

Three changes were made in Dacia during the half-century after the acces¬
sion of Hadrian. The original province being split in 118/119, Dacia Supe¬
rior and Dacia Inferior emerge. Then, c. 158, Apulensis, Porolissensis, and
Malvensis; finally, c. 167, the three “Daciae” are united under a consular
legate. The useful Turbo, it appears, carried out the first reorganization.
Dacia Superior with the legion at Apulum was put under a legate of praeto¬
rian rank. Sex. Minicius Faustinus Cn. Julius Severus (ILS, 1056), is now
attested as governor in 120 (CIL, XVI, 68, following Daicoviciu, though
Nesselhauf, ad. loc., was dubious). Like other praetorian provinces, Dacia
Superior normally brings with it designation to the consulate. Dacia Infe¬
rior was governed by a knight as procurator. While the one province, cen¬
tred in Transylvania, faced west and north, the other, including Oltenia
(Little Wallachia) extended northwards into Transylvania, covering Dacia
Superior on the east and south-east. It may also have taken in some terri¬
tory in the Banat, between Dacia Superior and Moesia Superior (so at least
Stein, p. 18, following Patsch). How much, it is by no means clear [cf. the
observations of Nesselhauf in "Gnomon”, XIV (1938), 515, reviewing V.
Christescu, Istoria militard a Daciei romane (1937)].
The arrangement subsisted until the last years of Antoninus Pius, when
three Dacian provinces are created. It was Premerstein who first divined
what happened and supplied the approximate date (Die Dreiteihmg der
Prowzn^: Z)(2cm, “Wiener Eranos”, (1909), 256 ff.). The northern frontier zone
was severed from Dacia Superior and set up as an independent command,
Dacia Porolissensis, under a proc. Aug. The central remnant, along with
Dacia Inferior, v/as apportioned between two new provinces, Apulensis and
Malvensis. There is no small uncertainty about boundaries. Malvensis takes
its name from a “Colonia Malvensis”, the situation of which is controver¬
sial. None of the inscriptions revealing the name of the colony was found
anywhere on Dacian territory. Patch argued strongly that it lay in the Banat,
Beitrage zur Volkerkunde von Sudosteuropa II: Banater Sarmaten, “Wiener
Anzeiger” LXII (1925), 181 ff., esp. 204 f. He interpreted as d(ecurio) c(olo-
niae) M(alvensis) the abbreviations on a stone from the small town of Denta,
north of Vrsac in the direction of Timisoara (CIL, III, 1555). Therefore
Dacia Malvensis is the Banat; the greater part of the former Dacia Inferior,
Oltenia, must have reverted to Apulensis. Stein accepts the reconstruction
(p. 34). Others, however, will prefer to look for the mysterious colonia in
Oltenia, assuming that region to be the kernel of Dacia Malvensis (so Nessel¬
hauf, “Gnomon”, XIV (1938), 515). Much remains to perplex.
The date, however, seems fairly clear (despite Ritterling, P—IF, XII,
1295). Premerstein, using the evidence of the diplomata, CIL, XVI, 108

168
(Dacia Superior) and 110 (Dacia Porolissensis) put it between, July 8, 158
and September 27, 159. The second document has the suffecti Sex. Calpur-
nius Agricola and Ti. Claudius Julianus. The former (PIR^, C 249) governed
Britain, soon after 161, the later (C 902) Germania Inferior, as early as 160
(ILS, 2907). Stein proposes to put this consular pair back one year to 158,
with evident advantage. The reorganisation therefore took place in the late
summer of 158, and it was effected by M. Statius Priscus, legate of Dacia
Superior in 158, cos. ord. 150. Reinforcements from Africa show that there
was trouble, vexil. Afri\c] et Mauret. Cues, qui sunt cum Mauris gentilib. in
Dacia super. et stmt sub Statio Frisco leg. (CIL, XVI, 108 = ILS, 2006).
Porolissensis was a tiny province but heavily defended, 3 alae and 12 cohortes
[CIL, XVI, 110, and the diploma of 164, AE, 1937, 113, cf. D. Detschew,
Ein neues Militdrdiplom aus Dacia Porolissensis, “Klio”, XXX (1937), 187 ff.].
★

•k -k

The crisis in the East at the beginning of Marcus’ reign, with defeats
inflicted upon the legates of Cappadocia and Syria, drained troops awa}^
from the European armies. Scarcely was the Parthian War terminated when
the storm broke on the northern frontier. For Dacia the permanent results
are a second legion added to the garrison and a consular legate in charge of
"tres Daciae” The evidence is epigraphical, the cardinal documents being
those referring to M. Claudius Pronto (ILS, 1097 f.) and the dedication set
up at Troesmis in Moesia Inferior by a veteran of the legion V Macedonica
(ILS, 2311). The soldier had seen service in the East under three generals,
Statius Priscus, Julius Severus, and Martins Verus, and he had fought in an
expeditio Germanica thereafter under Calpurnius Agricola and Claudius
Pronto, being finally discharged in Dacia by Cornelius Clemens in the year
170. It looks as though the entire legion had marched off, like I Minervia
(led by M. Claudius Pronto, ILS, 1098) and II Adiutrix (ILS, 8977) . Ritter-
ling supposed that it went at once (that is, early in 162) under its legate
P. Martins Verus, Epigraphische Beitrdge zur r. Gesch. II, “Rh. Mus.”, LIX
(1904), 193; P—W, XII, 1302 and 1578. The assumption is attractive but
dubious. P. Martins Verus was still at Troesmis when M. lallius Bassus was
governor of Moesia Inferior (CIL, III, 6169); and lallius seems to be the
successor of M. Servilius Fabianus Maximus, who is attested in 163 by the
inscription published in “Jahreshefte”, XVI (1913), Beiblatt 209 f., cf. Stein,
Die Legaten von Moesien, 76 f.
However that may be, P. Martins Verus fought in the East, and stayed
there. The legion came back. It was soon transferred to Dacia and established
at Potaissa. It was certainly in Dacia in 170 (ILS, 2311). Ritterling assigned
its arrival to the year 167 (P—W, XII, 1579), but Stein prefers the end of
168, or 169 (p. 40). In itself, a date as early as 166 might not seem excluded,
forV Macedonica could have returned from the East in that year: Verus
held his triumph in the summer. But the question turns rather on the con¬
sular governor and the interpretation of ILS, 1097 f., cf. A.v. Premerstein,
“Wiener Eranos”, (1909), 268 f., followed by Groag, P/R^ C 874, and by
Stein (pp. 38 ff.). M. Claudius Pronto after his consulate (? 165), after levying

169
recruits in Italy and holding the post of curator operum locorumque puhli-
corum, is occupied in a rapid succession of commands which, on Premer-
stein’s reading of the troublesome inscription ILS, 1098 (Ligorio alone
vouches for it), appear to be (I) Moesia Superior, (2) Moesia Superior + Dacia
Apulensis, (3) TresDaciae, (4) Tres Daciae + Moesia Superior. On this show¬
ing Fronto's governorship of Tres Daciae need not begin before 168 — and
he fell in battle in 170, in which year another legate is already attested. Sex.
Cornelius Clemens (ILS, 2311). A question that might remain, and some
raise it, is whether Fronto is in fact the first in the series of consular legates.
See further below, on L. Aemilius Cams and Sex. Calpurnius Agricola.
The new arrangements, and especially the relations between Dacia and
its three components, are peculiar and hard to define. Stein makes a careful
analysis (pp. 41 ff.), and seeks analogies, for example, in Spain, though not
with full cogency, as he admits. The legates of the two legions, in Apulensis
and in Porolissensis respectively, are not provincial governors, as previously
the commander of XIII Gemina administering Dacia Superior, but are only
legg. Aug. Yet they have charge of territories quasi-provincial in character,
designated as “provinciae”. Again, the procurator of Dacia Malvensis in the
system of Tres Daciae is not merely a financial official (p. 86).
★

★ ★

As would be expected, precision of technique combines with fresh infor¬

mation to emend as well as to enlarge the Fasti of Dacia. The most acute and
the most careful of reconstructions may be set at naught by a new inscrip¬
tion — or a new idea. The lists of governors furnished by Hiittl, Antonimis
Pius, II (1933) and by Lambrechts, La composition du Senat remain de Lacces¬
sion au trone d’Hadrien d la mort de Commode (117—192), published in 1936,
must now submit to improvement in content, order, and dating. There are
even some disagreements with Groag’s conclusions in the recent volumes of
PLR^, (A-B, 1933; C, 1936).
The following prosopographical items of the period 120—170 may be
noted. For Dacia Superior Stein with three new names (pp. 20; 26 f.) outbids
Lambrecht’s list (o.c., 125), though one of them, Q. Aburnius Caedicianus
(ILS, 3010), is conceivably only a leg. leg. in Trajan's Dacia. Stein inclines
to reject, as insufficiently authenticated, a certain Terentius (LLS, 303),
whom Hiittl and Lambrechts fancy. Hiittl (Antoninus Pius, II, 76) supposed
that he might be a grandson of Scaurianus. An identification with Cn. Teren¬
tius Homullus (cos. suff. 146) would be preferable. C. Curtius Justus is now
moved back several years, to precede M. Sedatius Severianus (suff. 153) in
Dacia, for his consulate must fall in 151, or shortly before (pp. 23 f.). More
serious, Lambrechts (o.c., 225) lists three consular governors of TresDaciae
in the period 161—8, before M. Claudius Fronto, namely P. Furius Saturni-
nus, P. Calpurnius Proculus, and Sex. Calpurnius Agricola. The first two
instances are surely only errors in classification. Saturninus is a praetorian
legate of Dacia Apulensis, the successor of M. Statius Priscus. His is describ¬
ed as cos. des. while in Dacia (CIL, III, 1171). And, if he stays there during
his consulate (1177, etc.), that is nothing unusual for praetorian governors

170
 in the age of the Antonines, and it does not elevate him into the category
of M. Claudius Fronto. As for Calpurnius Proculus, leg. Augg. pro pr. (CIL,
III, 1007), there is no evidence about this rank: presumably a praetorian
governor c. 162—5.
Sex._ Calpurnius Agricola (suff. 158 or 159) is another matter. He parti¬
cipated in an “expeditio Germanica” for the veteran of V Mac. already dis¬
cussed had served suh [Cal]pur. Agricola, Cl. Fronto[n]e c.v. (ILS, 2311).
On this evidence some incline to believe that Agricola was consular legate of
Tres Daciae before M. Claudius Fronto, for example, Premerstein, “Wiener
Eranos”, 269; Ritterling, P-W, XII, 1579; Groag, PIR\ C 249. Stein dis¬
sents (p. 41). He suggests that Agricola was not governor of Dacia, but only
“comes Veri Augusti" in the war against the Marcomanni.
Agricola had been governor of Britain succeeding M. Statius Priscus,
as is generally agreed {ci. PIR^, C 249). Now Priscus, cos. ord. in 159, and
thereupon curator alvei Tiberis, held in rapid succession the governorships
of Moesia Superior, Britain, and Cappadocia (ILS, 1092). His predecessor
in the Cappadocian command was the unfortunate Sedatius Severianus (who
perished, at the latest, early in 162); and in 163 he captured the city of
Artaxata. Stein argues that Agricola was in Britain before Statius Priscus
(p. 33). This is uncomfortable — or rather, impossible. Agricola must follow
Priscus. The latest reconstruction of the fragmentary inscription from Cor-
bridge (AA^, IX (1912), 265, there assigned to 161), supplemented to give
Verus the title Armeniacus with trih. pot. Ill, shows that in 164 (or at least
at some time between December 10, 163, and December 10, 164) the governor
was Sex. Calpurnius Agricola, cf. W. Bulmer, A fragmentary inscription of
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from Corbridge, AA'^, XXI (1943), 239 ff.
The text is reproduced in JRS, XXXIV, 86.
Another vir consularis also concerns the history of Britain, though not
so directly. L. Aemilius Cams governed Tres Daciae (ILS, 4398, etc.). Pre¬
merstein supposed he was the first in the series (“Wiener Eranos", 266 ff.),
and Groag put him between 161 and 164 (PIR^, A 338). Stein disagrees,
suggesting the period 172—7, compare also Lambrechts, o.c., 114: “ou bien
entre 169—176 ou bien sous Commode"; 225: “un peu apres 180.” It will be
recalled that the change in the administration of Dacia appears linked with
the arrival of V Macedonica, that there is a strong presumption in favour
of M. Claudius Fronto as the first of the consular legates. Yet it is not impos¬
sible that L. Aemilius Carus either preceded or followed Fronto — in either
case the briefest of tenures. Age, battle, or the pestilence that came out of
the East in the train of the victorious legions may have carried off several
of the consulars.
A question of identity is concerned. Premerstein and Groag hold him
for the same person as the L. Aemilius Carus of the inscr. from Rome, ILS,
1077. The objection is his presumed age. Ritterling drew attention to the
fact that this Carus had been tr.mil. in IX Hispana, a legion of Britain which
disappeared early in the reign of Hadrian (P—W, XII, 1669). Further,
he was governor of Arabia in 142/3 (AE, 1909, 236), and presumably consul
soon after. Indeed, precision can here be attempted. The inscr. CIL, VI,
30868 attests L. Aemilius and 0. Egrilius as colleagues. Groag suggested

171
that the latter was the legate to the anonymous proconsul of Africa in 159
(PIR^, A 323), but, since Alf. Merlin has now succeeded, by combining the
inscriptions CIL, VIII, 800 and 1177 (AE, 1942/3, 85), in recovering the
name of the proconsul himself as an Egrilius Plarianus, the consular pair in
question can be assigned to 143 or 144 and identified as L. Aemilius (Cams)
and Q. Egrilius (Plarianus). This L. Aemilius Cams, according to Ritterling
(P—W, XII, 1669), is the parent of the leg. Aug. pr. pr. Ill Daciarum.
Hiittl (o.c., 68f.) and Lambrechts (o.c. 114) concurred. Stein adds his autho¬
rity (pp. 45 f.).
Their case is strong, but not quite proved. Men advanced more slowly
in their careers than is often supposed — another tr. mil. of IX Hispana
did not reach the consulate until 150 (ILS, 1070). Moreover, the emergencies
of war, setting a premium upon military, or at least administrative, expe¬
rience, may have reinforced an Antonine predilection for the elderly, ut,
quod segnitia erat, sapientia vocaretur. Note L. Lollianus Avitus (cos. 144)
who governed Bithynia-Pontus in 165 (IGR, III, 84), or better, the eminent
senator of the acephalous inscr., ILS, 1100, commonly but hot incontrover-
tibly identified with M. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus (suff. 144). This
man was a “comes” of Marcus and Verus in the “bellum Germanicum”, yet
his tribunate lay far back in the past” — trib. mil. leg. VI Victr., cum qua
ex Germ, in Brittan. transiit. The legion VI Victrix was brought over from
Germania Inferior to replace IX Hispana.
★

★ *

In one way or another the Fasti of Dacia take in a large slice of the high
imperial personnel during the years of crisis under M. Aurelius — the older
generals, good, or bad, such as M. Sedatius Severianus (6 rik'Sioc, exstvo?
ViRzoc,, Lucian, Alex., 27), M. Statius Priscus, whose long career began
in the equestrian service. Sex. Calpurnius Agricola, of whom nothing is
known before his consulate, and others, then the rising marshals ennobled
for exploits in the eastern campaigns like M. Claudius Eronto (P. Martius
Verus and C. Avidius Cassius also belong to that category). There is no end
to the prosopographical questions suggested by this slender but compact
volume. Stein closes with a short chapter commenting on the careers and ori¬
gins of legates and procurators (pp. 100 ff.). He finds a relatively high pro¬
portion of Italians as against provincials, eight or nine out of the twenty-two
singlecl out on a very strict criterion of evidence. Stein affirms that this kind
of “soziale Strukturforschung” is the most important task in imperial Roman
studies (p. 108).
The last of the legates is D. Simonius Proculus Julianus (c. 242), and
before long, chaos engulfs the Danubian lands. The name of Arthur Stein,
“stud, phil”., occurred in that remarkable prosopographical document, the
list of the first contributors to the new Pauly in 1896. Vienna knew himi and
Prague. His Romische Reichsheamte der Provinz Thracia appeared at Sarajevo
in 1920. Now it is Budapest that publishes the annals of Moesia and of Dacia.
Gratitude for Stein’s unremitting labours will not omit a proper tribute to
the editor of “Dissertationes Pannonicae.”

172
 XI. ADDENDUM

P. 160 — The epic poem of Caninius. See “Latomus”, XXIII (1964)

752 f.
P. 160 — Organisation after the conquest. See in general the detailed
and lucid paper of M. Macrea, “Dacia”, XI (1967), 121 ff.
P. 160 — Survival of the natives. See C. Daicoviciu, La Transylvanie
dans I’Antiquite (Bucarest, 1945), 116 ff.; M. Macrea, “Dacia”, I (1957),
205 ff.; D. Protase, Problema continuitdtii in Dacia etc. 1966).
P. 161 — The governor D. Terentius Scaurianus. The new diplomata
are registered as CIL, XVI, 160 and 163.
P. 161 — Dating on diplomata. The consulship of Cn. Minicius Fausti-
nus (CIL, XVI, 62) should be assigned to 117. There hardly seems room
for 115. For the problems of that year, cf. “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 492 f. •
“Historia”, XIV (1965), 348 f.
P. 162 — The career of T. Julius Maximus (sujj. 112). See now the
Add. to Ch. V. He was legate of Pannonia Inferior in 110 (CIL, XVI, 164) ;
nor had he benefited from any special favour.
P. 162 — The career of Scaurianus. For his consulship either 102 or
104 is appropriate: the sujfecti of 103 have been disclosed by a fragment of
the Fasti Ostienses (AE, 1954, 223). If he will be identical with the Ignotus
of Nemausus (CIL, XII, 3169), then presumably 102. There is a chance, howe¬
ver, that the Ignotus is L. Fabius Justus (supf. 102), cf. JRS, XLVII (1957),
134; Tacitus (1958), 646. For Scaurianus, before Dacia a brief tenure of
Moesia Superior is not excluded, succeding L. Herennius Saturninus (sufj.
100). In 105 Fabius Justus took the place of Caecilius Faustinas in Moesia
Inferior, cf. the remarks on Hunt’s Pridianum in Ch. VII.
P. 162 — The four Consulars. See the remarks, highly scepticel, in
Tacitus (1958), 244 f.; 599 f.
P. 163 — C. Julius Quadratus Bassus {sufp. 105). See now PIR^, J
508. It is there assumed that he went to Dacia before the death of Trajan.
P. 164 — Q. Marcius Turbo. That Turbo in fact held the prefecture
of Egypt was later argued by Stein, Die Prdfekten von Agypten (1950), 59f.
He was influenced by Leschi's restoration (AE, 1946, 113) of the two pieces
at Caesarea (AE, 1931, 25 + a new fragment, the right side of the
block). In 1, 3 Leschi read praej. A'\eg., attributing the inscription to
Turbo, not to the known procurator of Mauretania Caesariensis T. FI. Pris¬
ons Gallonius Fronto Marcius Turbo (AE, 1911, 108: Rapidum). There
was wide assent, e.g. P/i? G 50 f. Against,/R5, XLIV (1954), 118. Moreo¬
ver, Turbo's name and origin emerged on an inscription found at Cyrrhus
in Syria — (2. Marcio]IC. jil. Tro. Frontoni Turhonij Puhlicio Severo,
domo Epidauro (AE, 1955, 225). The man at Rapidum belongs a generation
later. Before his governorship of Caesariensis he was^ro /] eg. et praej. prov.
Dac[iae]l injerioris. For the full statement, see JRS, LII (1962), 91 ff. It
was there suggested that he held Dacia Inferior at the time of the war under
Pius c. 142, rather than during the later troubles c. 157 (ib. 92). But the
later dating is in no way excluded.

173
 P. 165 — Warfare in 117/8. Though the Rhoxolani may be played
down, there are the Sarmatae lazyges to be reckoned with on the other flank
of Dacia. An earlier passage in the HA has Sarmatae helium injerebant
(Hadr., 5, 2). However, the attempt of Pflaum and Dobias to assign to
this date and occasion the exploits of a legate of XIII Gemina (ILS, 1017)
was abortive, cf. the Add. to Ch. V. Apart from the question of the lazyges,
trouble with the Carpi on the north-eastern border of Dacia might be
admitted.
P. 165 — The prosecution of Julius Bassus. Babius Macer spoke when
consul designate (Plinius, Epp., IV, 9, 16). Ostia now reveals Q. Baehi\us
Macer] consul early in 103, perhaps on March 1 (AE, 1954, 223). Here as
elsewhei^, Mommsen’s chronology in its main outlines ought never to have
been impugned.
P. 166 — Pronconsuls of Asia. See the list in Tacitus (1958), 665. Caepio
Hispo can stand at 118/9, consul either in 101 or in 102. There is a chance
that he is not the “Proculus” who was sufjectus in 101. Caepio's colleague
was Rubrius Gallus (Dig., XL, 5, 26, 7). Hence perhaps rather 102. Q. Ser-
vaeus Innocens (suff. 101) now emerges as proconsul on an inscription of
Ephesus [“Jahreshefte”, XLIV (1959), Beiblatt 266], presumably in 117/8,
expelling Cornutus Tertullus, who falls to Africa, not Asia, cf. “Rev.et.anc.”,
LXVII (1965), 343. Further, Cornelius Priscus, proconsul in 120/121,
sufjectus therefore in 103 or 104. The former year is now excluded.
P. 166 — Turbo, Hadrian’s friend. The statement “quickly discarded”
lacks foundation. There is nothing to go on but the Historia Augusta —
Ummidium Quadratum et Catilium Severum et Turhonem graviter insecutus
est (Hadr., 15, 7). The first two names point to the dissensions towards the
close of the reign, cf. “Historia” XVII (1968), 95 f. There is no clear evidence
to show how long Turbo held the Guard after the demotion of his colleague
Septicius Clarus, ostensibly in 122 (Hadr., 11, 3). However, the anecdote
about Fronto (suff. 143) in Dio, LXIX, 18, 3 should take him as far as the
vicinity of 130. The next named prefects on record are M. Petronius Mamer-
tinus and M. Gavius Maximus, attested together in 139 (CIL, VI, 31147).
P. 167 — Hadrian and Dacia. To sway Hadrian and keep Dacia for
Rome, the sagacious counsel of Bassus was also invoked by E. Kornemann,
Gestalten und Reiche (1943), 317. There was in fact a surrender (as now
emerges) — but of territories beyond the Danube which Trajan had added
to Moesia Inferior, cf. the Add. to Ch. V.
P. 167 — The garrison of Trajan’s Dacia. Three legions may confi¬
dently be assumed. For IV Flavia see the new evidence in the Add. to Ch.
V. And where else is I Adiutrix likely to have been? Observe further that
Moesia Inferior probably had four legions from 106 to 112.
P. 167 — Ailxilia in Dacia. See the Add. to Ch. V.
P. 167 — Dacia Superior. For the first legate. Sex. Julius Severus
(suff. 127) see now RIR J 576 and the Add. to Ch. VI. He is attested by
two diplomata of 120 (CIL, XVI, 68; AE, 1958, 30). A new diploma found
at Tibiscum shows him still there on January 31 (or February 12) of the
year 126. Noted in “Historia”, XIV (1965), 343; published by C. Daicoviciu

174
 and L. Groza, “Acta Musei Napocensis”, II (1965), 135 f. The long tenure,
119 to 126, or even into 127, is remarkable.
P. 168 — The division of Dacia Superior. The standard arguments
and dating were recently abolished at one blow by the discovery of the
diploma of 133 for the army in Dacia Porolissensis under Flavius Italicus:
published by C. Daicoviciu and D. Protase, JRS, LI (1961), 63 ff., whence
AE, 1962, 255. The change probably took place in 124.
P. 168 — Dacia Malvensis. Surely Oltenia, as now argued by Nessel-
hauf, “Madrider Mitteilungen”, V (1964), 180 ff. He produces a convincing
revision and interpretation of CIL, II, 1180 = ILS, 1403 (Hispalis). The
equestrian officer Sex. Julius Possessor had been curatori civitatis Romulen-
sium, m. Arjvensium. It being possible to interpret civitas Romulensium
as Hispalis, the ?n(unicipium) Arvensiwn was naturally sought in Spain.
Nesselhauf reads Romulensium Malvensium. That is, Romula, some¬
where in Oltenia, Malva being the native name: localised at Resca on the
Olt by D. Tudor, Oltenia Romana (1958), 156 ff. Dacia Malvensis is thus
parallel in its nomenclature to Porolissensis, and to Apulensis. The latter
emerged in the late sixties as the term for Dacia Superior, as registered in
the command held by M. Claudius Fronto (ILS, 1098); and the first procu¬
rator governing Malvensis is patently M. Macrinius Vindex c. 168 (ILS
1107). Hence the “Tres Daciae”.
The theory of Patsch, that Malvensis is the Banat, still finds cham¬
pions. Thus C. and H. Daicoviciu, “Acta Musei Napocensis”, IV (1967), 73 ff.
P. 169 — The legion V Macedonica. It was under its legate Martins
Verus when lallius Bassus was governor of Moesia Inferior (CIL, III, 6169).
Now Stein put lallius Bassus successor to Servilius Fabianus Maximus,
who is attested in 163; and Stein is followed by J. Fitz. Die Laujbahn der
Statthalter in der romischen Provinz Moesia Inferior (Weimar, 1966), 48.
A reversal of the order, with lallius to precede Servilius is to be commen¬
ded, cf. arguments adduces in “Dacia”, XII (1988), see Ch. XIV, Martins
Verus and his legion therefore departed at once.
P. 170 — Praetorian legates of Dacia Superior, 119—167. The first
was Sex. Julius Severus (suff. 127) until 126 or even 127. There is room for
either one or two before Cn. Papirius Aelianus (suff. c. 135), attested in
132. Next, C. Julius Bassus (suff. 139), on record in 135. Then L. Annius
Fabianus (CIL, III, 7972) can now be inserted: a fragment of the Fasti
Ostienses (AE, 1959, 38) puts his consulship c. 141: to precede Q. Mustius
Priscus (si^ff. c. 144), attested in 144. After Mustius the governor and consul
whose name ended in “-dius” (CIL, III, 1465), noted by Stein on p. 27,
would fit in, if he were P. Orfidius Senecio (suff. 148): for this conjecture,
cf. JRS, XLIII (1953), 160. Then follow C. Curtius Justus (suff. 150 or
151) and M. Sedatius Severianus (suff. 153). After a gap comes M. Statius
Priscus (cos. 159), certified for 157 and for 158. His successor is patently
P. Furius Saturninus (suff. 161 or 162). Finally room for two legates before
167, one of whom is probably P. Calpurnius Proculus (PIR C. 304),
described as leg. Augg. pro pr. (CIL, HI, 1007): thus Stein, p. 36.
On this showing, there are either three or four gaps in a long run of
years; and it is instructive to compare the figures for other praetorian pro-

175
vinces, notably Pannonia Inferior, cf. “Histona”, XIV (1965), 355 ff. To
conclude: are there any candidates for the missing places? Ti. Julius Flac-
cinus (PIR J 310) should fall in the period (cf. Stein, p. 27) — and before
161, since he is leg. Aug. pr. pr. on the three inscriptions. But the Terentius
of ILS, 4303 should be ruled out; and, as already indicated, Q. Aburnius
Caedicianus (^/L5,3010) may be a legionary legate of the period 107—118.
Again, the governor "Jsidius” of the bronze tablet at Potaissa (CIL, III,
12456) is a consular and presumably subsequent to 167 (cf. Stein, p. 74):
one may observe the existence of “Tusidiujs Campester”, consul suffect
presumably in 165, cf. the annotation on that year in Degrassi, / Fasti
Consolari (1952).
P. 171 — Consular legates of “Tres Daciae”. As indicated. Sex. Cal-
purnius Agricola (sujj. 158 or 159) is plausible as the predecessor (a brief
tenure) of M. Claudius Pronto. The inscription at Corbridge is on record
as AE, 1947, 128. Further, P. Calpurnius Proculus (PIR C 304) might
be a consular of a later date; and note also the governor “Jsidius” mentioned
above,
P. 171 — L. Aemilius Cams. His consulate should be put in 144 rather
than in 143. Nor is 145 excluded. Either year would be in consonance with
the African proconsulate of his colleague Q. Egrilius Plarianus, fixed to
159/60, with T. Prifernius Paetus (suJJ. 146) to follow, cf. “Rev. et. anc.”
LXI (1959), 318. It should now be conceded that a homonymous son is much
more likely to be the governor of Dacia. One of the parallels for an elderly
governor cited, viz. L. Lollianus Avitus (cos. 144), holding Bithynia-Pon-
tus in 165, is imperfect: being an aristocrat, he came to the consulate about
seven years younger than the novus homo Aemilius Carus.

176
 XII

GOVERNORS OF PANNONIA *

In the record and estimation of the Augustan wars, Germany tends to

have the primacy before Illyricum. For various reasons, not only the fuller
sources and the catastrophe of three legions destroyed. The result is a dis¬
tortion of perspective. The subjugation of Illyricum and advance to the
Danube is not merely paraded in an official document (Res Gestae, 30). It is
enduring achievement ©f the Principate of Caesar Augustus — army link¬
ed to army and province to province, control won of the land route to the
Balkans. The reconquest in A.D. 6—9 reveals something of the truth, and
the magnitude of the task, though not everybody might be ready to concede
that the rebellion of the Pannonians and Dalmatians confronted Rome with
the gravest of foreign wars since Hannibal (Suetonius, Tib., 16).
After the great rebellion Illyricum was divided into the two provinces,
the upper and the lower, which soon acquired the names of Dalmatia and
Pannonia. War or peace, Pannonia is destined to be the keystone of the
imperial arch. When it breaks, at the narrow neck between Vienna and the
head of the Adriatic, the separation of West and East is decided and irrevoc¬
able.
With a garrison of three legions to begin with, Pannonia drops to two
c. A.D. 45, and Vespasian keeps to that total. Domitian’s wars announce a
change. Before the end of his reign Pannonia rises to four legions, becoming
for a time the strongest single command in the Empire, and never again to
be out of the reckoning. Germania Superior produced an emperor in 97
(M. Ulpius Trajanus whom Nerva was constrained to adopt as son and succes¬
sor), but the identity of the governor of Pannonia must have mattered very
much in that critical year. Pannonia will also have been vital when Trajan
died. Hadrian, choosing Aelius Caesar as his heir, sent him there in 137; and
Carnuntum proclaimed an emperor in 193.
It is valuable and welcome to have a register of the imperial legates
governing Pannonia, to parallel Stein on Moesia and Dacia. Ritterling in a

* Walter Reidinger, Die Statthalter des ungeteilten Pannonien und Oberpanno-

niens von Augustus bis Diokletian. Mit einem Anhang von Hans Lieb: Der praeses
aus Sbeitla, Bonn, 1956, (Antiquitas, Reihe 1).

177
pioneer and model study dealt with Pannonia before its division (which
must fall in the period 103—107), thence continuing with Pannonia Superior
(in 1897), and he later added the governors of Pannonia Inferior (in 1927).
Neither list is easily accessible. Fresh evidence of various kinds has accrued,
bringing corrections and supplements. Reidinger puts his beginning in
A.D. 8, proceeds with Pannonia Superior alone after 103, and carries the
tale down to the latest discoverable governors, namely Regalianus and the
Anonymus recently revealed by an inscription found at Sufetula (AE, 1949,
61, improved in, AE, 1955, 95). The latter person is discussed by H. Lieb
in an appendix tot his book, entitled “Der Praeses aus Sbeitla”. Further, it
should be mentioned that R.'s manuscript was used by M. Pavan when com¬
posing his monograph La provincia Romana della Pannonia Superior [“Mem.
Acc. Lincei” 8, (1955) 373—574]. He adopts a number of R.'s date and identi¬
fications.
Wars and commands, chronology and governors in the thirty or forty
years preceding the rebellion of A.D.6 present a tangle of problems; and some¬
thing might have to be said about Macedonia and Moesia. To begin with
A.D. 8 cannot obviate ih.e.rx^ediioT prolegomena about Illyricum previous to
the emergence of Pannonia as a separate province. The author furnishes a
brief sketch (11—21), not wholly adequate.
One of the perplexities is the extent of Roman Illyricum in the early
years of Augustus’ rule and the status of its governors.
*

E. Swoboda argued that Octavianus in 35 and 34 B.C. had annexed the

whole of the valley of the Save as far as its confluence with the Danube (that
is to say, within sight of Belgrade); also Bosnia and something of Western
Serbia, approximately as far as the later boundary between the provinces of
Dalmatia and Moesia (Octavian und Illyricum, 1932). It is not easy to credit
such wide conquests at this time. Certain pieces of evidence tell against the
theory. For example, Tiberius in 12—19 B.C. conquered the Pannoniorum
gentes qua[s a']nte me principem populi Romani exercitus nunquam adit (Res
Gestae, 30). Among them were the Breuci, athwart the Save between Siscia
Sirmium (Suetonius, Tib., 9); and the three great tribes of Bosnia (Ditiones,
Maezaei, Daesitiates) were reckoned by Strabo as Pannonian (VII, p. 314).
Compare the argument developed in JRS, XXIII (1933) 66 ff; CAH, X
(1934) 355 ff; “Rev. int. des etudes balkaniques”. III (1937) 33 ff. R. does
not seem to have become aware of these difficulties. Accepting Swoboda’s
view, he assumes that in 27 the southern part of Illyricum was left to the
Senate, whereas Augustus kept for himself the northern part along with the
military garrison (13). It would indeed be worth knowing what area this
northern command is deemed to embrace. No evidence for its existence
can be discovered, no legatus Augusti pro praetore. On the contrary. When
Istria was invaded by raiders in 16 B.C., P. Silius Nerva (cos. 20 B.C.)
intervened (Dio,LIV,20,2): he was proconsul of Illyricum (^/LS, 899 ;Aenona)
Of provinces with legionary garrisons it was not only Africa that was left
to proconsuls in 27, but also (it appears) both Illyricum and Macedonia.

178
When was Illyricum taken into the portion of the Princeps? R. reproduces
the standard date, 11 B.C. (Dio LIV, 34, 4). Surely too late by a year at
least (Tiberius was legate of Illyricum in 12 B.C.), perhaps by two or three
years.
*

* *

A brief indication must suffice. It is not practicable here to discuss those

problems as fully as they deserve. And, indeed, a list of governors, arranged,
elucidated and exploited, has a value far transcending the affairs of any pro¬
vince or region. It enables one to investigate the imperial administration at
its highest level, namely the consular legates. Hence, and further, political
and social history.
On a superficial view such a catalogue might seem a narrow and restrict¬
ed enterprise, calling for little more than the modest gifts of accuracy and
orderly compilation. It is soon apparent that it requires a variety of resour¬
ces and techniques — the senatorial cursus to be studied as a whole, consular
Fasti and the missing consuls, the age for the consulate with its differentials,
family relationships, habits of nomenclature, local origins. Also, governors
of other provinces for guidance, in order to establish what is normal, what
exceptional, and where the margins of uncertainty!ie. It is natural to look
for system and regularity. But favour, accident and emergency operate all
the time, with odd facts overturning the most plausible assumptions. A
crisis, military or political, can produce a rapid sequence of governors — or,
contrariwise, loyal and experienced men prolonged in their commands.
And there are the gaps in knowledge. For example, no legate known
under Tiberius in the indeterminate interval between Q. Junius Blaesus,
who was in Pannonia in 14, and C. Calvisius Sabinus, first attested under
Caligula. Under Domitian, from 85/6 to the end of the reign only two names
— supplied by conjecture, without irrefragable evidence. Under Trajan
again, after 102, two names (conjectural) before L. Minicius Natalis (in 116).
Under Hadrian, nearly twenty years void except for two legates between
Natalis and the sending of Aelius Caesar.
The author supplies an appendix dealing with careers and origins of
governors, confined to the twenty-two names for which the evidence appears
to permit conclusions of any value (119—128). He notes such matters as the
previous occupations of legates, rapid or slow access after the consulate,
duration of tenure and the like. These few pages call for supplementation
under various heads.
*
* * ‘

Governors of Pannonia should seem by definition to be viri militares.

Not all of them had had much experience with the armies hitherto. It would
have been worth while pointing out, for example, that C. Ummidius Ouadra-
tus (ILS, 972) and L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus (ILS, 1081) did not hold
the post of legatus legionis. In the quickest type of promotion in the imperial
commands a legion followed by a praetorian province can take a man in a

179
straight run to the consulate which he thus holds four or five years short of
the normal age (forty-two). The cardinal function of the praetorian province
deserves to be brought out clearly [cf. observations in JRS, XLIII (1953),
152 f], even though only six (or rather perhaps five) of the governors discus¬
sed by R. are known to have come to the consulship by this path (124).
There are eight of these posts under the Flavian emperors and Trajan brings
the total to twelve which (with changes and permutations) subsists under
Hadrian and Pius. The practice had quickly grown up whereby the praeto¬
rian province indicates that a man is pretty sure of being consul (Tacitus,
Agr., 9, 1). The collegiate prefects of the Aerarium Saturni have a similar
expectation (Plinius, IX, 13,23), their post being equipollent. No sena¬
tor is likely to have held both posts, and none is known before the much-
employed C. Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes in the war years under
Marcus (AE, 1920, 45). That invalidates the assumption that a L. Neratius
Prisons was praefectus Aerarii Saturni and then legate of Lycia-Pamphylia
(58).
Consular provinces exhibit wide variations in length of tenure. R. sug¬
gests that four legates and no more account for the period 138—162. What is
his reason? In reference to T. Haterius Nepos, whom he wishes to keep in
Pannonia from 138 to 145 or 146 (75), he adduces the testimony of the Histo-
ria Augusta: factus imperator nulli eorum quos Hadrianus provexerat succes-
sorem dedit fuitque ea constantia ut septenis et novenis annis in provincia bonos
praesides detineret (Pius, 5, 3). Happy indeed would one be to discover an
imperial legate in office for seven or nine years under Pius. The prospect is
slight and the practice would have disturbed the steady routine of that
ruler’s administration. The facts speak against the allegation, just as they
refute the notion that Hadrian was lavish in his allocation of second and
third consulates (Hadr., 8, 4). For some of the praetorian provinces of Caesar
(such as Pannonia Inferior, Numidia, Lycia-Pamphylia and Dacia) the
register is almost complete. It gives no hint that the triennial average failed
to obtain. Or take a consular province comparable to Pannonia Superior,
namely Moesia Inferior, with three legions. On Stein’s showing [Die Legaten
von Moesien (1940), 69 ff], there are no fewer than ten legates to be fitted in
after 138 and before 161 (in which year M. Servilius Fabianus is attested).
A much more rapid turnover than would be expected. And, even if (against
Stein) one puts one of the then under Hadrian (viz. M. Antonius Hiberus),
it is now clear that L. Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus (IPS, 1061) must
go under Pius, for his suffect consulate (previously conjectured c. 134) falls
in 139 (AE, 1955, 17=C/L,XVI, 175). By comparison, Moesia Superior hap¬
pens to be thin and meagre — partly because it lacked Greek cities with
their numerous inscriptions. As for Pannonia Superior, it might be well to
allow for two or three more governors besides the four attested (or claimed
by R.) for the period 138—162.
The provenance of consular legates cannot fail to excite curiosity — Ita¬
lian or provincial, good family or rising merit. The author confidently enoun¬
ces an axiom — “es ist selbstverstandlich, dass im ersten Jahrhundert die
Statthalter aus Italien oder Rom stammen” (126). Not at all, and the axiom
betrays sundry misconceptions about social history and social categories-

i80
Which governors in the first century (or, for that matter, how many Roman
senators) could claim Rome as their On R.’s list only the first two,
viz., the patricians M. Aemilius Lepidus and Cn. Cornelius Lentulus. As
for the emergence of provincials in the high commands, observe early in
Nero s reign Pompeius Paullinus and L. Duvius Avitus, legates in succes¬
sion of Germania Inferior: the one from Arelate (Plinius, NH, XXXIII, 143),
the other from Vasio (ILS, 979). Again, of the three legates sent to Britain
by Vespasian, two are provincials — not only Cn. Julius Agricola but surely
Sex. Julius Frontinus, to judge by gentilicum, supported by the existence
of the senator Q. Valerius Lupercus Julius Frontinus of Vienna (CIL, XII,
1859 f).
Nor is R. altogether happy in managing the criteria for local origins.
He seems only intermittently aware of the significance of the tribus. It is
stated that C. Calpetanus Rantius Quirinalis Valerius Festus is from Ter-
geste (p. 127, but denied on p. 48), the town of which he is patronus (ILS,
989). Observe that the nomen “Calpetanus” is Etruscan, that the man’s
tribe is the “Pomptina”, which is the tribe of Arretium. Somebody ought
before now to have drawn attention to two inscriptions of Arretium, namely
CIL, XI 1863: Crispinia L.f. Firma Valeri Festi; 1864: L. Valerius A.f.
Pomp. Festus. Again, L. Funisulanus Vettonianus is assigned to Forum
Popilii, where one of the two inscriptions recording his cursus was found
(CIL, XI 571 + AE, 1946, 205). The fact that he had been curator viae
Aemiliae is enough to explain that; and his tribe, the “Aniensis”, points
elsewhere.
*

* *

The essential virtues of a work of reference are brevity, clarity and

accuracy. Nobody who deals with a multitude of names and facts and dates
can hope to avoid error or inadvertence, and it is the duty of a reviewer to
point out such mistakes as are likely to disturb and perplex, to perpetuate
vagueness or confusion. Nor should he be reluctant to express doubt about
items where there is a danger of premature certainties being incautiously
taken over and transmitted. In what follows, remarks concerning some of
the legates of Pannonia will be summarily presented.
*

* *

M. Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 6). It is taken that he was governor of Pan¬

nonia from 8 onwards. Perhaps a little too early. In the winter of 8/9 Lepidus
was left in charge of the universus exercitus at the winter quarters (Velleius,
II, 114, 5), in the next year three separate armies were operating against
the rebels (Dio, LVI, 12,2). It is a reasonable assumption that Lepidus stayed
on as a governor — of Pannonia, or possibly of Dalmatia. C. Patsch (it is
worth recalling) argued for Dalmatia, with appeal to the fragment ]lio [...]
pido, in fine lettering (CIL, III 13885: Gradac).
Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (cos., 14 B.C.). Not the consul of 18 B.C., as
was long assumed: most will join R. in accepting Groag’s arguments PIR'^,

181
C 1379). For his operations, dates have ranged from 14/13 B.C. (Patsch) to
A.D. 11 (Premerstein). R. opts for Premerstein’s date, putting Sex. Aelius
Catus (cos. 4) contemporaneous, in theMoesian command. To this late dating
there are more obstacles than R. seems to envisage. Not that reviewer would
wish to be pertinacious in defence of this own attempt to put Lentulus’
governorship of Illyricum in the period A.D. 1—4 {JRS 24, 1934, 113 ff).
But there is another possibility, namely that Lentulus held the Balkan
command (not Illyricum); that he was there from about 9 to 6, B.C. after
the pacification of Thrace carried out by the consular legate L. Calpurnius
Piso [cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 401; JRS, XLV (1955), 30]. The whole question,
which involves various operations on and beyond the Danube, and touches
Moesiaaswell as Illyricum, is too complicated to be discussed in this place.
Let it, however, be added that one has no right to posit frequent changes
of governors in the last years of Augustus. Compare Suetonius on the conse¬
quences of the Varian disaster —praesidibus provinciarium propagavit impe-
rium ut a peritis et assuetis socii continerentur (Divus Aug., 23). Why import
old Lentulus for a brief tenure? And observe the next item.
L. Aelius Lamia (cos. 3). Praised by Velleius as in Germania Illyricoque
et mox in Africa splendidissimis functus ministeriis (II, 116, 3). R. suggests
the years 12 and 13, but concedes that Dalmatia is as plausible as Pannonia.
Pavan (o.c., 408) plays for safety and prefers to have his own list lead off
with Q. Junius Blaesus, attested in August of 14. Hardly a recent arrival.
C. Calvisius Sabinus (cos. 26). The next legate on record after Blaesus.
R. argues that he is not likely to have been appoitend by Tiberius, for he hed
been prosecuted for maiestas in 32 (Tacitus, Ann., VI, 9, 3). Inspection of
the text shows that the affair (five men of rank hastily denounced) did not
quite develop into a regular and formal prosecution. R. also suggests that
CIL, XI, 4772 (i.e., ILS, 925: Spoletium) could be assigned to this man, if
not to his father. The inscription, a dedication to the “Pietas” of a C. Calvi¬
sius Sabinus, must belong to an earlier member of the family, to the consul
of 39B.C.,for a good reason [cf. Rom. Rev. (1939), 221]. Moreover, the letter¬
ing is conclusive (autopsy, registered in the review of Broughton, MRR,
in "Class. Phil” (1955), 134.
C. Ummidius Quadratus. Described on the stone at Casinum (Neronian
in date) as leg. divi Claudi in Illyrico (ILS, 972). R. prefers Pannonia to
Dalmatia on the grounds that “Pannonia” (so far as the evidence goes) is
likely to have gained currency as an official term later than “Dalmatia”.
For the question of nomenclature, see the data cited by Pavan (o.c., 407),
who hesitates to admit Ummidius. Note, as supporting R., L. Salvidienus
Salvianus Rufus, legate in Illyric(o) in 60 (CIL, XVI, 4): Pannonia, which
is proved by the auxiliary regiments named on the diploma.
M. Vipstanus Callus. An inscription from Carnuntum with the imperial
titulature indicating 52 or 53 (CIL, III, 4591), was restored by Ritterling
to give the legate’s name as [L. Gellio Publico]la Vipstano Gallo. Now the
inscription was (and is) known only from manuscript copies. Hirschfeld (who

182
erroneously took the name to be that of a consul) proposed to read the prae-
nomen “M.” instead of the letters “LA” [Kl. Schr. (1913), 837]. R. concurs.
If this is accepted, a new consul of the period emerges, a M. Vipstanus Gab
lus, who will be added as increment to Degrassi, I Fasti consolari (1952),
and who is clearly to be distinguished from the ordinarius of 48, L. Vipsta¬
nus Poplicola. The latter, it appears, had “Messalla” as well for cognomen,
cf. no7rXi[x6Xa tou] xa't, M£(TaX[a] on the Ephesian inscription published
by J. Keil, “Jahreshefte” XXIII (1926) Beiblatt 298, whence AE (1928),
98. Let it further be suggested (a point not hitherto raised in discussion) that
the Vipstanus Gallus of the Carriuntum inscription might have owned to
the nomenclature “M. Messalla Vipstanus Gallus” (hence no need to correct
the text). The matter is complicated enough. Pavan (o.c., 409) refuses to
follow Reidinger, but imports confusion by identifying the legate of Panno-
nia with the consul of 48 (i.e. L. Vipstanus Poplicola), to whom he assigns
the nomenclature “M. Vipstanus Poplicola Gallus”. These Vipstani, who
carry the blood of the patrician Valerii on the maternal side, are eminent
and important: one of them is the parent of Tacitus’ friend Vipstanus Mes¬
salla, military tribune in 69. To complete the record, the Fasti Teanenses
should be cited (Inset. It., XIII, 1, p. 264). That document shows two men
of rank, presumably functioning as extraordinary local magistrates [cf.
Cichorius, Romische Studien (1922), 398 ff.] They are “L. Vipstan. Popl.”
and “Mess. Vipstan(us)”. How many coeval Vipstani therefore of the senato¬
rial order — two or three? The second man on the Fasti of Teanum could per¬
haps be a “M. Messalla Vipstanus Gallus” (cf. above). If so, two (apart from
Apronianus, cos. 59).
L. Tampius Flavianus (suff. II, ? 75). Of his nomenclature, the inscrip¬
tion set up at Fundi by a man called L. Tampius Rufus (ILS, 985) preserves
only F]lavi[ano]. Some scholars (e.g. Cagnat) thought that a fragment from
Tibur (AE, 1916, 110) could be assigned to this man, others not. In Inset.
It., I, 1, 52 the beginning is supplemented to read [M. Junius'] L.f. Cam.I
[Sil^janus. Groag, however, pointed out that this inscription might well
belong to L. Apronius Caesianus, the consul of 39 (PIR^, A 972). Ignoring
Groag, R. goes back to Cagnat. Further, he produces an amalgamated resto¬
ration of the Tiburtine fragment with ILS, 985 (p. 45). Not convincing.
The “Camilia” is the tribe of Tibur, whereas Fundi is enrolled in the “Aemi-
lia”. To support Groag and (a thing worth doing) claim Tibur as ihepattta of
the Apronii, one might perhaps adduce the nomenclature of a certain L. Ru-
bellius T.f. Geminus Caesianus (CIL, VI, 25503). The Rubelii are notori¬
ously a Tiburtine family. Another point: Tampius Flavianus was coopted
among the ftatets atvales on February 20, 69, replacing the Emperor Galba
(ILS, 241): R. infers that he must then have been at Rome, further that it
was Vitellius (his relative, cf. Tacitus, Hist., Ill, 10, 2) who sent him later
to Pannonia (cf. 123). Not likely. Surely an appointment made by Galba,
like that of Vitellius himself to Germania Inferior, or (for that matter) of
Valerius Festus (also related. Hist., IV, 49, 1) to Numidia. The sacerdotal
honour was no doubt an attempt to keep the legate of Pannonia loyal to
Otho. Finally, the date of his proconsulate of Africa. R. puts it c. 50. For
no stated or cogent reason. It might fall much later, perhaps after the Civil

183
 War, when Vespasian was not reluctant to honour certain survivors among
the consulars, even of scant merit and dubious quality, compare the argu¬
ments brought forward in “Rev. et. anc.”, LVIII (1956), 236 ff.
M. Annius Afrinus. Governor, it is assumed, in the early years of Ves¬
pasian (CIL, III, 4109 — territory of Poetovio): not indeed that the inscrip¬
tion gives his full title. His consulate, with an Africanus for colleague (CIL,
IV, 1544), can now be dated closely, in the vicinity of 67, because of C. Pac-
cius Africanus, proconsul of Africa in 77/8 (IRT, 342). Hence a long delay
after his governorship of Galatia c. 50 (an inscription and coin evidence, cf.
PIR^, A 630); but that in itself would not be enough to discountenance
identity.
L. Norbanus A. Lappius Maximus (suff. 86, suff. II, 95). Recent disco¬
veries of Fasti, yielding the two consulates of A. Lappius Maximus, clarify
the identity of the legate of Germania Inferior who defeated the pretender
L. Antonius Saturninus in January, 89 — and also confirm the conjecture
of Pichlmayr over sixty years ago, who wished to read “per Norbanum Lap-
pium” in Pseudo-Victor, Epit., 11, 10. In Dio the man is Aouxioi; Ma^i(i.o^
LXVII, 11, 1). Asbach and Ritterling conjectured that he went on the become
legate of Pannonia not long after, for Martial (IX, 84) salutes a Norbanus
who had stood loyal to Domitian in the northern lands (pro domino Caesare
sancta fides) and welcomes his return to Rome after an absence of six years.
There is nothing in the epigram (it is true) to show that the man had been
governor of Pannonia. Is there perhaps a faint chance than the Norbanus of
Martial is somebody else, for example an equestrian procurator of Raetia
to be identified as the Norbanus who was Prefect of the Guard in 96? Howe¬
ver that may be, the second consulate of A. Lappius Maximus in 95 renders
the previous tenure of an important province highly plausible. R. puts him
in Pannonia “in den Kriegsjahren 90—94” (p. 58). Note that only 92 was a
war year (the year of Domitian’s campaign against the Sarmate lazyges):
not 93, as R. Hanslik has recentlv proposed (“Wiener Studien”, LXIII
(1948), 117 ff).
L. Neratius Priscus (suff. 87). Saepinum in Samnium discloses two con¬
sulars thus named, the first a governor of Pannonia, the second of Pannonia
Inferior and of Superior (ILS, 1033 f). The consulate of the latter must fal 1
late in the reign of Trajan or in the early years of his successor (see below ,
under that person). Now the Fasti Potentini exhibit a L. Neratius Priscus
suffectus in 87, but there is also a third, the consular colleague of M. Anniu s
Verus (Dig., XLVIII, 8, 6) hence his name is to be supplied on the new frag -
ment of the Fasti Ostienses of 97. This fragment was first noted in the Appen -
dix to Degrassi, / Fasti consolari (1952), then published by Barbieri, “Stud i
Romani”, I (1953), 367, whence 1954, 220: see also JRS, XLIV (1954),
81 f. R. in his text operates with only two of these men, viz “the elder” (suff.
87) and “the younger” (the Hadrianic legate of Pannonia Superior). A brief
note at the end (p. 170) shows awareness of the suffectus of 97, but fails to
state the position clearly and goes on to make the assertion (unfounded) that
this man had been praetor before 81. R. identifies the legate of Pannonia as
i\).esuffectus of 87 and puts his tenure in 94—97. Preferable for various reason s
is the suffechis of 97, to go c. 102—5 as successor of Glitius Agricola (sufj.

184
97, suff. II 103). That thesis was argued long ago by Ritterling, who conjec¬
tured that the governor had been consul precisely in 97; it has been suppor¬
ted recently (independently) by A. Garzetti [“Aevum”, XXVIII, 1953,
549 ff) and R. Syme JRS, XLIII (1953), 159]: it is accepted by Pavan
(o.c., 410 f). To conclude. A fragment from Tlos shows that a Neratius was
governor of L3^cia-Pamphylia (IGR, III 1511 = TAM, II, 568). R.assumes
this to be the suffectus of 87 with a governorship running from 84 to 87. That
cannot be. P.Baebius Italicus (stiff. 90), legate of a legion in 83 (ITS, 8818),
happens to be attested there in 85 (IGR, III, 548 = TAM, II 557). The prae¬
torian post from which Neratius acceded to the consulate was that of prefect
of the Aetarium Saturni (ITS, 1033 f.)
Cn. Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus (suff.^Q). Attest¬
ed in February', 98 (CIL, XVI, 42). It would indeed be worth knowing
which emperor appointed this legate. His previous command was Moesia
Superior in 93 (CIL, XVI, 39), and he could have held Pannonia from 94 or
95 (for L. Neratius Priscus is to be eliminated). A person of experience. Pos¬
sibly the Longinus commanding troops in occupied Dacia in 105 (Dio, LXVIII
12, 1), cf. Fronto p. 217 N = Haines 2, 214: in Dacia captus vir consularis.
L. Julius Ursus Servianus (cos. II 102; III 134). R. is inclined to iden¬
tify him with Ser. Julius Servianus, consul suffect in 90 (Fasti Potentini).
That can hardl}' not be so. The alternatives can promptly be stated: a con¬
sulate in 93, or in 97 (not likely). R. makes his governorship of Pannonia
(Plinius, Epp., VIII, 23, 5) begin in 99, not (as others) in 98, and supposes
that he was occupied with preparations for the Dacian War, adducing Epp.
Ill, 17. It should however be noted that Pliny’s language implies presence
during an actual war — suspensum et anxium vivere expectantem in horas
timentemque pro capite amicissimo quidquid accidere homini potest.
P. Alfius Maximus. This governor, presumed from an inscription that
does not yield his title (CIL, III, 14356^), is placed by R. in 103—6 as the
first legate of Pannonia Superior after the division of the province. The
Trajanic dating (not admitted as a possibility by Groag in PIR^, A 534) is
a hypothesis depending upon a hypothesis. Ramsay wished to identify the
P. Alfius Maximus of IGR, III, 162 as a consular legate of Galatia-Cappado-
cia earl^" in Trajan’s reign \^JRS, XXII (1922), 615 ff], not as a praetorian
governor of Galatia under Pius. R. concurs with the date 101 —103. He has
not noticed a difficulty. The successor of T. Pomponius Bassus (95—100)
is patently Aufidius Umber, certified in 100/1 by coins (PIR^, A 1395).
R.K. Sherk, discussing the alternatives, inclines to the later dating of IGR,
III, 162. [The legates of Galatia from Atigustus to Diocletian (1951), 90 f.]
As for governors of Pannonia c. 103, if L. Neratius Priscus suff. 97) is admit¬
ted as the successor of Glitius Agricola (cf. above), there is no place for any¬
body else.
P. Metilius Sabinus Nepos (suff. 103). Noted by R. but not admitted
to his list since hypothetical (and he is silently discarded by Pavan). Groag
(PW, XV, 401), observing a Metilius Nepos who was maximae provinciae
praefuturus (Plinius, Epp, IV, 26, 2), suggested Pannonia because P. Metilius
Secundus (suff. 123 or 124), a kinsman of the consular, served as military
tribune in the legion X Gemina (ILS, 1053), which was now one of the Pan-

185
nonian legions., Metilius Nepos will have gone out to his province in the
course of 105: he was still with the fratres arvales in the month of May (CIL,
VI, 2075). Add, for the record (not noticed by Groag), the army commander
Sabinus (Epp., IX, 2). Pannonia (let it be suggested) could have been not
the first consular province of Metilius Nepos but the second, two or three
years later. The age and cursus of his young relative do not forbid it. The
cursus (in descending order) has (trib)uno m\ilitum leg. A] Geminae p. f.
followed by the letters tri[. Perhaps he was triumvir monetalis though that
is not the preferable and normal style. Perhaps tri[bunus militum^ of another
legion, previously. The tribunate in more legions than one (not a common
phenomenon) may indicate that the consular legate (followed by a laticla-
vius) had passed from one province to another [cf. observations in “Laureae
Aquincenses”, I (1938), 271].
L. Neratius Priscus. Legate of Pannonia Inferior (leading to the consu¬
late), and of Pannonia Superior (ILS, 1034). When was he consul? R. sug¬
gests c. 115. It must be pointed out that, if the Fasti Potentini furnish the
correct and complete structure of the years 114 and 115 (three pairs each
year), room is left for only two not directly attested consuls, one of whom
must be P. Valerius Priscus, proconsul of Africa in 127/8 (IRT, 361). The
year 116 is complete (Fasti Ostienses). Difficult therefore, but not inconcei¬
vable, to have another consul or consular pair in 114 or 115. Groag suggested
that Neratius' tenure of Pannonia Inferior might fall in 114—117 (PW,
XVI 2548). Now. P. Afranius Flavianus is attested in September, 114 (CIL,
XVI, 61). Afranius was probably not consul c. 115 (as suggested in PIR^,
A 443), given the presumed structure of the Fasti, but rather in 117 or
118. As for Neratius, it would be permissible to have him succeed Afranius
in Pannonia Inferior and become consul c. 120, later governing Pannonia
Superior at some time before 133 when Cornelius Proculus (suff. c. 124) is
on record (CIL, XVI, 76 f). Neratius is the only known legate in the gap
after L. Minicius Natalis (suff. 106), who was in office in 116 (CIL, XVI, 64)
and when Trajan died (ILS, 1029).
Claudius Maximus. If his proconsulate of Africa is mentioned, which is
relevant to the date of his consulate, then 158/9 can argued against 160/1,
cf. J. Guey, “Rev. ^t. lat”,. XXIX (1951), 307 ff.
M. Nonius Macrinus (suff. 154). His cursus (ILS, 8830) is not every¬
where easy to interpret, but it is important in various ways; and it has a
bearing on the early career of L. Julius Vehilius Gratus Julianus (ILS,
1327). Prefect of the Guard under Commodus (omitted from PW). F. assigns
his governorship of Pannonia to 156—162. That might not be quite correct.
L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus (suff. 152). Assumed by R. to succeed
Nonius Macrinus in 162 and go on until 166. He had previously held Germa¬
nia Superior (ILS, 1081). In that governorship R. supposes him to succeed
C. Popillius Carus Pedo (suff. 147) in 160/1, himself to be followed in 161
by C. Aufidius Victorinus (suff. 155). Surely too brief a tenure. Failing pre¬
cise evidence, it is safer to assume that Popillius Carus was in Germania
Superior c. 152—5, Dasumius Tuscus c. 155—8. As for Pannonia Superior,
it cannot be taken as certain that Nonius and Dasumius have been placed
in the right chronological order by R. (and by other scholars).

186
 Nonius Macrinus and Dasumius Tuscus, both comites Augusti, impinge
on the Danubian wars of Marcus, which produce confusion and anomalies
in the provincial commands. The next period exhibits notable persons among
the legates, such as Septimius Severus andFabius Cilo, but there is not much
to be said about some of the later names on R. ’s list, except that the Varius
Macrinus of the Historia Augusta (Alexander Severus, 58, 1) ought to be
rigorously questioned for authenticity, and the last names of all are to be
regarded less as normal legates of Pannonia Superior than as duces or as pre¬
tenders who happened to get support from the Pannonian legions, viz. Aemi-
lianus, Ingenuus and Regalianus.

■*

■*t

The foregoing remarks will illustrate some of the difficulties inherent

in a study of this kind. Questions of method and of presentation also come
in. The author prints a number of tesiimonia in full. For example, half a
dozen milestones set up by Fabius Cilo. On the other hand, he does not bother
to reproduce the inscription from Pisidian Antioch [JRS, XIV (1924), 185,
w'hence AE, 1926, 79 — defective] which has notable variants from Fabius’
cursus as given by ILS, 1141f. (Rome). As in many products of modern eru¬
dition, a zealous recapitulation of the views of predecessors (even when
they have been rendered obsolete by the discovery of new and decisive facts)
can make it difficult for the reader to discover the essential evidence — evi¬
dence which ought always to be set out firmly, clearly and briefly. Further,
since there is Degrassi’s repertory (I Fasti consolari, 1952), no need to furnish
the documentary proof of consular dates that nobody doubts or doubted. But,
for clarity, it would be desirable to append the date to each person (when
known), the absence of that label therefore standing as a guide and impulsion
to curiosity.
Indeed, a much more economical treatment would have been welcome
and remunerative.
A catalogue of Pannonia diplomata is useful (for dates and governors),
but the muster of regiments (146—152) is irrelevant, useless without other
evidence. A list of abbreviations helps; but who stands in need of an exhaus¬
tive compilation of printed sources ancient and modern, containing (for
example) such items as “Gnomon, Kritische Zeitschrift ftir die gesamte
klassiche Altertumswissenschaft, Berlin”? This list, by the way, has lavish
space between the items and is very wasteful. Similarly the Bibliography
(225—237), registering “selbstandige Werke und Aufsatze allgemeineren
Charakters”. It omits a number of useful papers drawn on in the text, but
superfluously includes several works not there cited (and not indeed capable
of being cited with profit). Who will go for information about the legates of
Pannonia to W. Weber, Princeps, or to R. Paribeni, Optimus Princeps?

187
 XII. ADDENDUM

P. 177 — Catalogues of governors. The list of governors of Pannonia

produced by A. Mocsy, “Pannonia”, P-W, Supp., X (1962), 589 is variously
defective. For example, he accepts Reidinger, with no hesitation shown,
on L. Norbanus A. Lappius Maximus, on L. Neratius Prisons (put under
Domitian or Nerva), on P. Alfius Maximus (under Trajan). Pannonia Infe¬
rior, created in the year 106, has various links of personnel and promotions
with Pannonia Superior, cf. J. Fitz, „Helikon”, III (1963), 374. The theme
recurs in his long study of the governors, “Acta Antiqua”, XI (1963), 245 ff.
For criticism and a revision of some items, see “Historia”, XIV (1965), 342 ff.
It may be convenient at this point to mention other provinces Moesia
Inferior has been dealt with by Fitz, Die Laujhahn der Statthalter in der
romischen Provinz Moesia Inferior (Weimar, 1966). In my opinion he is often
far too schematic. For certain governors and dates, from 86 to 162 (includ¬
ing observations on Moesia Superior), see “Dacia”, XII (1968); see Ch. XIV.
Legates of the Moesian commands at the time of Trajan’s Wars were also
discussed above in Ch. VII and in “Latomus”, XXIII (1964), 750 ff. (Pliny
and the Dacian Wars). Finally, for Dacia, see Ch. XI; for Dalmatia,
Ch. XIII.
P. 177 — The campaigns of Octavianus. For the controversy, now
(one hopes) moribund, see Ch. VIII. For the status of Illyricum after 27 B.C.,
see the Add. to Ch. II.
P. 179 — Paths of promotion to consular commands. See the valuable
paper of E. Birley, Carnuntum-Jahrhuch, 1957 (1958), 3 ff. In a discussion
of legates of Pannonia Inferior from 106 to 164 the data about three other
praetorian provinces are registered for comparison [“Historia”, XIV (1965),
355 ff.]. Also subsequent consular commands (ib. 357 ff.), and origin and
status of the men in question (359 ff.).
P. 180 — Length of tenures under Antoninus Pius. The facts refute the
allegation in the Vita Pii. For the full evidence (and a list of scholars who
were deceived), see now A.R. Birley, Corolla Memoriae Erich Swohoda
(1966), 43 ff. Pescennius Niger, we are told, wrote letters both to Marcus
and to Commodus urging that no governor (imperial or senatorial) should
be replaced until five years had elapsed (Pesc. 7. 2), Patent fiction. The
notion in the Vita Pii, however, might represent a genuine misconception
of the original source, that is, a biographer writing in the reign of Severus
Alexander. The misconception about methods of administration has been
widely shared in the recent age.
P. 181 — Cn Cornelius Lentulus (cos. 14 B.C.). For the new date here
briefly indicated see the Add. to Ch. III.
P. 182 — C. Ummidius Quadratus (suff. c. 40). For his family, career
and descendants see Historia”, XVII (1988), 72 ff. The article in P-W,
Supp. X (1962), 1827 ff. suffers from errors and omissions.
P. 182 — M. Vipstanus Callus (suff. c. 47). The arguments here addu¬
ced were ignored in P-W, IX, A (1961), 169 f. For a full statement about
the problems of the Vipstani, “Historia”, XI (1962), 149 ff.

188
 P. 183 — L. Tampius Flavianus (sujf. II, ?75), For a new reading of
the fragment at Fundi due to Alfoldi, see AE, 1941, 11. An elaborate recon¬
struction of the text has been presented by A. Mocsy, “Arch. Ert.”, XCIII
(1966), 206, whence AE, 1966, 68. Not always plausible. One supplement
runs [/// vir, qu. Aug. praet. cand. Cae]s. To say nothing of the terminology:
the posts entail the conviction that Tampius Flavianus began as a patrician.
On Tampius see also G.B. Townend, JRS, LI (1961), 60.
P. 184 — A. Lappius Maximus (suJf. 86. II sufj. 95). For the idea that
“Norbanus” is another person, not a second cognomen, cf. also “Historia”,
VI (1957), 486; Tacitus (1958), 646 f. In the latter work he is registered as
“A. Lappius Maximus”. A recent discovery, however, rules out a governor¬
ship of Pannonia not long before his second consulship. A diplomaiov troops
in Syria on May 12, 91 discloses as governor of that province A. Bucius
Lappius Maximus (AE, 1961, 319). For the rare nomen “Bucius” see Schulze,
LE, 134; and compare “Buca”, “Buculeius” and “Bucilianus”.
P. 184 — L. Neratius Priscus. For the means of distinguishing the
three consular homonyms (sufjecti in 87, in 97 and in the period 117—122)
see further “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 480 ff. (at some length); Tacitus
(1958), 762. For the second, the jurist (sufj. 97) as legate of Pannonia
c. 102-5, “Hermes”, LXXXV, 487. The article in P-W, XXHI (1957),
6 may be neglected. The jurist and L. Neratius Marcellus (sujf. 95) were
brothers, according to the Digest (XXXIII, 7, 12, 43). Marcellus, it will
be noted, was certainly a patrician (ITS, 1032). Questions of parentage
and adoption arise. One is impelled towards M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius
Pansa (sujj. c. 75). For a hypothesis, “Hermes”, LXXV, 491 f. Further
illumination now comes. A dedication to the third Neratius Priscus, the
septemvir epulorum (consul suffect in the period 117—122) discovered at
Saepinum gives his career in a fragmentary form, but, disclosing the fact
that he was tribune of the plebs, shows him plebeian: published by O. Freda,
“Publ. dell. Univ. Catt. del Sacro Cuore. Contributi dell' Istituto di Filo-
logia Classica”, I (1963), 238, with photograph. This evidence, it will be
observed, does not preclude his father (sujj. 97) and Marcellus from being
brothers. That is not all. At the Epigraphic Congress of September 1967,
held at Cambridge, M. Torelli made known the large fragments of the ins¬
cription of M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa. He was adlected by Vespa¬
sian into the patriciate. Various consequences of some interest follow.
Finally, a Neratius legate of Lycia-Pamphylia. As was stated in this review,
and with more detail in “Hermes”, LXXXV, 486 f., the inscription at Tlos
(IGR, HI, 1511) cannot be referred to Neratius Marcellus or to any one of
the three Neratii Prisci. Welcome confirmation is to hand. M. Hirrius Fronto
Neratius Pansa occurs on an inscription at Xanthus reported by J. and
L. Robert, “Bull, ep.”, 1958, no. 294. Hence, it is to be presumed, Vespa¬
sian’s first governor of the newly-constituted province. In 69 Pamphylia
belonged to the Galatian province, under Nonius Calpurnius Asprenas,
cf. Tacitus, Hist., II, 9, 1; IRT, 346.
P. 185 — P. Alfius Maximus. J. Fitz has recently proposed later dates
for this governor [“Epigraphica”, XXHI (1961), 84 ff.]. He suggests that

189
 he was consul under Commodus or in the early years of Septimius Severus.
Or further, should he be held identical with the senator P. Alfius P.f. Gal.
Maximus Numerius Licinianus (ILS, 2931: Tarraco), he goes about thirty
years later,
P, 185 — P. Metilius Sabinus Nepos (suff. 103). For the problems
of identifying and distinguishing the consular Metilii of this period, see
remarks in the paper People in Pliny, JRS, LVIII (1968), 135 ff.
P. 186 — L. Neratius Priscus (the third of the name). For the appro¬
ximate date of his consulship, see “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 492 f.;
“Historia”, XIV (1965), 350 f. Problems of late Trajanic suffecti were discus¬
sed in that context, among them P. Afranius Flavianus (legate, like Nera¬
tius, of Pannonia Inferior) and P. Valerius Priscus. The latter can be accom¬
modated c, 120, cf. arguments adduced in "Rev. 6t. anc,”, LXVII (1965),
347 f.
P. 186 — Claudius Maximus (sufj. c. 144). Was he, like some others,
previously governor of Pannonia Inferior? There is the inscription honouring
the consular Maximus, clearly from Aquincum (ILS, 1062, better in CIL
III. 10336). It has generally been assigned, as in ILS, 1062, to T. Statilius
Maximus (cos, 144). J. Fitz argues for Claudius Maximus (sup). 143 or 144),
“Acta Antiqua”, XI (1963), 258 ff. The attribution was accepted and support-
ted in “Historia”, XIV (1965), 352 f. For some doubts, A.R. Birley, Corolla
Memoriae Erich Swohoda Dedicata (1966), 50. Yet T. Statilius Maximus
is not altogether satisfactory. I now wonder whether the man might not be
T. Atilius Maximus. The dating of his proconsulate of Asia (SIG 851),
generally allocated to 146/7 (cf. PIR A 1501), is in fact highly insecure;
it might belong c. 157, If so, he was consul c. 142.
P. 187 — Revision or new evidence. The praetorian province of T. Hate-
rius Nepos (suj}. 134), who is attested in Pannonia Superior in 138, was
not Pannonia Inferior, as Fitz conjectured on a rigid scheme of promotion
(o.c. 314), but Arabia. He was there in 130, as shown by one of the as yet
unpublished papyri “the Cave of the Letters” near Masada: referred to in
“Historia” XIV (1965), 355 f. As for M. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus
(sujp. 144), it is not enough to cite ILS, 1094 (as Reidinger does). Add ILS
1100 (acephalous), likewise found in the Forum of Trajan, Thus E. Birley,
Carnuntum~Jahrhuch 1957 (1958), 11.
P. 187 — Epilogue: a new governor of Pannonia. On an inscription
of the fourth century two persons pay honour to their ancestor, Munatio
Planco Paulino v.c., praesidi Pann. per ann. XVII (CIL, VI, 1743). This
neglected document has recently received a searching and elaborate invest!-*
gation from J. Morris, “Bonner Jahrbiicher”, CLXV (1965), 88 ff. The gover¬
nor, he argues, is none other than L. Munatius Plancus (cos. 13). A tenure
so prolonged can only fit the season which witnessed the notorious example
of C. Poppaeus Sabinus (cos. 9), holding Moesiafrom 11 or 12 until 35 (Taci-*
tus, Ann., VI, 39, 3). Further, no legate of Pannonia happens to stand on
attestation between Q. Junius Blaesus (su}}. 10), in 14, and C. Calvisius
Sabinus {cos. 26), recalled in 39.

190
 Calvisius, it is true, might have been sent to Pannonia by Tiberius,
not by Caligula. As indicated in this review, the abortive prosecution in
32 (Ann., VI, 9, 3) is no bar. And his coleague in the consulship of 26, Cn.
Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus, was appointed to the command of Germania
Superior in 29 (for the evidence, PIR 2, C 1390). The account in Tacitus
is so compressed that it does not quite exclude a possibility that an absentee
was one of the five persons under attack. As the upper limit for a gover¬
norship of Pannonia by the consul of 13, a small item is relevant. Plancus,
and not a L. Piso, should be discovered in the mutilated name L.P[ in Ann.,
II, 32, 2 (a transaction of the year 17), cf. JRS, XLVI (1956), 19.

191
 Xlll

GOVERNORS OF DALMATIA *

Dalmatia was missing from the catalogue of Roman governors. The gap
is now filled by Jagenteufel who follows rapid and welcome on Reidinger’s
Pannonia Superior. That contribution was recently reviewed in this place
[“Gnomon” XXIX (1957) 515 ff]. No need, therefore, for any sort of lengthy
prolegomena. The use and function of a list of consular legati is patent. Light
may incidentally be thrown on the geography or the organisation of a pro¬
vince. Thus, for Dalmatia, the status of a community, the name of some
river or settlement, the course of th roads that penetrated the mountain
girdle. That is not the point. The careers of the governors show how the sys¬
tem of rank and promotion in the service of the Caesars operated at its highest
level. Further, their identity, origin and family tell something about the
changing composition of the administrative oligarchy. Hence clues to the
social history of imperial Rome.
For these purposes one requires an accurate list, stripped of accretions,
pedantry, or fantasy. J. has done his work well. Above all, the epigraphic
testimonia are set forth most elegantly. The only question might be one of
method — perhaps an excessive citation of modern writings. Who now needs
to be referred to Liebenam’s Legaten (1888) or to H. Cons. La province romaine
de Dalmatie (1881)?
After the great rebellion of 6—9, Illyricum was divided into the two
provinces which came to be known as Pannonia and Dalmatia. The first legate
of Dalmatia appears to be C. VibiusPostumus (suff. 5). Was there a successor
intervening before P. Dolabella (cos. 10), who is attested in 14?
A passage in Velleius Paterculus continues to perplex. Referring to
L. Aelius Lamia (cos. 3), he describes him as in Germania Illyricoque et mox
in Africasplendidissimis functusministeriis (II, 116,3).J. concedes that Panno¬
nia is as likely as Dalmatia (cf. Reidinger, o.c., 21). But one must take into
account the time available, and the persons. There is room for Lamia. J.
accepts (he did not have to) the view of Reidinger that Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

^ A. Jagenteufel: Die Statthalter der romischen Provinz Dalmatienvon Augus¬

tus bis Diokletian. Wien 1959. (Osterr. Akad. d. Wiss., Schr. der Balkankomission,
Antiquar. Abt. 12).

192
(cos. 14 B.C.) was governor of Pannonia for a brief spell in 11/12. That is not
very plausible, cf. “Gnomon” XXIX (1957), 519. For various reasons the
Danubian command of Lentulus ought to be put much earlier.

* #

The long register of governors to the time of Diocletian calls for sundry
observations — not necessarily in dissent. More often than not, one has to
impugn the validity of evidence and produce hesitations, otherwise facts
and dates and names will come to be regarded as established for ever and cited
as canonical: psittacism is the prime and congenital vice of classical scholar¬
ship. The following remarks can be presented.
L. Volusius Saturninus (cos. 3). For his tenure of Dalmatia J. suggests
34 —40. It might have begun before 34. It was under his governorship that
a man set up a dedication to Livia — luliae Augusii. divijAugusti, matri
Ti. Caes/aris Aug. (CIL, III, 9972). He renders thanks oh dec(urionatum).
When was this dedication set up? Livia died in 29. It must be asked whether
such an expression of precise gratitude towards the Augusta is likely to be
posthumous. Perhaps not. Volusius Saturninus can therefore have been
governor in 29, or earlier than that year. Tiberius kept governors for inordi¬
nate periods. Nothing forbids the assumption that Volusius held Dalmatia
in the critical year 31. That is important. The Volusii were steadfastly loyal
to Tiberius, as to subsequent rulers.
L. Calpurnius Piso {sujf. anno incerto). A Piso is attested in the reign
of Claudius (ILS, 5952). J. opts for the consul of 27 (PIR^, C293), son of Cn.
Calpurnius Piso, the ill-starred legate of Syria and enemy of Germanicus
(brother of Claudius Caesar). The argument from silence is held to exclude
C. Calpurnius Piso (the man who conspired against Nero), for we have the
Laus Pisonis which mentions no provincial commands but only togatae munera
militiae (27 f). Similarly Groag, PIR^ C. 293. L. Piso (cos. 27) had been
■praefectus urhi. K subsequent provincial command is peculiar but not impos¬
sible — observe Q. Sanquinius Maximus (PIR^,S 136), his presumed successor
in the urban office, who goes on to be legate of Germania Inferior. The paren¬
tage of this Piso might seem to render him suspect, but Claudius Caesar in
the early years of his rule was eager to advertise concord and confidence. He
was trying to attach to the dynasty certain descendants of rival families
such as M. Licinius Crassus Frugi (cos. 27) who was married to Scribonia, a
descendant of Pompeius Magnus. He gave his daughter Antonia (PIR^, A
886) to the son of Crassus Frugi.
C. Ummidius Quadratus (suff. c. 40). He was legate of Claudius in
lllyrico (ILS, 972). J. suggests that he governed Dalmatia. Perhaps, with
Reidinger, one should take Pannonia to be more plausible. The problem con¬
cerns the official nomenclature of the two provinces. Pannonia happens to
be styled “Illyricum” in a diploma of the year 60 (CIL, XVI, 4).
Q. Pomponius Rufus (suff. 95). The inscription at Lepcis of his cursus
(ILS, 1014 4- AE, 1948, 3, now to be cited as IRT, 537) is perplexing in
more ways than one. After his name and titles and the (consular) office of
curator oferum puhlicoruni it describes him as leg. Aug. pro pr. provinc..

193
[M]oesiae Dalmat. Hisp. What is the order, and the status, of these three
posts? First of all, a patent inadequacy. From 86 there had been two Moesian
commands, the upper and the lower. Now this Pomponius Rufus is certified
as legate of Moesia Inferior in August 99 (CIL, XVI, 44 f). Secondly, Dal¬
matia. A diploma with the consular date of July 13, 94 shows him governor
of that province (CIL, XVI, 38). A new fact — a praetorian legate govern¬
ing a province otherwise known only consular. What is the explanation —
and is the arrangement to be regarded as temporary, accidental, unique?
Under the Flavian emperors there had been only one legion in this consular
province, namely IV Flavia. Domitian, as is commonly and naturally assu¬
med, took the legion away about the year 86 for the Danubian campaigns.
The legion removed, there would be a case for degrading the rank of Dalma¬
tia — hence the chance that more praetorian governors than one should be
looked for, until the next consular can be established. However that may
be, it is worth pointing out that Dalmatia was an important province, embrac¬
ing a large area. The appointment of Pomponius Rufus might be due to a
sudden emergency, such as the decease of a governor or a dearth of suitable
consulars — the years in the vicinity of 93 were unhealthy for more reasons
than one. That is not the only difficulty presented by the inscription at
Lepcis. What is to be made of “Hispania” in the cursus of Pomponius Rufus?
J. affirms that in order of time this post must come before Dalmatia, hence
a praetorian legate for consular Tarraconensis c. 90. That is not easy, or
necessary. J. does not seem to be aware of the existence of a iuridicus in that
province — who, to be sure, in correct terminology is not styled leg. Aug.
pro. pr. But this inscription is not correct in all respects. Rufus might have
been iuridicus before or after Glitius Agricola (ILS, 1021), consul suffect
in 97. An alternative solution is to suppose (as have others) that the posts
are not registered in the right order, that Rufus was in fact consular legate
at some time later than Cornelius Palma (cos. 99), who was there c. 100—103.
But the order can be defended. Compare the inscription of Didius Julianus,
which in descending order has [German]iae Dalmatiae Belgicae (ILS, 412:
Rome). Instructive also because it fails to specify which Germany, and
because it includes a praetorian province.
Rufus’ debut was remarkable — praef. orae marit. Hispan. citer. Gal-
lia[e]IN[a]rbon. hello qu[od imp.'] Galba p\ro r. p] gessit. This matter is not
adequately treated by J. He adduces disturbances in various regions that
Galba had to quell after his accession (Tacitus, Hist., I, 37). That is to miss
the whole point. It is Galba’s own insurrection in Spain, the war he raised
against Nero, under the name and plea of the Res Publica. Galba had support
in certain cities of Narbonensis, such as Vienna. The coast now acquired
strategic importance. It is regretable that here is no information about
what went on in the colony of Forum Julii, a former naval base.
The above remarks are prompted (and may be justified) by a melancholy
fact. The article on Rufus in P—'W, XXI 2347 f, (published in 1952) was ina¬
dequate, even if it had not ignored the new information furnished by the
Lepcis inscription in its revised form (AE, 1948, 3 = IRT, 537).
C. Julius Proculus (suff. 109). J. suggests that this man might be identi¬
fied with the Ignotus of an inscription at Tuder (CIL, XI, 4646), who was

194
legate of Dalmatia under Trajan before 114. That was the view of Groag
(P—IT, X 785). It must, however, be emphasized that the only feature common
to the two careers in the post of curator operum publicorum. J. is not al¬
together happy in his elucidation of the inscription of Julius Proculus (ILS,
1040). He states it as certain (“sicherlich”) that Proculus was praetorian when
he held the post of leg. Aug. p.p. ad census provinciae Lugdunensis. On the
contrary. Observe, as perhaps contemporaneous in the census of Tres Galliae,
Pliny’s friend Cornutus Tertullus (ILS, 1024) in Aquitania and the Ignotus
of ILS, 1020 in Belgica: the latter may have been consul suffect c. 108.
C. Cilnius Proculus (suff. 87). Two fragmentary inscriptions from Arre-
tium, his home town, show that he governed Dalmatia (CIL, XI 1830; AE,
1926, 123, cf. Groag, PIR^, C732). Now Cilnius is attested as legate of Moesia
Superior in May of 100 (CIL, XVI 46 = ILS, 9054). Further, according to
the second Arretine inscription, he won consular decorations in the Dacian
War. Perhaps while still legate of Moesia Superior, as J. suggests, supposing
him to have continued in that post until replaced by L. Herennius Saturninus
(suff. 100), whose tenure falls somewhere before 106 (cf. CIL, XVI, 54).
Perhaps, however, as commander of an army corps, like certain other persons
in the two wars [Licinius Sura, Julius Quadratus Bassus, probably Sosius
Senecio, perhaps Fabius Justus, cf. JRS, XLVII (1957), 132]. When was
Cilnius governor of Dalmatia? J. will not allow him to have been appointed
by Domitian, for that emperor had made the province praetorian. He propo¬
ses Nerva or Trajan, putting the post at some time in the period 96—99.
That might not be so. Why not 94/95—98? Then Cilnius will have Moesia
Superior from 98 to 100/101, with some other person preceding Herennius
Saturninus, perhaps Sosius Senecio (cos. 99) : compare, what some scholars
have missed, a provincial command of Sosius Senecio attested by Plinius,
Epp., IV, 4, 3 (cf. JRS, XXXV (1945), 112f). Furthermore, touching the
date of Cilnius, it appears that a governor called Macer went to Dalmatia
precisely in 98 (Martial, X, 78, see further below).
P. Coelius Balbinus Vibullius Pius (cos. 137). This person brings up a
nice problem in the evaluating of evidence. Items in his inscription show
that Coelius enjoyed high social eminence — adlected into the patriciate and
2. flamen Ulpialis (ILS, 1063). His tribe is the “Sergia“, that of Italica in
Baetica. Dessau supposed him a relative of Trajan. That view is endorsed
by Groag (PIR^, C 1241), who adds the fact that Coelius held the consulate
as ordinarius with Aelius Caesar for colleague. (The fact) is not as significant
as it looks — Coelius was presumably designated already, well before that
adoption in December, 136, which converted L. Ceionius Commodus, the
consul of 136, into L. Aelius Caesar and gave him the second consulate in
137). J. takes'a further step. The city of Salonae discloses slaves of a Coelius
Balbinus (CIL, III, 2295), also libertine folk with the nomenclature P. Coelius
(ib. and 2294,2561, 13925). C oelius can therefore be assumed to have resided at
Salonae as legate of Dalmatia. A slight hesitation should perhaps be expressed
about this governorship. Against an origin from Italica, observe that there
is only one Coelius on all the inscriptions of the province Baetica (CIL, II,
2032; Osqua), no Vibullius at all. Moreover, the tribe “Sergia” is by no means
incompatible with a Dalmatian origin. Several of the cities have it, and

195
Salonae shows the "Sergia” as wel as the “Tromentina" [Kubitschek, Imp,
Rom. Trihutim Discriptum (1889) 236]. It happens to be the tribe of the
earliest Dalmatian senator on record, Sex Julius Severus (suff. 127), cf.
ILS, 1050, whose town seems to be Aequum (AE, 1904, 9; 1950, 45). As for
the “Vibullius Pius” in the name of the consul of 137, there is a fact worth
pointing out. That item belongs to the nomenclature of an illustrious Spar¬
tan, C. Julius Eurycles Herculanus (IG, V, 2, 281), and it emerges, subse¬
quent to 116, in that of Q. Pompeius Falco, suff. 108 (cf. ILS, 1035 f).
L. Vitrasius Flaminius. An inscription at Capua (CIL, X 3870), after
name, consulate and preconsulate of Africa, continues with leg. pp. (sic)
pr. Italiae Trans jpadanae et provinciae Moesiae superioris et exercitus provin-
ciae Dalmatiae, etc. Further, a F. Vitrasius Flaminius was certainly governor
of Moesia Superior (CIL, III, 14999: Ratiaria). What is the nature of these
three commands, successive or combined? The answer is not obvious. The
text (no longer extant) is in question. The man who transcribed it found it
hard to read, Domaszewski scented interpolation “Franos Vindobonensis",
1893, 63), and Dessau was not sure that the items of Vitrasius’ career stood
in the proper order — “hoc ordine in titulo, id est fortasse nullo” (PIR^
V 522). Yet there are no grounds for holding the transcriber criminal or
wholly incompetent. The thing is not hopeless.
Stein identified this consular with L. Vitrasius Flamininus, suffectus
in 122 (CIL, XVI, 69). He assumed a cumulation of the three posts, but
could not produce a plausible explanation, and he indicated Groag’s dissent
in a footnote [Die Legaten von Moesien (1940), 41]. Another scholar, Zwikkert
argues for the emergency of the Marcomannic War (Studien zur Markus-
sdule, I (1941), 163 ff. He adduces in support the special command of Antis-
tius Adventus, ad praetenturam Italiae et Alpium expeditione Germanica
(ILS, 8977). That dating is plausible, and had in fact been anticipated by
Premerstein [’’Jahreshefte” I (1898), Beiblatt, 154]. But not everything is
plausible.Zwikker assumes without question the simultaneous command, viz.
Italia Transpadana, Moesia Superior and the Dalmatian army. Geography
arouses disquiet. One can conceive of the auxiliary troops in Dalmatia being
put in the charge of the legate of Moesia Superior. And the reason could be
divined. Not necessarily a foreign war and the danger of invasion, but an
operation to clean up latrones in Bosnia and western Serbia, whether genuine
recalcitrants or conveiently deemed such. Compare HA, Marcus, 21, 7:
latrones etiam Dalmatiae atque Dardaniae niilites fecit. Add now AE, 1956,
124 (Diana Veteranorum), which shows M. Valerius Maximianus dealing
with latrones, in confinio Macedon. et Trac., in 175 or 176. Indeed, there was
evidence about another governor of Dalmatia. Didius Julianus in 176 or 177
dealt with confines hostes (HA, Didius, 1, 9). Zwikker speaks of “feindliche
Angriffe” (o.c., 21, followed by J. with “barbarische Grenzvolker”, 73).
Zwikker ought not to have missed the important article of C. Patsch, WMBH
VII (1901), 163 ff.
The adjunction of Transpadane Italy is too much for comfort. The notion
of a single command tenuously extended all the way from Piedmont to Serbia
is highly vulnerable. Let the Transpadana therefore be dissocciated. Let it
further be added for caution that nothing would preclude a legate in Transpa-

196
dana under Hadrian whether consular or praetorian (for a praetorian under
Trajan cf. ILS, 1040); and only those who take an unduly rosy view of Pax
Romana will deny the possibility of military operations in the back country
of Dalmatia. Compare Asturia, a similar region, under Nero. A centurion is
decorated ob resprosper[e] gesif[as] contra Astures (ILS, 2648).
However, J. rallies to the explanation of Zwikker and gives the Dalma¬
tian army to Vitrasius in 171 — 173 (an Ignotus carrying out the duties of
civil government in the province). There might be room for Vitrasius as
legate of Moesia Superior at this time. But there are certain complications.
As E. Birley suggests, Moesia Superior could have been a praetorian province
for several years; for the temporary removal of one of its two legions, IV
Flavia, cf. ILS, 1111. Observe, inter alia, the career of M. Macrinius Vindex,
who passes from the equestrian procuratorship of Dacia Malvensis and a post
in Italy to this province (ILS, 1107). However that may be, admitting Vitra¬
sius Flamininus somewhere in 170—176, certain consequences would follow
— a second L. Vitrasius Flamininus (son or grandson of the suffecHis of 122),
a new consul to supplement Degrassi’s Fasti Consolari, and the removal of a
proconsul of Africa from the end of Hadrian’s reign.
A further point. The inscription begins with L. Vitrasio L.f. PosjFlami-
■nino. What lurks under the word Pos? Dessau imagined a second cognomen
(PIR^, V 522). J. proposes Pol. that is the tribe “PoUia”. Not a good idea.
Surely, and evidently, Poh. The “Poblilia” is the tribe of Cales. Vitrasia
Faustina, daughter of the eminent consular. T. Pomponius Proculus Vitra¬
sius Pollio (suff. C.152, cos.II 176), who married a cousin of Marcus Aurelius,
built a temple there (CIL, X, 4635). There are other Vitrasii at Cales (X
4643; “Eph. Ep“. VIII, 136, no. 532); and add a Praetorian guardsman with
the tribe and domicile (CIL, VI 2382 a). The re-emergence of this Campa¬
nian family, high equestrian in the early Principate (PIR^, V 523f), then a
gap until the suffectus of 122, is a fact of some interest.
Pollenius Auspex. It will be noticed that J. rejects Stein’s reconstruc¬
tion (o.c., 82 ff) of the careers and chronology of the two troublesome homo¬
nyms. Like other scholars, he goes back to Egger [“Jahreshefte” XIX/XX
(1919), 311 ff]. Egger put the Dalmatian governorship 6f the elder Pollenius
in 176—178. J. suggests that he followed Vitrasius Flamininus and assigns
him to 174 and 175, his consulate falling very shortly before 174.
Scapula Tertullus. This man governed Dalmatia under two Augusti
(CIL, III, 2809). Marcus and Verus or Marcus and Commodus? Now the
latter pair addressed a rescript to Scapula Tertullus 1, 18, 14). J.
argues that Scapula received it when legate of Dalmatia; and, short of space
elsewhere, he puts his tenure in 179—181. Attractive, but not quite certain.
Scapula might have subsequently been proconsul of Asia or Africa. His Dal¬
matian governorship could go somewhere in the blank period 161 169. It
should be pointed out that J. 's list gets rather cramped, producing no fewer
than six governors in the short space from 174 to 184, from Pollenius Au^ex
to L. Junius Rufinus Proculeianus inclusive. The consulate of Scapula Ter¬
tullus (parent of the ordinarius of 195) could go in the sixties. Observe, for
what it is worh, the consular pair Tertullus et Maximus (Dig., XLVIII, 5,
30 (29), 3). Maximus is too common a cognomen for any confidence. None the

197
less, one might be tempted to adduce Q. Tullius Maximus, legate of Thrace
and consul designate [A. Stein, R. Reichsbeamte der Provinz Thracia (1920),
29], His predecessor in Thrace was Ap. Cl. Martial is, who followed Gargi-
lius Antiquus (suff. 161 or 162).
*
« *

The list reaches a total of 47 items, comprising 38 governors who can

be identified, the mysterious Blesus of CIL, III, 6407, and 8 Anonymi.
Given the dispersal of epigraphy, the most exact diligence can sometimes
be baffled. Thus PIR"^ failed to notice Aelius Florianus, on a milestone near
Klis published by Bulic (“Bull, dalm.” XXX (1909), 111). J. has him. Has
J. himself missed anybody”? Perhaps there would be a case for mentioning
somewhere the acephalous inscription of a senator at the Amphitheatre of
Salonae [“Bull, dalm.” XXXVI (1914), whence AE, 1922, 36], This man’s
quaestorship and praetorship fell under Hadrian, so his command of one of
the legions styled “Victrix” belongs to the period 125—145. Not necessarily
a governor of Dalmatia. He might be a senator of Dalmatian origin — not
that there are very many of them, cf. observations in Serta Hoffilleriana,
1940, 225 ff.
However that may be, three names can beyond doubt be added. [First,
the Macer of Martial X, 78, whon PIR^, M 6 registers as a governor. And
rightly.
The poet addresses him thus: — ibis litoreas, Macer, Salonasj ibit rara
fides amorque recti j et quae, cum comitem trahit pudoremj semper pauperior
redit potestas. A little lower down he styles him rectorem (6). Further, the
year is clear, for Martial himself is about to embark on his journey to Spain
— nos Celtas, Macer, et truces Iberosj cum desiderio tui petemus (9f.). That is
to say, 98. A problem arises. Was Macer, like Pomponius Rufus (suff. 95)
a governor of praetorian rank? That possibility is indicated by Degrassi,
who duly includes him below the line in his Fasti Consolari (29). There is
this to be said against; the governorship of Cilnius Proculus (cos. 87), who
is attested in Moesia Superior in 100, presumably has to be placed from c. 95
to 98, preceding Macer. Therefore Macer is probably a consular legate. Not
therefore, as suggested \n PW, XIV 135, the Macer who was curator of the
Via Appiac. 95 (Martial X, 17, 5). Nor again, the proconsul of Baetica c. 99
(XII, 98, 7). These may be one person, viz. Q, Baebius Macer (suff. 103),
cf. R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 647; 667. One notes in passing that there is also
P. Calpurnius Macer (suff. 103). The honest governor of Dalmatia defies
identification; but a Macer is named along with a number of fairly senior
persons a few years earlier by Martial, and praised for his integrity — pro-
bitate Macros, aequitate Mauricos (V, 28, 5). Therefore not, perhaps, one of
the recent consuls. It is perhaps just worth mentioning that Groag (PW,
XVI, 2542) once entertained the adventurous notion that the L. Neratius
L. (f. Volt)... Junius Macer of CIL, IX, 2513 (Saepinum) might be none
other than L. Neratius Marcellus (suff. 95), legate of Britain? 101 — 104
(Plinius, Epp., Ill, 8; cf. CIL, XVI 48 = ILS 2001, of January, 103).

198
 Second, L. Minicius Fundanus (sujf. 107).
A dedication in his honour, with his cursus (incomplete) was found in
the ancient site beside the river Pliva at Sipovo, 20 km south-west from
Jajce; now in the Museum at Sarajevo. It was published by D. Sergejevski,
Epigrafski Nalazak u Sipovu, “Glasnik zemaljskog Muzeja u Bosni i Herce-
govini”, XXXVIII, (1926), 155 (with photograph); and the document is
cited in R. S3’me, Tacitus 1958, 801. It is gratifying to discover this amiable
and cultivated person (he was a friend of Pliny and of Plutarch) in charge of
a backward area — for such, despite the littoral with its cities, was by far
the greater portion of the province Dalmatia. It went east to within 30 km
of Belgrade, it took in Uzice, Cacak and Kosovska Mitrovica, with the mining
zone and the haunts of brigandage. By good fortune the inscription discloses
Fundanus’ tribe, the “Papiria”, hence a conjecture is permissible, that he
came from Ticinum in the “Pliny country”.
Third, Bassus. A legate with this cognomen emerges on an inscription
found near Vrlika on the upper Cetina about 30 km. north-west from Citluk
(Aequum): published by B. Gabricevic Dvije ilirske Opcines Podrucja Vrlike,
"Vjesnik za Arh. i Hist. Dalmatinsku", LV (1953), 103 ff. It records a delimi¬
tation of boundaries between the Barizani — (ates) and the Lizaviates. The
Barizaniates presumably have something to do with the station Bariduum,
or Baridunum, on the road from Salonae by way of Aequum attested by the
Tab. Pent. Inalperium comes after Aequum, then Baridunum. Further, a
group of Baridustae is discovered among the Dalmatians who were transplan¬
ted to Dacia, cf. AE, 1944, 21 (Alburnus Maior). As for the governor, the
cognomen being so frequent (about twenty consuls have it), speculation is
not profitable, but it does no harm to keep in mind L. Annius Bassus {sujf.
? 71), w'ho in 69 had been commander of XI Claudia in Dalmatia. Boundary
regulations are common under the first dynasty. The latest until this disco¬
very (apart from a sporadic instance c. 282) was made by order of Pompeius
Silvanus (ITS, 5951), legate in 69.
«
% «
So far the catalogue, with three names for supplement. We conclude
with the utilisation of the data, to throw light on various aspects of imperial
history (121 — 136).
First, the rank of the province. Dalmatia declined in importance, the
garrison of two legions falling to one early in the reign of Nero, and no legion
there at all after IV Flavia departed c. 86. Hence a repercussion on the qua¬
lity or notoriety" of the governors.
Second, the men themselves in respect of their careers and distinctions
before and after their tenure of Dalmatia. These items are carefully summa¬
rised. How much can emerge when only one consular province is under
inspection? As with the length of the interval between the consulate and the
province, a great variety is discernible. In the early epoch v^hen Dalmatia
was an armed province the legate might be expected to have military expe¬
rience. Yet not Ummidius Ouadratus, apparently (ITS, 972). Each speci-

199
 men has to be carefully watched. J. adduces Funisulanus Vettonianus (suff.?
78). He hed been a legionary legate, it is true, but that was long ago, and
hardly to his credit, for he had been involved in the capitulation of Caesen-
nius Paetus in Armenia in 62. When he was appointed to Dalmatia c. 80
that was due to internal politics and a recent rehabilitation rather than to
proved competence in the field.
The way of access that brought future governors of consular provinces
to the fasces is of cardinal importance. J. points out that fewer of them had
been proconsuls than legates of a province of praetorian rank. He assigns a
reason: the former category of provinces was smaller than the latter (129).
That is untrue for the period of the Julio-Claudian rulers, while under the
Flavians they were equal, eight of each. J. has ignored the differentiation
of careers as between "senatorial” and “imperial”, on which see E. Birley,
"Proc. Brit. Ac.”., XXXIX (1953), 197 ff. Proconsuls in any age seldom
come to anything: consult, if necessary, a list of the proconsuls of Bithynia or
Crete and Cyrene. On the other hand, the praetorian provinces in the portion
of Caesar are the sign and pledge of a rapid consulate, a kind of predestination
to the great consular commands. See observations in JRS, XLIII (1953),
152 f; 1957, 133 f; 1958, 1 ff.
Thirdly, the length of a governor’s tenure. Like Reidinger on Pannonia
(o.c., 75), J. is impressed by a statement of the Historia Augusta that Pius
kept good governors in office for seven or even nine years (Pius, 5, 3). J. (61)
appeals for support to Hiittl, Antoninus Pius, I (1936), 329. That scholar,
to be sure, states that confirmation is to be had from the inscriptions, and
he proceeds to assert, inter alia, that seven years in Britain is established
for Lollius Urbicus, nine in Germania Superior for Popilius Pedo. How
happy should we be if that were so ! It is not so. The whole notion is perni¬
cious, and deserves to be stamped on. There is no reason against assuming
three of four years as normal under Pius as in other seasons.
Next, social status. J. speaks of patricians (132), but he fails to draw
a distinction between the ancient patriciate surviving in imperial Rome and
the creations of the Caesars. Further, he denies that L. Aelius Lamia (cos. 3)
was patrician (i.e., neopatrician, created by Augustus). Before that can be
done it is necessary to consider Ti. Plautius M. f. Silvanus Aelianus (cos. 45).
This man held no office between quaestorship and praetorship. What expla¬
nation serves save that he was an originally patrician Aelius Lamia, taken
by some device or other into the family of the Plautii (who were not patrician
before 48, cf. ILS, 964)? About social and political categories, however, a
more serious reproach can be addressed. J. fails to recognize the prime signi¬
ficance of the consulate. It is the source of nohilitas in the Republic; and it
also produces the new nobility of imperial Rome.
Finally, local origins. J. comes out with a firm statement about Italians
and provincials — “der Zusammensetzung des Senates entsprechend waren
die Statthalter des ersten Jahrhunderts durchwegs Stadtromer oder Itali-
ker” (133). One asks, who were “Stadtromer”, what can the term mean?
J. comprehends in this class, along with P. Dolabella (patrician) and L. Piso
(a plebeian nobilis), L. Salvius Otho, who was in fact a municipal aristocrat.
How can a line be drawn between Otho, ex principibus Etruriae (Suetonius,

200
Otho, 1), and Ummidius Quadratus, of a good old family from Casinum?
Their entrance into the consular nobility of the Empire falls in the same gene¬
ration.
On J. ’s showing, the list carries only four clear provincials, it is true,
and the earliest of them is P. Coelius Balbinus Vibullius Pius under Antoni¬
nus Pius (claimed for Spain, cf. above). But Dalmatia may not be a safe
guide for generalisations. Other provinces, such as Britain under Vespasian,
where Julius Agricola follows Julius Frontinus, indicate the disturbing truth
that provincials were higher in the hierarchy than J. seems to conceive posr
sible.
General conception or item of detail, J. is not good enough on origins.
Of Funisulanus Vettonianus he says "die tribus Aniensis spricht fiir
eine Herkunft aus Forum Popili”, and he refers to Kubitschek and to Groag
(46). The argument is circular. Nobody knows the tribe of Forum Popili. It
is deduced from Funisulanus, who was honoured there (CIL, XI, 571 -f- AE,
1946, 205). Possibly because a native of the town, but perhaps, on other
merits; he had been curator of the Aemilia. If C. Julius Proculus {suff. 109)
is claimed as a legate, the nomen and his tribe, the “Voltinia”, ought not
to be neglected; patently Narbonensian. Further, it might have been useful
to note that Q. Pomponius Rufus (suff. 95), who began his career with a
commission from Galba in the war against Nero, looks like the son of some
family of the notables in Tarraconensis. For Spanish Pomponii observe
Sex. Pomponius, praetorii viri pater, Hispaniae citerioris princeps (Plinius
-NH, XXXII, 120).
If the thing is worth doing at all in a study of this kind, several more of
the Italian senators can be tied down comfortably to a town or a region. We
do not know enough about P. Anteius Rufus (suff. under Claudius), remark¬
able in himself and because the younger Helvidius Priscus married an
Anteia (PIR^, A 732). The nomen is rare, unfortunately not registered in
the repertormm of W. Schulze. The indications point to central Italy. Corfi-
nium shows a lihertus of a P. Anteius (CIL, IX, 3206); and at Saepinum
in Samnium there is a woman of a senatorial family, but not of the first
century. Neratia Anteia Rufina (ib. 2458). The family name of C. Calpeta-
nus Rantius Sedatus (suff. ? under Nero) is patently Etruscan. Of which
city? Observe (not cited by Schulze) that the name occurs at Volsinii on a
tile and on an amphora (CIL, XI, 8113^a; 8114^). It is also a part of the
nomenclature of C. Calpetenus Rantius Quirinalis Valerius P.f. Pomp.
Festus (ILS, 989; Tergeste), consul suffect in 71. Not a citizen of the town
that acknowledges him as itspatronus (Tergeste), but presumably from Arra-
tium, cf. CIL, XI, 1863f. Valerius Festus carries the "Pomptina", which is
the tribe of Arretium (also of Volsinii). As for A. Ducenius Geminus (suff. ?
c. 55), the nomen leads one to Transpadane Italy (CIL, V 2824f; Patavium ;
3609: Verona), especially to Patavium, for it occurs in the nomenclature of
a senatorial Asconius (2824, cf. P/R^ A 1207). The Vitrasii are clearly from
Gales in Campania, cf. above on L. Vitrasius Flamininus. And, to revert to
the first legate of Dalmatia: C. Vibius Postumus (suff. 5), who is honoured
at Larinum (CIL, IX, 730), cannot be denied descent from a criminal
fam.ily in that municipium of criminal notoriety, cf. Rom. Rev (1939), 362.

201
 It appears that no province taken by itself avails to furnish safe guidance
or rules for the working of the imperial system and the social transformation
of the upper order. Least of all Dalmatia among the consular commands, for
it forfeits its legions and remains an anomaly (until Bithynia — Pontus
becomes imperial and consular c. 164). That is no reason, however, for any
depreciation of a book which, reviving the name of the "Balkan-Kommis-
sion”, recalls the high estimation of Vienna in these studies and encourages
the hope that there or elsewhere the Fasti of other Roman provinces will be
brought into order and utility.

XIII. ADDENDUM.

P. 193 — Q. Pomponius Rufus (sujj. 95). To be regarded as a iuridicus

in Tarraconensis. See now the remarks on the adherents of Galba (and the
friends of Pliny the procurator) in “Harvard Studies”, LXXII (1969),
201 ff.
A new document has been brought into the dossier, namely the inscrip¬
tion at Carthage recording a man who was ^r[ocos.]/A/ncae, leg. Augusto-
rum pro pr.j [M^oesiae item Dalmatiaej [curatori o^peruni publicorum
(AE, 1955, 123, cf. Jagenteufel, p. 115). It is claimed for Pomponius Rufus
by H.G. Pflaum, "Bull. Soc. Nat. Ant. de France”, 1959, 244 f. Not plau¬
sible. The order of the two posts tells against: for item, cf. ILS, 1081 (Dasu-
mius Tullius); 1080 (Servilius Fabianus); ME, 1950,66 (Bruttius Praesens).
Pomponius Rufus was governor of Dalmatia in 94, of Moesia Inferior in 99.
P. 195 — C. Cilnius Proculus (su}f. 87). He was governor of Dalmatia
(? 94—8) and of Moesia Inferior (? from 98 to 100 or 101). That he should
be equated with the Ignotus of the inscription at Carthage (AE, 1955, 123,
cf. above) has now been postulated by J. Fitz, "Latomus”, XXVII (1968),
45 ff. The same reason rules out both Pomponius Rufus and Cilnius Proculus.
If a date and occasion is to be sought when a man governed “Moesia”
before Dalmatia, it can only belong to a time when Moesia Superior was
temporarily a province of praetorian rank, having surrendered one of its
two legions. That can be conjectured for the time of Trajan, from 113 to
117 — and established during the Danubian Wars of Marcus. See the Add.
to Ch. V.
P. 196 — L. Vitrasius Flamininus. J. Fitz proposes an aberrant dating
for the inscription at Capua (CIL, X, 3870). He argues that Vitrasius must
have been consul suffect in 103 or 104, the command in Transpadana prece¬
ding (o.c. 55 ff.). The argumentation is not convincing.
P. 198 — Senators from Dalmatia. Compare Ch. VI.
P. 199 — New evidence. Two items accrue to the account of P. Corne¬
lius Dolabella (cos. 10), viz. AE, 1964, 227 (Epidaurum); 228 (Issa). On

202
which, and on the other documents, see D. Rendic Miocevic, Akte des IV.
internationalen Kongresses fur griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (1964),
338 ff.
An inscription found at Lepcis assigns to M. Pompeius Silvanus (sujj.
45) the additional name “Staberius Flavinus” [“Libya Antiqua”, II
(1965), 29].
A boundary stone found as long ago as 1919 near Niksic in Montenegro
carries the name of a known governor, L. Funisulanus Vettonianus (PIR
F 570), consul suffect almost certainly in 78 (with Q. Corellius Rufus).
From Dalmatia he proceeded to Pannonia, when he is attested in 84 and
in 85. The inscription was published (shortly before his death) by D. Serge-
jevski, "Archeologia lugoslavica”, V (1964), 93.
P. 199 — A new governor, “IJtius Pegasus”. The stone was observed
by J. Wilkes in the garden of a monastery at Zadar. It records a boundary
decision made under the authority of this governor; published in “Epi-
graphische Studien”, IV (1967), 119 (with photograph and drawing). He is
patently the great jurist Pegasus, consul with Pusio under Vespasian. That
is, L. Cornelius Pusio — but not L. Cornelius Pusio Annius Messalla, as
in PIR C 1425. The latter should be the consul suffect of 90, now revea¬
led by the FasR Potentini, cf. brief remark in Tacitus (1958), 805. The new
discovery is doubly welcome, since it dispels the notion there entertained
that the gentilicium of the jurist might have been “Cornelius”: it had been
prompted by the T. Cornelius Pegasus who makes a dedication to Mars at
Vasio Vocontiorum (CIL, XII, 1297).
For the consulship of Pegasus and Pusio I have suggested c. 13. If
Pegasus was the immediate precedessor of Funisulanus Vettonianus in
Dalmatia, he might have had a jurist with him in the person of the legate
commanding IV Flavia, viz. Javolenus Prisons (suff. 86), cf. ILS, 1015
(Burnum).
In conclusion, attention may be drawn to the illustrious polyonymus
honoured at Doclea, a Sertorius Brocchus who in his nomenclature flaunts
“Pedanius Fuscus Salinator lulius Servianus” (CIL, III, 13826, cf. PIR
S 395). Not necessarily a governor. For the problem of his identity, cf. (not
concordant) E. Groag, P-W, XIX. 23; R. Syme, “Historia”, XVII (1968), 90.

203
 XIV

HADRIAN IN MOESIA

Hadrian was many times on the Danube. He began his military career
with tribunates in two legions of Moesia (95 to 97), passing thence to the
Rhine. Not long after, when quaestor in 101, he went with Trajan to the
first war against the Dacians; and he commanded a legion in the second
w'ar. In the winter and spring of the first year of his reign he visited Moesia
on the way to Rome. He was there again in 124; and for the last time ten
years later when returning from the last of his journeys, as is revealed by
the inscription of Caesernius Macedo {cos. suff. c. 140), who was in his com¬
pany Orientem et lllyric(um) {AE, 1957, 135).
Much could be said or surmised. The present enquiry, however, is
restricted to the first episode, to the season of Hadrian’s military tribunates.
None the less, it raises a number of questions of detail that have a general
bearing on imperial administration and the history of the time; and the search
for precision will entail a certain amount of speculation.
By good fortune, Hadrian’s service as laticlavius has a double attesta¬
tion. The inscription at Athens registers the three legions in order of time,
viz. II Adiutrix, V Macedonica, XXII Primigenia (ILS, 308). The Historia
Augusta has the name of the first legion only (Hadr., 2, 2). It then procedes
post haec in inferiorem Moesiam translatus (2.3). Next, after an anecdote
about the prediction of an astrologer, it states that, on the news of Trajan’s
adoption by Nerva, the young man was deputed to convey the good wishes
of the army, and was transferred to Germania Superior (2. 5). Then, when
Nerva’s decease was reported, Hadrian made haste to bear the tidings to
Trajan, which he managed despite the malicious attempt of Servianus to
delay his journey (2. 6).
Such is the account in the Vita Hadriani, deriving from an excellent
source which the compiler abbreviated and interlaced with dubious anecdo¬
tes. By itself, it is so compressed as to be barely intelligible. It has to be
supplemented with facts and dates from other sources.
Hadrian was born on January 26, 76. The first military tribunate, in
II Adiutrix, may be assigned to the year 95, the second, extremis iam Domitiani
temporihus (Hadr., 2, 3), to 96: V Macedonica was the legion, stationed at
Oescus in Moesia Inferior. It was seen long ago that the language of the His-

204
toria Augusta, in inferiorem Moesiam translahis, offered a clue to the loca¬
tion of II Adiutrix at this time. That is, Moesia Superior^. Such has been
the general persuasion.
Hadrian’s second military tribunate lasted for more than twelve months.
He was still with V Macedonica in Moesia Inferior in the autumn of 97:
Trajan was adopted by Nerva in October. The curtailed item in the Vita
(Hadrian’s mission and his transference to Germania Superior) happens to
furnish the only clue to determining Trajan’s provincial command at that
time. The legion his 3^oung kinsman now joined was XXII Primigenia, at
Moguntiacum. When Nerva died on January 28 of the next year, Trajan was
no longer in Germania Superior. A late epitomator (the sole evidence) states
that he was proclaimed emperor at Agrippina, i.e. Colonia Claudia (Eutro-
pius, VIII, 2, 1). Hadrian’s journey is explained; and Trajan, it follows,
had brought Servianus to fill his place as legate of Germania Superior.
So far the chronology. Hadrian’s tribunate in II Adiutrix impinges on
an intricate nexus of problems: the distribution and location of the Danu-
bian legions. Before the changes caused by the wars of Domitian (from 85 to
92), Pannonia had two legions, viz. XIII Gemina and XV Apollinaris. In
Moesia stood three for certain, VII Claudia, V Macedonica, I Italica; and
also a fourth, V Alaudae, if a legion be deemed to have perished in the disaster
of Cornelius Fuscus (86 or 87). In the course of those wars no fewer than five
fresh legions had been brought to the Danubian provinces: I Adiutrix, II
Adiutrix, IV Flavia, XIV Gemina, XXI Rapax. One of them, XXI Rapax,
was destroyed by the incursion of the Sarmatians in 92;^ and there is no
sign that any of the others reverted to their original stations. Therefore a
total of nine may safely be assumed after 92 for the three commands on the
frontier (Moesia was divided in 86). ^
Attempts have been made to trace the changes and permutations of the
legions during Domitian’s campaigns. ^ Given the defects in the evidence,
not much can be established. The interval of peace and stability between
93 and 100 is more promising. ^ Yet full and detailed ascertainment is baf¬
fled. Three matters call for scrutiny.
First, and in general: the nine legions. How should they be apportioned
between Pannonia and the Moesian commands? Four are not too few for
Pannonia, which now becomes the most important military province in the

1 E. Ritterling, EE XII, 1443 s.v. Legio. It was a much earlier suggestion,

going back to Pfitzner.
2 The year 93 was incautiously advocated by R. Hanslik, "Wiener Studien”,
LXIII (1948), 126 ff. Erroneous, like the notion that Pliny (suff. 100), was praetor
in 95 (ib. 127). The present paper eschews comment on the recent article "M. Ulpius
Traianus”, RE, Supp. X, 1035 ff.
® E. Ritterling, o.c., 1279.
* R. Syme, JRS, XVIII (1938), 45 ff. See now, with exhaustive detail, G. Alfol-
dy, "Acta Arch. Ac. Sc. Hung.”, XI (1959), 113 ff.
® R. Syme, o.c., 48 ff.; 50 f.; “Laureae Aquincenses” (1938), 267 ff., G. Alfoldy,
O.C., 136 ff. Ritterling produced tables of legionary distribution for 88/9 and for
93 (o.c., 1364). It was a pity that he omitted 93 — 100.

205
Empire. ® Five, that is another matter. ’ Excessive as a permanent establish¬
ment under one legate. In fact, not tolerable and not on record in the mili¬
tary annals of the Empire since the wars of Caesar Augustus. One imagines
what Domitian would have thought of the notion.
In consequence four legions fall to Pannonia, five to the two commands
in Moesia. A piece of evidence can be adduced in support. A laticlavius of
II Adiutrix earned military decorations bello Suebico it[em Sar]matico
(ILS, 2719: Potentia in Lucania). He is further described as the optio of
the tribunes of five legions. The post is unique: it appears to indicate the
senior officer in a corps of vexillationes. Hence, it is assumed, a force drafted
from the two armies and sent to Pannonia for Domitian's campaign in 92. ®
Second, as between Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior, which had three
legions for its garrison? Provincial boundaries come into the question. Bet¬
ween 86 and 106 the former province had a longer frontier than subsequently,
so it can be argued; and its military role was of central importance before
Dacia was conquered and annexed. It had long been conjectured that the
region between the lower course of the Save and the Danube (Syrmia for
short) was attached to Moesia Superior and remained so until Pannonia
Inferior was created in 106. ® Welcome indications now accrue from the evi¬
dence of military diplomata. Two auxiliary regiments, the Ala Praetoria and
Cohors V Gallorum, belonged to Pannonia in 85; in 93 and 100 they are regis¬
tered under Moesia Superior; but in 110 they are in Pannonia Inferior.
An easy explanation offers. Not transfer of regiments back and forth, but
a change in the status of the region. The location of V Gallorum is not known,
but Ala Praetoria was at Teutoburgium: observe the decurio M. Ulpius Super
who died there aged 32 after 16 years of service (ILS, 2339).
The wider extension of Moesia Superior towards the west, taking in
Sirmium (which was made a colonia by Domitian) and a section of the Danube
frontier above Singidunum towards the mouth of the Drave at least as far
as Teutoburgium will therefore be conceded. However, at the other end, the
boundary against Moesia Inferior comes into play, a neglected factor. In
the Second Century it fell a few miles below Ratiaria, not far short of the
river Almus. There is a chance that from 86 to 106 the tract along the Danube
from Ratiaria up to the Iron Gates belonged to Moesia Inferior. It correspon¬
ded with part of the “Moesia” in the old territory “Moesia et Treballia” which

« R. Syme, o.c. (1928), 52; CAH, XI (1926), 187.

’ Five legions for Pannonia in 93 — 100 are postulated by G. Alfoldy, o.c. 141.
The corollary, only four for the two Moesian Provinces, is also damaging. If the sur¬
vival of V Alaudae after 70 is conceded (and why not?), the undivided Moesia had
four legions in 85.
® E. Ritterling, o.c., 2719; R. Syme, o.c. (1928), 47 f.
* E. Ritterling, o.c. 1444; M. Fluss, RE, XV, 2353 s.v. Moesia,] A. Graf, Vber-
sicht der antiken Geographie von Pannonien (1936), 36; A. M6csy, RE, Supp. IX,
584 f, s.v. Pannonia.
CIL, XVI, 31; 34; 46; 164.
A. Radnoti and L. Barkoczi, “Acta Arch. Ac. Sc. Hung.”, I (1951), 198;
201.

206
was in the charge of an equestrian officer in the time of Tiberius (ILS, 1349).
The entity was reconstituted when Aurelian gave up Dacia. That is, his
Dacia Ripensis, with two legions, one at Ratiaria, the other at Oescus. If
this “old Moesia” belonged to the lower province between 86 and 106, it
touches the distribution of the five legions between two armies.
Third, legions and their camps. As previously, VII Claudia was at
Viminacium, V Macedonica at Oescus, I Italica at Novae. The new arrivals
cause trouble, II Adiutrix and IV Flavia. There are other perplexities. The
early history of Singidunum is obscure (from the beginning of Hadrian’s
reign IV Flavia was there, after a sojourn in Dacia). And Ratiaria deserves
a thought — a strategic position, where a road from Naissus reaches the
Danube. Now Oescus was made a colonia when V Macedonica departed to
Troesmis after the Dacian Wars. Ratiaria was also a colonia Ulpia.
As concerns II Adiutrix, various indications suggest that it was statio¬
ned somewhere in the western parts of Moesia Superior. About the year
100 a centurion who had been decorated for service in a Dacian War by an
unnamed emperor died at Sirmium (ILS, 9193). The gravestone was set
up by his heir, the procurator T. Caesernius Macedo. This man is attested
as governor of Mauretania Caesariensis in 107 (CIL, XVI, 56).
The camp of II Adiutrix may have lain somewhere close to Sirmium.
Otherwise, perhaps Singidunum. Let that suffice, with a reminder that
the notice in the HA indicates Moesia Superior as the province.
Hadrian's service as tribune in three legions between 95 and 98 opens
up another theme: the identity of consular legates towards the end of Domi-
tian’s reign. The young laticlavius is often allocated to a province governed
by some kinsman or friend. Passage from one legion to another is not common.
It can denote the transfer of a legion or a governor. That is to say, the lati¬
clavius remains in the province when the legion goes, or follows a governor
to another province. Thus Junius Avitus went with Julius Servianus from
Germania Superior to Pannonia in 98 or 99 (Plinius ,Epp., VIII, 23,5). Further,
it may be desirable for the young man himself to change his province and
join a second friend or member of a family group.
To be tribune in three legions is abnormal. The only other instance is
Minicius Natalis (ILS, 1061, cf. 1029). He was just twenty years younger
than Hadrian. Precision offers. Natalis in one and the same year was quaes-

“ G. Alfoldy, O.C., 128 ff.; 135 f.; 139 f. Admitting only four legions in the
two Moesian commands, that scholar assigns IV Flavia to "Pannonia”. That this
legion was at the other extremity, at Durostorum in Moesia Inferior, was suggested
by C. Patsch, “Wiener S-B”, CCXVII, Abh. 1 (1937), 46 f. Divergences of this order
betray the absence of the necessary facts.
13 For IV Flavia as one of the three legions garrisoning Trajan’s Dacia, cf.
R. Syme, o.c. (1938), 277; JRS, LII (1962), 88.
R. Syme, JRS, XVIII (1928), 49; "Laureae Aquincenses” (1938), 272 f.
“ Its early traces at Aquincum in Pannonia (G. Alfoldy, o.c., 128) can be
assigned to the period of Domitian s wars or the early years of Trajan.
i« For Singidunum (with necessary reservations), R. Syme, o.c. (1928), 48 f.;
44. Alfoldy (positive), o.c., 140.

207
tor of the emperor and quaestor under his father, the proconsul of Africa.
Clearly 121. Hadrian, setting out on his tour of the western provinces, had
no need of a quaestor. And there is a useful corollary. The father of Natalis
(suff. 106) comes neatly into line as proconsul of Africa, for the tenure 121/2.
Natalis had been in succession laticlavius of I Adiutrix, XI Claudia,
XIV Gemina. Those posts should fall c. 114—8. Now I Adiutrix belonged
to the first garrison of Trajan’s Dacia, such is the reasonable conjecture.
Further, this legion went to the East for Trajan’s Parthian War. It was
there commanded by Platorius Nepos (ILS, 1052), before his governorship
of Thrace (?117—9). The second legion belonged to Moesia Inferior, the
third to Pannonia Superior.
Natalis, it might be supposed, preferred to stay behind in the Danu-
bian lands when I Adiutrix went away. It would be of interest to know the
names of the three governors in question. For Dacia, no clue — unless Avi-
dius Nigrinus (suff. 110) was already there. His governorship is attested by
the dedication set up by the centurion in charge of his equites singulares at
Sarmizegethusa (ILS, 2417). As for Moesia Inferior, Pompeius Falco (suff.
108) is not on record before 116 (CIL, III, 12470), but may have arrived a
year or two earlier. Finally, the father of Natalis (suff. 106) is certified as
legate of Pannonia Superior in 116 (CIL, XVI, 64). As with Falco, his first
consular command; and he was in office when Trajan died (ILS, 1029).
Curiosity is therefore whetted about Hadrian. Who were the consular
legates during his sojourn on the Danube, from 95 until the autumn of
97? For the period 92—100, the facts are as follows:
A. Moesia Superior
93 Cn. Pompeius Longinus (suff. 90) CIL, XVI, 93,
100 C. Cilnius Proculus (87). CIL, XVI, 46.
The attestation of Longinus is a diploma dated to 93 by the imperial
titulature, to 94 by the suffect consuls. (CIL, XVI, 39). He might have
been there since 91 or 92. He next turns up in Pannonia, registered on Februa¬
ry 20, 98 (C/L, XVI, 42), where Julius Servianus soon takes his place (Plinius,
Epp., Vm, 23, 5). 20 As for Cilnius, he had previously been legate of Dal¬
matia ("Not. Scav.”, 1925: Arretium). He vacated that post in 98: the poet
Martial writing in that year acclaims a new governor of Dalmatia, a man
called "Macer”, who baffles identity. 21 Therefore there is a gap between

E. Ritterling, o.c., 1390 f.; R. Syme, o.c. (1938), 276.

Platorius Nepos is described as a friend of Hadrian at the time of the expe~
ditio Parthica (HA, Hadr., 4, 2).
A. Stein, Die Legaten von Moesien (1940), 39 f.
The date of the transference of Pompeius Longinus from Moesia Superior
to Pannonia is vital. It can have occurred as early as 94. The question has been obfus¬
cated by the obtrusion of L. Neratius Priscus (i.e., the suffectus of 87) as legate of
Pannonia from 94 to 97. Thus, recently, A. Reidinger, Die Statthalter des ungeteil-
ten Pannonien, etc. (1956), 58 f. Against, R. Syme, "Gnomon”, XXIX (1957), 521.
This governor is presumably the homonymous suffectus of 97, with the tenure 102 —
105.
21 Martial, X, 78, cf. R. Syme, "Gnomon”. XXXI (1959), 515.

208
Longinus and the arrival of Cilnius in 98 or 99, for one legate, perhaps
for two.
B. Moesia Inferior 22
92 Sex. Octavius Fronto (suff. 86). CIL, XVI, 37.
96/7 L. Julius Marinus (? 93). CIL, XVI, 41.
99/C. Pomponius Rufus (95). CIL, XVI, 44 f.
10 0 M’ Laberius Maximus (89). SEG., I. 329, 11.62 ff.
Here a vacancy is to be assumed between Fronto and Marinus. The
latter, the “Julius Mar” [attested in January of 97 (CIL, XVI, 41) is iden¬
tified as L. Julius Marinus, proconsul of Bithynia c. 89, compare the inscrip¬
tion of his son (ILS, 1026). Perhaps appointed in 96 — and to have no long
tenure, being replaced by Pomponius Rufus in 97 or 98.
There is space, it follows, for Ignoti in both commands towards the end
of Domitian’s reign. Their identification would be a precious fact of political
and social history. In the first instance would occur Hadrian’s kinsman and
guardian, M. Ulpius Traianus (cos. 91). Trajan, whose father had been a
friend of Vespasian and governor of Syria, was a firm support of the Flavian
dynasty. Yet no consular employment is on record in the last years of Domi-
tian. It was Nerva who sent him to Germania Superior (Plinius, Pan., 9, 5).
Pliny in his Panegyricus is explicit and exuberant about one notable
exploit of the future emperor. When Antonius Saturninus, the governor
of Germania Superior, made a proclamation at the beginning of 89 the loyal
Trajan conducted a legion from Spain with marvellous expedition. The
orator has not seen fit to put on record any consular command. All he says,
is cum aliis super alias expediiionihus itinere illo dignus invenireris (Pan..
14, 5). It is a fair surmise that Trajan was on Domitian’s staff in Pannonia
in 92 — and held a military province in the sequel. To be sure, Pliny
implies that Trajan stayed at Rome during the Terror — “you shared our
life, our dangers, our fears” (Pan., 44, 1).
Not only Trajan. Julius Servianus (suff. 90) comes into the reckoning,,
the husband of Hadrian’s sister. When Hadrian in the autumn of 97 was
transferred to XXII Primigenia in Germania Superior, he joined Trajan
and remained there with his successor Servianus. The question arises: had
Hadrian previously served under either (or both) when laticlavius of II Adiu-
trix and of V Macedonica?
Alternatives offer. The one person might have governed the Moesian
provinces in succession, the laticlavius accompanying his relative. That
would presuppose a promotion. Also, two legions for Moesia Superior, three
for Moesia Inferior. Which is not excluded (compare above, on Ratiaria and
the boundary between the two provinces). Otherwise, the tribune passed
from the one consular relative to the other. If so, in which order?

22 A. Stein, o.c., 58 ff.; J. Fitz, Die Laufbahn der Statthalter in dev romischen
Provinz Moesia Inferior, (1966), 44.
2® R. Syme, JRS, XXXV (1945), 115 (review of A. Stein, Die Legaten von
Moesien); Tacitus (1958), 34.
R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 34; JRS, LIV (1964), 143 f.

209 ’
 Let it be supposed that Trajan held Moesia Superior from 94 to 96 or
97, succeeding Pompeius Longinus, with Servianus in the other province
from 92 or 93 to 98 (after Octavius Pronto). In that case, Hadrian went first
to Trajan as tribune of II Adiutrix and permuted to Servianus in 98. Julius
Marinus took the place of Servianus (perhaps late in the year), but Hadrian
did not depart. He stayed on as tribune of V Macedonica with Marinus (no
personal attachment is on record), and did not join Trajan when Trajan was
sent by Nerva to be governor of Germania Superior. It was the adoption
that brought him from the Danube to the Rhine.
Trajan rather than Servianus as governor of Moesia Superior when
Hadrian took up his tribunate in 95, is there any criterion for deciding?
As extraneous item now supervenes, which may (or may not) be accorded
validity. In any event, it raises questions of some interest concerning the
imperial army.
An optio of the legion XV Apollinaris called M. Ulpius Dasius died at
Carnuntum after 20 years of service (CIL, III, 4491). That provides a date.
This legion, it is generally held, was removed from Pannonia and taken to
the eastern lands for Trajan’s Parthian War. No evidence records its share
in any campaign — and it might not have been among the first of the Danu-
bian legions to depart. However, XV Apollinaris turns up in the sequel at
Satala as one of the two legions garrisoning Cappadocia. The soldier had 23
years of service — and also Trajan's gentilicium. If he was enrolled in or
subsequent to 98, it would follow that XV Apollinaris did not leave Carnun¬
tum until 118, or later.
That is not impossible. Another explanation avails. M. Ulpius Dasius
carries Sirmium as his origo. That is to say, he is a native (observe the Illy¬
rian cognomen) recruited from the territory of Sirmium and given the citi¬
zenship on enlistment. Perhaps he took the nomen not from Trajan the Empe¬
ror but from M. Ulpius Traianus, who may have been the governor of Moesia
Superior in 94—98. As has been shown above, Sirmium probably belonged
to the province at that time.
Such a surmise would need to be justified. Provincial governors trans¬
mit their nomen to clients. Yet a glance, however, cursory, at the nomencla¬
ture of new citizens shows that the practice tended to fade out. It was not
encouraged by the emperors. Not but that examples can still be found in
the Second Century. A family of Ummidii occurs at Gigthis.^® It permits
the conjecture that Hadrian’s friend C. Ummidius Quadratus {suff. 118)
was proconsul of Africa in 133/4.
Soldiers are another matter. The thing occurred, to be sure in the early
period. The army list at Coptos c. 1 B.C. (ILS, 2483) provides clear instan -
ces. Thus two men with Ancyra for their origo and the name “M. Lollius” .
They are patently native Galatians enrolled by M. Lollius, when he was
governor of Galatia (25 — 22 B.C.). Later examples are not easy to come
by. The Caesars were jealous about clientela. They would not wish to have
their monopoly infringed precisely in the armed forces.

CIL. VIII, 4042-4; 22693; 22743.

** As argued ia a paper on the senatorial Ummidii, "Historia", XVII (1968), 92 .

210
 Therefore, when the nomina of governors crop up among soldiers, one
must proceed with caution. They may derive from civilian parents who
have been granted the civitas. Thus probably the Batavian “C. Petillius C. f.
Vindex”, decurio in an auxiliary regiment in the year 110 (Cl L, XVI, 164).
A notable document. The nomen is that of the Roman general who defeated
the Batavian insurgents, C. Petillius Cerialis. His parent was enfranchised
by the general.
Another document has strangely escaped notice: a list of legionaries
who joined V Macedonica in 108 and 109 (CIL, III, 6178: Troesmis). The
names “Aponius Moe [Psicus]” and “Fonteius Capito” occur. They echo
M. Aponius Saturninus, legate of Moesia in 69, and his successor C. Fonteius
Capito, whose tenure was quickly terminated by death in the field. Perhaps
these men are in fact the sons of soldiers who had been recruited in a season
of emergency.
A later exemple has been detected, acclaimed with unanimi ty and exploi¬
ted to a notable conclusion and certainty. An inscription found at Munici-
pium Montanensium in Moesia Inferior carries the names of so Id iers belong¬
ing to a vexillatio of the legion XI Claudia (CIL, III, 7449) . On the list
no. 60 is reproduced as “Umi. Quadratus”. He got his name, such is the
assumption, from an Ummidius Quadratus who was governor of th e province.
That person turns up providentially, revealed by the inscription of his bene-
ficiarius at Charax in the Crimea (“Arch. Anz.”, 1911, 236). Hence a governor
of Moesia Inferior under Antoninus Pius. He is identified as C. Ummidius
Quadratus (consulate not attested) who married c. 137 Annia Cornificia, the
sister of Marcus (PIR^, A 708). His governorship was therefore put c. 150.
An attractive combination. The certitude was premature. First, the
assumed acquisition of name and civitas might go back to the soldier’s father.
Here and elsewhere it is relevant to note that, like the freedman, the client
does not normally take the cognomen of pair onus Still it may sometimes
supervene in the second generation. Thus, presumably, the “Fonteius Capito’’
recruited in 109 or 110 for V Macedonica. The prime instance is the Cypriote
notable C. Ummidius Quadratus, the son of C. Ummidius Pantauches (IGR,
III, 750, f. 751: Palaepaphus). The latter got the citizenship from the great
ancestor of the Ummidii (suff. c. 40), proconsul of Cyprus under Tiberius
(ILS, 972).
Second, the original publication of the inscription in fact gave the sol¬
dier’s name as “]mi Quadratus”.2® Observe two others on the list, viz.
“Mum. Celer” (no. 61) and “Mu[?m.] Niger” (no. 66).
Doubt therefore arises, or even denial. That soldier did not take a
governor’s name, towards the year 150. And, for that matter, the legate of
Moesia Inferior certified by the Charax inscription does not have to be the

2’ W. Huttl, Antoninus Pius, II (1933), 120 ff.; A. Stein, o.c., 70; J. Fitz,
“Epigraphica”, XXVI (1964), 45 ff., cf. the resume in AE, 1965, 152.
** Compare remarks about persons called “Sentius Saturninus", "Historia",
XIII (1964), 163 f.
*»'‘Eph. Ep.", IV, p. 527.

211
youthful husband of Annia Cornificia. Rather his parent, the suffectus of
118; and his tenure can be put c. 121—4.3®
To sum up. There is a chance that M. Ulpius Dasius from Sirmium acqui¬
red civitas and nomen before the accession of Trajan. Hence a prop to the
notice that Trajan was legate of Moesia Superior about the year 95. In any
event, the hypothesis that both Trajan and Servianus held governorships
in the Moesian provinces as their first consular posts ought to be taken into
account. The Rhine commands, though now reduced to three legions each,
had a higher and a historic prestige. Trajan when adopted by Nerva was
holding Germania Superior, and Servianus replaced him there. In the crisis
of 97 the legates in the consular army commands were vital. Their previous
employments are instructive — if they can be ascertained. For want of
something better, Hadrian’s military service is a relevant factor.

3® As suggested in “Historia”, XVII (1968), 89 f. A place can be found after

the mysterious “.Jrtorius” attested in 120 ('C/I., Ill, 7359), probably a Sertorius
Brocchus, and before C. Bruttius Praesens (suff. ? 119). Cappadocia preceded Moesia
Inferior in the cursus of Praesens (AE, 1950, 66; Mactar;/i?r, 545; Lepcis).

212
 XV

LEGATES OF MOESIA

Lists of governors may tell little or nothing about a province. Their

utility is wider and deeper. They furnish precious guidance to the imperial
system in its working — and, though so many of the persons are bare names,
they help to build up the structure of social and political history. Further¬
more, statistics come into play, as rarely in ancient history. Most instructive
arethe legates governing the consular provinces in the portion of Caesar, either
w^hen put on register through a long run of years, or (better) taken together
for comparison in some significant or manageable section of history. By pro¬
vince or by period, the information varies enormously. Moesia Superior
makes a poor showing, in contrast to the other province which is rich in
inscriptions and coins from the Greek cities.
In 1940 appeared the model work of Arthur Stein, Die Legaten von Moe-
sien. Since then, fresh evidence has accrued, director indirect, which modi¬
fies Stein’s list in a number of particulars. Moesia was divided in the year
86, during Domitian’s War against the Dacians — and because of it. By
good fortune the first two legates of Moesia Superior are attested, viz. Funi-
sulanus Vettonianus (coming there from the Pannonian command) and Tet-
tius Julianus, who won the great victory at Tapae in 88.
In the sequel the annals of Moesia Superior are rather meagre. In fact,
this province forfeited importance after Trajan’s annexation of Dacia; and,
under Hadrian is has two legions, while Moesia Inferior has three, with a
frontier to guard. There is a dearth of new inscriptions. However, conjecture
or combination can produce three more legates, before the accession of Marcus
Aurelius.
1. O. Sosius Senecio (cos. 99). Pliny, writing c. 103, commends an aspi¬
rant to the military tribunate. This governor was not at the beginning of
his tenure — multa heneficia in multos contulisti (Epp., Ill, 4, 3). Inspec¬
tion of the nine consular provinces that had legions shows only two vacancies
in 102 and 103, namely Moesia Superior and Germania Superior. There is a
chance (nothing more) that Cornelius Tacitus (suff. 97) was governor of
Germania Superior^. The two Germanies, now falling to a garrison of two
legions apiece, were coming to rank as peaceful provinces; and the consular

^ R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 72.

213
legates of Caesar were not all viri militares. Sosius Senecio may be installed
without discomfort as legate of Moesia Superior. That is to say, he followed
C. Cilnius Proculus (sujf. 87), who is attested as governor in 100 (CIL,
XVI, 46), and who won dona militaria in Trajan’s First Dacian War (“Not
Scav”., 1925,224), and his successor was L. Herennius Saturninus/^sM^y. 100),
known from a diploma dated between 103 and 106 (CIL, XVI, 54).
It was infortunate that Stein failed to notice the Plinian epistle. He
saw, it is true, that Sosius Senecio ought to have held a Danubian command
in the season of Trajan’s Dacian Wars, and he assigned him to Moesia Infe¬
rior in 105 and 106 2. Groag had made the same assumption 3. A different
explanation avails. Senecio got a second consulship in 107, sharing the fasces
with Licinius Sura, now consul for the third time. That points to military
laurels. Senecio was not a provincial governor, rather the commander of an
independent army corps, as was also Julius Quadratus Bassus in that war
(suff. 105). Nothing therefore precludes the notion that a few years earlier
Sosius Senecio took over the command in Moesia Superior, succeeding Cilnius
Proculus during or after Trajan’s First Dacian War^.
2. M. Cornelius M.f. Gal. Nigrinus Curiatius Maternus. Two inscrip¬
tions from Liria in Tarraconensis attest this Spanish senator of consular
rank (CIL, II, 6013; cf. 3783). He is designated leg. Aug pro pr. provine.
Moes.jprovine. Syriae. He should belong to the first half of the Second Cen¬
tury. That was Groag’s suggestion (PIR^, C. 407) Groag duly pointed to
the “Curiatius Maternus” in the man’s names, which item recalls the orator
and author of tragedies high on show in the Dialogus of Cornelius Tacitus —
and which crops up in the full nomenclature of C. Clodius Nummus, consul
suffect in 114 (PIR^, A 83). Something might be added: the chance that the
parent of the enigmatic consular legate may be discoverable in the pair of
suffecti “Sex. Carminio Vetere M. Co” (CIL, XIV, 4725). Sex. Carminius
Vetus (PIR^, C 436), attested as proconsul of Asia, probably for the tenure
97/8, was consul suffect c. 83.
For the rest, the man of Liria has attracted little attention. The neglect
should be redressed, even at the cost of conjecture. Two consular commands,
that is something. The first stands as “Moesia” without specifying which pro¬
vince. There are parallels for the omission, as on the inscription from Lepcis
(IRT, 537) recording the provincial posts of Q. Pomponius Rufus (suff. 95).
In that instance “Moesia” was “Moesia Inferior” {CIL, XVI, 44 f.). The Fasti
of the province being almost complete (see below), Cornelius Nigrinus may
be assigned (in default of other evidence) to Moesia Superior. One falls back
on his second post, which helps — on a negative criterion. Catilius Severus
(suff. 110) vacated Syria in 119 to hold the fasces in 120 for the second time.
The next legate on record is Publicius Marcellus (suff. 120), holding Syria
when the Jewish War began in 132 (ILS, 8826). That interval offers free
space for conjecture. Let Cornelius Nigrinus therefore be put in the twenties.

*A, Stein, c., 62 f. Against, JRS, XXXV, 1945,112; XLVII, 1957.132.

3E. Groag, P-W, III A. 1183.
« JRS, XLVII, 1957,132; "Latomus”, XXIII, 1964, 755f.
® Stein’s remarks were rather undecided (0. c., 111).
governor of Moesia Superior and of Syria. That is valuable. Few legates of
the consular provinces stand on attestation in this period. Hadrian’s choice
of consular legates in any season is likely to be variously instructive; and
Cornelius Nigrinus might not have belonged to the category of viri militares.
3. M. Valerius Etruscus. The gravestone of a veteran of VII Claudia at
Scupi in Moesia Superior, after registering his years of service, continues with
the item BMVELEGCONSULA When in the army this soldier had clearly
been the benefxciarius of a consular legate. Compare the soldier in the
Spanish legion VII Gemina, heneficiarijiuni Omulli consular. [ILS, 2404:
Nemausus).
This document, which gives the formula for the first time, is variously
instructive. The consular is clearly a son of M. lunius Homullus [suff. 102),
and the legionary legate who is also named, T. Vitrasius Pollio, should be
identified with the Vitrasius Pollio who received a rescript from Hadrian
{Dig., XXVII, 1, 15, 17). Hence a date c. 133
The letters MVE need not baffle. Other examples of this extreme type
of abbreviation occur There is advantage if it be interpreted as “M. Vale¬
rius Etruscus”, a known senator. He is attested as legate of Numidia in 151
{ILS, 5351) and in 152 {CIL, VII, 2543; AE, 1904, 21; 1954, 151). Gover¬
nors of that province normally proceed at once to a consulship, often already
designate before they depart. Betw^een the middle years of Trajan and the
accession of Marcus (the list is complete save for about four gaps) no other
legate of Numidia has failed to find admittance to the Fasti^. The inscrip¬
tions of Valerius Etruscus set up in 152 lack cos. des. Only one place is free
in that year, and none that fits his nomenclature in either 153 or 154. The
next year, 155, therefore has a preference over 152. Valerius Etruscus can
be fitted into a brief tenure of Moesia Superior before C. Curtius Justus (suff.
c. 151, cf. PIR^, C. 1613), who is attested in either 158 or 159 (ILS, 2302).
*

« **

For Moesia Inferior, the record to begin with was much fuller, and many
new inscriptions join the dossier. J. Fitz has recently devoted a comprehen¬
sive study to the Fasti of this province He supplies a revised list of the
governors and adds a discussion about the patterns of promotion. That list
in its turn cannot evade scrutiny — and some revision. The present survey
goes back to remarks about Fabius Justus and the other governors in the reign

* “Srpska Kraljevska Akademija, Spomenik”, LXXI (1931), p. 243, n. 650.

’ As argued in JRS, XLIII, (1953), 159.
* e.g."C. H. M’’. {ILS, 3225: Rome) ; “C. H. C”. (3586: Verona); "C. V (alerius?)
V (alerianus?) Sanctus”, a quaestor of Baetica [CIL, XIII, 395: Tarbes in Aquitania).
* "Historia”, XIV, 1965, 357. Fourteen legates are registered from c. 106 to 161.
For the details, Bengt E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der romischen Provinzen Nor-
dafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletianus, II, 1960.
J. Fitz Die Laufbahn der Statthalter in der romischen Provinz Moesia Inferior,
Weimar, 1966.

215
of Trajan It will be expedient to begin earlier, with the year 92 (the first
attested lepte), and go down to 162, when quick changes of governors reflect
the crisis in the East. t-- jj
It is a convenient tract of time. To Stein’s catalogue Fitz adds three
items, viz. Fabius Justus, the Ignotus in 109, andBruttius Praesens. And he
expels three. Sosius Senecio must go, that is certain (Fabius Justus now
rules him out); two Julii Severi in 159 and 160 should be reduced to one;
and Prastina Messallinus (cos. 147) is denied admittance.
However, Prastina Messallinus can be vindicated; and for some other
legates a different order or dating can be proposed, notably for Ummidius
Quadratus. Hence a revised list, provisionally: let it be hoped that fresh
evidence will emerge, for or against. For brevity and convenience each
carries the minimum piece of evidence requisite to establish a governorship
or its date (when that happens to, stand precisely attested). The detail will
be found in Stein, along with the supplement of the new inscriptions provided
by Fitz. At the end, summary annotation indicates the reasons for revision
or precision.

THE LEGATES OF MOESIA INFERIOR, 92-162

92 Sex. Octavius Fronto (cos. suff. 86). CIL, XVI, 37.

97 (L.) lulius Marinus (?.93). CIL, XVI, 41.
99 Q. Pomponius Rufus (95). CIL, XVI, 44 f.
100 M'.Laberius Maximus (89). SEG, I, 329, 1.62.
103 Q. Fabius Postuminus (96). CIL, III, 14451.
105 A. Caecilius Faustinus (99). CIL, XV, 50.
105 L. Fabius Justus (102). “B.M. Pap”, 2851.
109 Ignotus. CIL, III, 14267.
112 P. Calpurnius Macer Caulius Rufus (103). CIL, III, 111.
116-117 Q. Pompeius Falco (108). CIL, III, 12470 ; 7537.
120 (Se)rtorius (? Brocchus) (?). CIL, III, 12493.
C. Ummidius Quadratus (118). “ArchAnz”, XXVI, 1911, 23c.
C. Bruttius Praesens (? 119). AE, 1950, 66, cf. IRT, 545.
Cn. Minicius Faustinus Sex. lulius Severus (127). ILS, 1056.
134 Sex. Julius Maior (? 126 or 129). CIL, XVI, 78.
M. Antonius Hiberus (cos. 133). ILS, 423, 1.15.
Julius Crassus (?). CIL, III, 13727.
L. Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus (139). ILS, 1061.

11 JRS, XLX, 1957, 131 ff.; XLIX, 1959, 26 ff. Cf. also XXXV, 1945, 108 ff.
(review of Stein) and the paper Pliny and the Dacian Wars, “Latomus", XXIII (1964),
750 ff.

216
 145 Ti. Claudius Saturninus (c. 136—140). AE, 1916, 85.
C. Ulpius Pacatus Prastina Messallinus (cos. 147). CIL, III,
7529; AE, 1959, 323.
Q. Fuficius Cornutus (147). ILS, 8975; AE, 1957, 266.
155 T. Flavius Longinus Q. Marcius Turbo (c. 150). AE, 1919, 12;
CIL, III, 7449.
157 T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius (? c. 155) AE, 1937, 247.
159—160 L. Julius Statilius Severus (155). CIL, III, 12513.
M. lallius Bassus Fabius Valerianus (? 159). CIL, III, 6169, cf.
12387.
162 M. Servilius Fabianus Maximus (158). CIL, III, 12514.

Annotation:
1. L. Fabius Justus (suff. 102). Writing c. 106 to a man called Justus,
Pliny assumes that for him and for others the summer is an exacting and
anxious season — patiar ergo aestatem inquietam vobis exercitamque transcur-
rere (Epp., VII, 2). Hence the rational conjecture that Fabius Justus was
at the seat of war, either governor of one of the two Moesian provinces or
commanding an army corps in the Second Dacian War (JRS, XLVII,
1957, 131 ff.). Not everybody has been willing to admit the inference from
Pliny's language. However, a document brought confirmation. On “Hunt’s
Pridianum” “B.M. Pap”, 2851) is detected the name of the legate Fabius
Justus (JRS, XLIX, 1959, 27). He may therefore be assumed governor
of Moesia Inferior from 105 to 108, succeeding Caecilius Faustinus (whose
name also occurs on the papyrus) A milestone shows Fabius in Syria
in 109 {AE, 1940, 210). This experienced vir militaris replaced A. Cornelius
Palma (cos. II 109).
2. Ignotus. A fragmentary inscription reveals the fact that the governor
in 109 had a cognomen ending, in the ablative, in “e” (CIL, III, 12467).
Not many among the recent consuls had a cognomen of that type. Attention
should go to a letter of Pliny, from which it emerges that c. 109 an eque¬
strian officer had served in succession under Julius Ferox and Fuscus Salina-
tor (Epp., X, 87, 3). Hence the conjecture that either Ti. Julius Ferox
(suff.? 99) or Cn. PedaniusFuscus Salinator (suff. c. 84) was legate of Moesia
Inferior in 109 (JRS, XLIX, 1959, 29). The item has some value, there
being a sad lack of information about consular governors in this part of
Trajan’s reign. The next legate is patently Calpurnius Macer (suff. 103),
attested in 112 (CIL, III. 777).
3. (Se)rtorius (? Brocchus). The legate on record in 120 (CIL, III,
12493: bilingual) is generally taken to be an “Artorius” (thus PIR ^, A 1180).
“Sertorius” is more plausible, and even a “Sertorius Brocchus’’ (cf. remarks
in “Historia”, XVII, 1968, 89 f.). An inscription at Doclea in Dalmatia
discoses Cn. Sertofriusf C. f. Broccfhusf Aquilius Agricola Ped[ an fins [Fuscus f
Salinat(or) lulius Serviafnusf (CIL, III 13826. cf. PIR^ S. 395). Apart
from brief remarks by Groag (P^W, X, 890; XIX. 23) this polyonymus tendo

12 The Pridianum itself is now dated to September of 105 by J. F. (Gilliam.

Hornmages a Albert Grenier (“Coll. Latomus’, LVIII, 1962, 749).

217
to be neglected. His nomenclature is portentous; Julius Servianus (sujj.90)
was Hadrian’s brother-in-law, and his daughter Julia married Cn.
Pedanius Fuscus Salinator (cos. 118). It suggests sundry speculations about
kinship and ancestry. For present purposes, however the precise date and
identity of the polyonymus is irrelevant. His first names justify the produc¬
tion of a Sertorius Brocchus, legate in 120, presumably consul suffect c.
117 Hadrian's choice of governors in the early season of his reign is a topic
of some significance [cf. Tacitus (1958), 243].
4. C. Ummidius Quadratus (suff. 118). The benejiciarus of an Ummidius
Quadratus set up a dedication at Charax [“Arch.Anz.”, XXVI (1911) 236].
Further, an “Umi. Quadratus” is discovered among the soldiers of a vexil-
latio of the legion XI Claudia in 155 (CIL, III, 7449). The soldier, it was
supposed, took the governor’s name on enlistment. The governorship was
therefore dated to the reign of Antoninus Pius, not long before 155. That
has been the general assumption. Thus A. Stein, o.c. 70; R. Hanslik, P-W,
Supp.,, IX, 1931 f. Fitz has sought to fortify it in a long and thorough dis¬
quisition [“Epigraphica”, XXVI (1964), 45 ff.]. He suggests 149—151/2 for the
date. Fitz puts special emphasis on the formula bj. Ummidi Quadrati cos.,
which (he argues) only came into circulation shortly before the accession
of Marcus Aurelius. The precision is implausible, and can be ruled out.
Fitz missed the true date of the inscription at Nemausus mentioned above
(about the year 133); the gravestone of the beneficiarius “luni Omuli consu¬
lar”. (ILS, 2304). Nor is the argument from the legionary “Umi. Quadra¬
tus” valid. The name may be “Umi”.; but observe in close vicinity on the
same list “Mum. Celer” and “Mu [.] Niger”. That need not matter. In any
event, the practice of a recruit’s taking the governor’s name seems to have
faded out well before this time; and it had never been normal for clients
to assume the cognomen as well as the nomen.
The Moesian governorship can therefore be thrown back a generation
earlier and assigned to the sufjectus of 118 [cf. “Historia” XVII (1968) 89].
This notable person had taken a wife (not identifiable) c. 106 (Plinius, Epp.,
VII, 24, 3); and c. 137 his son married Annia Cornificia Faustina, the sister
of Marcus (PIR^, A 708), whence M. Ummidius Quadratus (cos. 167)
His tenure of Moesia Inferior may be put c. 121—4, after “(Se)rtorius (? Broc¬
chus)” and before another friend of Hadrian, viz. Bruttius Praesens.
5. C. Bruttius Praesens (sufj. ? 119). Two inscriptions reveal his cursus
(AE, 1950, 66; Mactar; IRT, 545: Lepcis, acephalous). In each, his consu¬
lar provincial posts are bunched together; and in the first the precious
word item survives, linking Cappadocia to Moesia Inferior. That is decisive
for the order in time [cf. JRS, XLVIII (1968), 9; “Historia”, IX (1960),
375]. Fitz concurs (o.c. 140). The contrary order had in fact been assumed
by others Bruttius Praesens can be assigned without discomfort to Cappa-

Fitz by aberration argues that M. Ummidius Quadratus (cos. 167) married

Cornificia (o.c., 14). For the vexatious problem of| her husband’s consulship see
“Historia”, XVIJ (1968), 98. f.
G.-Ch. Picard, “Revue africaine”, XCIV, 1950, 41 ; and with H. G. Pflaum,
“Karthago”, II (1951), 97.

218
docia from 121 to 124, then to Moesia Inferior, where he may well have stayed
until the arrival of Sex. Julius Severus (sujj. 127).
6. Julius Crassus. Since nothing stands on record save his governorship
in the reign of Antoninus Pius (CIL, III, 13727), he can go anywhere conve¬
nient and not restricted by the tenures of other legates. Therefore early in
the reign, preceding L. Minicius Natalis (sujJ. 139), who before his province
held the cura operum puhlicorum. Fitz allocates Crassus either 140—2 or
146-8 (o.c., 14).
7. L. Minicius Natalis {sufj. 139). Am inscription found at Troesmis
and now in the Museum at Constanta was published in the “Contemporanul”
of August 30, 1968. Honour is paid to the Emperor Pius and to Verus Caesar
by the C(ives) R(omani), at the Canahae of the legion V Macedonica, under
the authority of Minicius Natalis, leg. Aug. pr. pr., the dedication being
made by the leg. Aug. Cominius Secundus. The name of Pius is followed
by the indication of his third consulate, i.e. 141: his fourth was in 145. The¬
refore Minicius Natalis fits in as governor from 142 to 144 (thus Fitz, o.c.,
15), and perhaps to 145. The next governor, Claudius Saturninus, is attach¬
ed in 145 by the milestone at Sexaginta Prista (AE, 1916, 65).
The name of the legate commanding V Macedonica, Cominius Secundus,
is a welcome accession to knowledge. He was soon after governor of Panno-
nia Inferior, on attestation in 148 and in 150 (CIL, XVI, 179 f.; 99).
8. C. Ulpius Pacatus Prastina Messallinus (cos. 147). Problems of
nomenclature and identity arise. In document registering his consulship
he is either “C. Prastina Messallinus” or “C. Prastina Pacatus” (cf. PIR^,
P 686 and the Fasti Ostienses). In Numidia, which he governed from 143
to 146, he is styled “C. Prastina Messallinus” {CIL, VIII 2536; 17723; AlE
1902, 146). Likewise on the inscription locating him in Moesia Inferior
(CIL, III, 7529). A new document discovered at Oescus now gives him
C. Ulp. [Pacatus jPyastina Mess[allinus] (AE, 1959 , 343). That need not
disturb. On the contrary, since his possession of two cognomina implied
another gentilicium apart from “Prastina”.
The cognomen "Pacatus” is not common among senators at any time.
It may occur in the nomenclature of a polyonymous proconsul of Africa under
Hadrianjcfl^Ms P. Valerius Priscus (CIL, VIII, 98), on whom see REA,
LXVII, 1965, 348). A legate of Lugdunensis called Pacatus received a rescript
from Pius (Coll. leg. Mos. et Rom., XV, 2, 4.). There is also in support a
local decree ex auctoritate viri clarissimi [C. Prastinae P]acati leg. Aug.
(CIL, XIII, 3202 = ILS, 5594). Hence the unchallenged persupion that
this legate is one person with the consul of 147 Two objections arise.
First, governing Numidia before his consulship, he would not have previous¬
ly held another praetorian service. Second, though a consular with the
function ad census accipiendos is admissible, Lugdunensis seems already to
have adequate provision. About 146 M. Aemilius Carus {sujj. 143 or 144)
held the post (ILS, 1071); and C. Popillius Carus Pedo {sujj. 147) had
it at a much later stage in his career at the beginning of the reign of Marcus,

.Hvittl, Antoninus Pius, ll, 1933; 104 f.; R. Hanslik, P—IP, XXII, 1720.
The latter article is defective.

219
 as an Ephesian inscription shows (AE, 1924, 70), just before his proconsulate
of Asia which should fall in 162/3 [cf. REA, LXI (1959) 319]. Fourteen
years is a suitable interval frorn one provincial census to another.
That is not all. Inspection of CIL, XIII, 3202, which consists of two
fragments, indicates that the supplement [C. Prastinae P]acati introduced
in 1. 3 is too long by four or five letters. It would be preferable to read
[C. Ulpi P]acati. Nothing therefore subsists to commend Prastina Pacatus
Messallinus as a governor of Lugdunensis, whether consular or praetorian.
That governor is a different Pacatus.
So far the consul ordinarius of 147. It was expedient to examine nomen¬
clature and career, since Fitz (o.c., 16) denies him the governorship of
Moesia Inferior. He prefers to assign the documents to the Prast(ina) Messal¬
linus attested by coins of Marcianopolis as governor c. 245 (Stein, o.c.,
102). The conclusion was premature. There is space for the consul of 147
if he be put c. 148—151, after Ti. Claudius Saturninus (attested in 145),
and before Q. Fuficius Cornutus (suff. 147).
9. T. Flavius Longinus Q. Marcius Turbo (sw//. c. 150). Stein put his
consulate c. 145 (o.c. 71 and PIR ^ F 305). That is much too early [cf. JRS,
LII (1962), 95]. This man was quaestor of. L. Aelius Caesar {IGR, I, 622):
that is, in 137. He is doubly attested for the year 155 in Moesia Inferior
(CIL, III, 7449; AE, 1919, 12). His tenure may be taken to run from 153
or 154 to 156, after Fuficius Cornutus.
10. T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio (sujj. ? c. 155, cos. II 176).
The son, it may be assumed, of the Vitrasius Pollio was legate of the Spanish
legion VII Gemina c. 133 (ILS, 2404), governor of Lugdunensis {Dig.
XXVII.1.15.17), acceding presumably to the consulship \JRS, XLIII
(1953), 157]. He married Annia Fundania Faustina, a cousin of Marcus
{PIR 2, A 713). His first consulship may fall as late as 155; various factors
rule out 153 and 154. As governor of Moesia Inferior he stands on precise
attestation in 157 {AE, 1937, 247). That document failed to gain entry to
P-W, XXI, 2344 ff., an article otherwise defective and erroneous.
ILL. Julius Statilius Severus (su}f. 155). Stein registered two legates,
viz. Statilius Julius Severus in 159 and L. Julius Statilius Severus in 160
o.c. 75 f.). Objection was raised byH. Nesselhauf [“Athenaeum”, XXXVI
1958), 227], Fitz (who missed Nesselhauf's contribution) offers a full discus¬
sion of the problem and likewise amalgamates the two {o.c., 17 ff.).
12. M. lallius Bassus Fabius Valerian us {suff. ? 159). Stein put him
in 163 and 164 {o.c., 77 f.), as successor to M. Servilius Fabianus Maximus
(sufj. 158). Fitz concurs, without comment (o.c. 48). The reverse order is
to be preferred. Attention should have been given to the arguments of
W. Zwikker, Studien zur Markussdule, I, 1941, 77 ff. This governor and
Martins Verus, the commander of V Macedonica, are named together on an
inscription honouring the emperors Marcus and Verus {CIL, III, 6169:
Troesmis). Martins Verus won signal fame in the eastern wars (PIR^,
M. 261; and lallius Bassus is on record as a comes in ih.e Parthica expeditio
{CIL, XII, 2718 f.). Moesia Inferior would be the first of the Danubian
provinces to respond to a crisis in the eastern lands. Both the consular gover¬
nor and the legionary legate may have been under order to depart, at no

220
long interval. The name of lallius Bassus stands on a dedication made
when he was curator operum puhlicorum at Rome, in December of 161 (CIL,
VI, III, 9 b). His tenure of the province perhaps embraced only a few months
in the spring of 162.
13. M. Servilius Fabianus Maximus {suff. 158). He is attested for the
year 162 [CIL, HI, 12514). Further, under his governorship soldiers of XI
Claudia were dismissed, who entered service in 136, 137, 138 and 139 [AE,
1925, 109; Durostorum). Stein put that action at the accession of Marcus
in March of 161 (o.c., 76). Surely too early. And he assigns Servilius to
161—3, withMoesiaSuperior as his next province (o.c., 45 ^.). That is pecu¬
liar and perverse. The inscription recording the cursus of Servilius has leg.
Augustorum pro praetore provinciarum Mysiae superioris item inferioris
(ILS, 1080). That certifies the order in time. Compare, as noted above,
Cappadocia and Moesia Inferior on the inscription of Bruttius Praesens
(AE, 1950, 66).
Servilius therefore left Moesia Superior before the end of 162 to take the
place of lallius Bassus in the other province (and he may have remained there
for three or four years). Moesia Superior had had rapid change of governors.
C. Curtius Justus [suff. ? c. 151) was there in 158 or 159 (ILS, 2303). In
160 M. Pontius Sabinus [su}j. 153) is attested [CIL, XVI HI), and not
heard of in the sequel. M. Statius Priscus (cos. 159) had a brief tenure after
his curatorship of the Tiber: he governed Moesia Superior under the two
Augusti, but was transferred thence to Britain and from Britain to Cappa¬
docia [ILS, 1092). His successor was Servilius Fabianus, who departed for
Moesia Inferior before the end of 162 (cf. above.)
*

* «

Epilogue. The catalogue carries twenty six names and one Ignotus.
Sundry questions arise, for summary comment.
First, how close to completion is the list? One legate must be added
between Octavius Fronto in 92 and Julius Marinus, who is attested on a
military diploma dated to January, 97 (CIL, XVI, 41). It is a reasonable
conjecture that a Moesian command was held towards the end of Domitian’s
reign by Ser. Julius Servianus [sujf. 90), or by M. UlpiusTraianus (cos.90):
by either, and perhaps by both i®. The military service of P, Aelius
Hadrianus (questor in 101) is a clue (HA, Hadr., 2, 2 f. cf. ILS, 308). After
being laticlavius of the legion II Adiutrix (presumably in Moesia Superior),
he passes to V Macedonica in Moesia Inferior, extremis iam Domitiani tempo-
rihus. That indication must suffice for this place.
Furthermore, there might well be a gap between Calpurnius Macer
(attested in 112) and Pompeius Falco (in 116). Macer succeeds Ignotus, who
replaced Fabius Justus in 108. For parallel to Falco (sufj. 108) stands
L. Minicius Natalis [su}j. 106), likewise first on record in 116, for Pannonia
Superior (CIL, XVI, 64). For each the first command since the consulate.

16 JRS XXXV (1945), 115; LIV (1964), 143; Tacitus (1958) 34. On the ques¬
tion of a province for Trajan, cf. “Arheoloski Vestnik , XIX (1968), 101 ff

221
The interval is a noteworthy fact. Each might have taken up his post in
115, it is true. The inception of Natalis’tenure is relevant to the early career
of his son, which, as with that of Hadrian, provokes speculation. Quaestor
in 121, he had served in three legions in succession {ILS, 1081, cf. 1029).
Namely I Adiutrix (in Dacia, one assumes), XI Claudia (in Moesia Inferior),
XIV Gemina (in Pannonia Superior).
Again there is the chance to be admitted of another governor in the
middle twenties after Bruttius Praesens. But probably not in the middle
thirties. M. Antonins Hiberus (cos. 133) may have acceded rapidly to his
command. Compare his consular colleague P. Mummius Sissena, governor
of Britain by April of 134 {CIL, XVI, 82).
Second, duration of tenure. Close on thirty legates occupy the seventy
years under review. The total may surprise. Various factors come into reckon¬
ing, such as the rapid turnover entailed by Trajan's accession and his
Dacian Wars; and by the changes ensuing (in both Moesian commands) soon
after the accession of Marcus. And, two minor points. Octavius Fronto in
92 was probably close to the end of his tenure, whereas Servilius Fabianus
began his precisely in 162. And, its governors so elderly, the space of seventy
years may have witnessed one or two deaths from disease or pestilence.
No impediment therefore to a normal tenure of three years at least.
A passage in the Historia Augusta alleges that Antoninus Pius kept “good
governors” in office for seven or nine years would wreck the system — and
annoy legitimate aspirations^’. And, if need be, the facts refute. The records
of certain praetorian provinces in the period happen to be almost complete^®.
And, along with Moesia Inferior (though not so full), the other consular
provinces in the reign of Pius will suitably be adduced
Third, social quality. So far as known, only two belong to the neo-patri¬
ciate, viz. Ummidius Quadratus and Vitrasius Pollio. They and two others
have consular parentage (blood or adoption), viz. Julius Severus and the
younger Minicius Natalis. There are two ordinarii on the list, viz. Antonius
Hiberus and Prastina Messallinus. Another indication is the proconsulate
of Asia or Africa, where birth has preference. When the record is nearly
complete, as for Asia from 103/4 to 137/8, it is instructive For more reasons
than one, the consular legates tend to be sparsely on show. Of the twenty
six named legates of Moesia Inferior eight or nine held these proconsulates^^.
Finally, local or regional origin. Six are Italian for certain. Evidence, or
more often the type of nomenclature, suggests that about two thirds of the
total came from the provinces.
Fourth, careers and promotion. To know a man’s previous occupation
is vital. A system had been built up. One of the notable features is the career

Cf. remarks in JRS, XLIII (1958), 149; "Historia”, XIV (1965), 345 f. etc.
For Pannonia Inferior (Numidia and Dacia being also adduced), "Historia”,
XIV (1965), 355 ff.l
A. R. Birley, Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata, 1966, 43 ff.
^0 REA, LXVII, 1965, 351.
An African proconsulate for Ummidius Quadratus {suff. 118), can be conjec¬
tured and assigned to 133/4, cf. "Historia”, XVII (1968), 91 f.

222
which takes the future legate in a clear run to the consulate, with no or
few posts after the praetorship except the legionary command and the prae¬
torian province'^^. Under Hadrian and Pius there twelve such provinces, in
the first place Numidia, Dacia, Arabia, Pannonia Inferior, where the gover¬
norship is combined with command of a legion. Again, it is of interest to
notice legates of Moesia who hold other consular commands, before or after.
These matters and other, however, would demand a long disquisition
n
« V

The twenty six names inspire salutary reflection on the hazards of

documentation and survival. Outside the pages of Pliny only five have
entry in any written source. Laberius Maximus won signal glory in the First
Dacian War (Cass. Dio, LXVIII, 8, 3) and a second consulate, eponymous,
in 103; when Trajan died he is discovered in exile on an island (HA, Hadr.,
5, 5). The dedication of the Dialogus commemorates Fabius Justus, one
of the few certified friends of Tacitus. Pompeius Falco, living in retirement
and occupied with arboriculture, received a visit from Pius and young
Marcus in 140 or 141 (Fronto, p. 35 N = Haines, II, 141). Ummidius Quadra-
tus is named among friends with whom Hadrian quarrelled before the end
[H.A., Ha-dr. 15,7). As for Bruttius Praesens, there is his exploit in Armenia
when legionary legate (Arrian, Parthica, fr. 85 Roos); and he may be identi¬
cal (nothing forbids) with the historian Bruttius whom Christian writers
cite as testifying to the persecution at the end of Domitian’s reign (PIR
B 159).
Laberius Maximus was referred to in a dispatch of Pliny to Trajan
(Epp., X, 74, 1). Further Calpurnius Macer (suff. 103) comes into the Bithy-
nian context, being governor of Moesia Inferior at the time of Pliny’s mission
(X, 42; 61, 5; 62; 77). Macer had received personal letters from Pliny,
previously, and so had all of the five named above, except Laberius Maxi¬
mus Hence useful evidence for the circle of his friends. Also for the dearth
of other written sources. Even such persons of note and consequence as
Minicius Natalis (sufj. 103) or Julius Severus (suff. 127), a great general,
owe their existence to epigraphical evidence; and no author names Vitra-
sius Pollio, who married a cousin of Marcus. Only the inscriptions reveal
twenty one legates of Moesia Inferior from 92 to 162; and inscriptions are
essential for understanding most of the other five. What Pliny says about
Pompeius Falco and Bruttius Priesens comes to very little when set against
the full and splendid record of their careers.
The four letters to Falco (I, 23; IV, 27; VII, 22; IX, 15) fail to carry
adequate information about his personality and habits, origin and kinship.

22 JRS, XLVIII, 1958, 1 ff.; “Historia”, XIV (1965), 342 ff.

23 Fitz produces elaborate patterns (o. c., 55 f.) which some may find too sche¬
matic.
2« Viz. Calpurnius Micer (V. 18 and probably VI. 24); Fabius Justus (I, II,
VII, 2); Pompeius Falco (I, 23 ; IV, 27 ; VII, 22 ; IX, 15); Ummidius Quadratus (VI,
29; VII, 24; IX, 13); Bruttius Praesens (VII, 3).

223
Only inscriptions show him the son-in-law of Sosius Senecio (cos. II 107),
who had himself married the daughter of the great Julius Frontinus (cf.
ILS, 1105); and further, legate of Moesia Inferior and of Britain, proconsul
of Asia (1035 f.).
Praesens got only one letter, written c. 107 (VII. 3). But, by paradox,
highly instructive. For origin ipse enim (inquis) Lucanus, uxor Campana.
Moreover, Pliny gently rebukes his neglect of public life. The language
deserves attention. Pliny emphasizes friendships not exclusively in high
society, pleasure and the pursuit of ease — amicitiae tarn superiores quam
injeriores; voluptates istae; iucundissimum genus vitae. It would not exces¬
sive to claim Bruttius Praesens for an Epicurean. Recent discoveries at
Mactar (AE, 1950, 66) and at Lepcis (IRT, 545; acephalous) confirm a
period of retreat. The long cursus from the military tribunate in 89 to the pro¬
consulate of Africa (? 134/5) indicates retardation somewhere in the middle
years, well before the legionary command of 114. Even without Pliny it
called for explanation; and there may be reasons not in Pliny.
The life and career thus disclosed is noteworthy from a variety of aspects.
If that were not enough, Preasens emerges late and anomalously for a brief
tenure of Syria towards the end of Hadrian’s reign (AE, 1938, 137: Pal¬
myra); to end as cos. II, the colleague of Antoninus Pius in 139. Other evi¬
dence now accrues, the name of his wife. Like his coeval Falco, Praesens
acquired an heiress, the daughter of a consul bis. She is Laberia Crispina,
daughter of M’.Laberius Maximus [“Epigraphica”, XXIV (1962), 58] Trebula
Mutuesca]. Is she the uxor Campana in Pliny? Perhaps not. Laberia might
be a later wife; the son of Bruttius Praesens, consul ordinarius in 153, was
born c. 119. In any event, new light — and sundry problems, among them
the disgrace of the famous marshal Laberius Maximus, which will call for
careful scrutiny

The articles on senators in Pauly-Wissowa show a sharp declension from the

days of Groag. The treatment meted out to the Ummidii is eloquent testimony (IX
597 ff.; Supp. IX, 1827 ff.). In the present context compare brief comment above on
Prastina Messallinus (XXII, 1720 f.), and Vitrasius Pollio (XXI, 2344 ff.).The same
holds for Pomponius Rufus (XXI, 2347 f.) and Pompeius Falco (2270 f.). Further¬
more, amendment must be applied to several legates as discussed by A. N. Sherwin-
White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary, 1966.

224
 XVI

GOVERNORS OF PANNONIA INFERIOR

As the system develops and hardens, the praetorian provinces in the

portion of Caesar acquire a new function. A sign of merit or success, they
normally convey a man to the consulate. The interval is often short — indeed,
a legate may hold the fasces while still governing his province.^
Trajan brought the total from eight to twelve. He annexed Arabia in
105 or 106; and at the end of the Second Dacian War he split Pannonia.
Now or not long after. Thrace received a legate instead of a procurator; and
the Parthian War saw the severance of Galatia from the Cappadocian com¬
mand. The figure of twelve subsists under Hadrian and Pius, with two modi¬
fications in detail. Soon after his accession Hadrian reduced the legionary
garrison in Dacia, and with it the consular rank of that province. By con¬
trast, he elevated Judaea. That measure might appear a consequence of the
Jewish Revolt in 132. In fact, it was adopted about 129, if not a number of
years earlier^.
The best and swiftest career in the service of Caesar is to command a
legion and then govern a province. That offers the prospect and almost the
promise of a consular command in the sequel (there were eleven of them
under Antoninus Pius). In four of the praetorian provinces the governor is at
the same time a legionary legate: Numidia, Pannonia Inferior, Arabia,
Dacia. These four are vital.
The reign of Antoninus Pius exhibits a stable and regular management
of the senatorial cursus. The contrary would surprise. Various patterns of
promotion emerge on scrutiny, of no small instructionFrom administra¬
tion, the theme broadens into social and political history. .
A praetorian province is normally held for about three years. Accidents
can occur, governors dying in office or a political crisis — which, however,

1 JRS, XLIII (1953), 152 f.; X II (1957), 153 f.; XLVIII (1958), 1 ff.
2 Q. Tineius Rufus, governor of Judaea when the Revolt broke out, had been
consul suffecius in 127 (FO, XXVI). See also JRS, LII (1962), 90. No governor hap¬
pens to be on record in the interval after 117.
» See, above all, E. Birley, "Proc. Brit. Ac.”, XXXIX (1953), 197 ff.; Car-
nunium Jahrbuch, 1957, 3 ff.

225
could have contrary repercussions, either curtailing or prolonging a governor’s
tenure. Otherwise no ruler in his senses would have wished to tamper with
a routine that satisfied all needs and everybody’s desires. The Historia
Augusta, to be sure, alleges that Antoninus Pius kept “good governors’’ at
their posts for terms of seven or nine years.^ That notion has been widely
accepted and incautiously promulgated in the recent time. It deserves only
derision, and must be expelled.®
There had been notable but sporadic exceptions. In Trajan’s new pro¬
vince of Arabia C. Claudius Severus holds his consulship in absence (in 112),
and continues until 115.® And a dark suspicion arises about Numidia. L. Aci-
lius Strabo Clodius Nummus, attested there in 116, may be none other than
C. Clodius Nummus (cos. suff. 114).'^ But there is no certainty; these might
be distinct persons.
Hadrian when he came to the power was confronted by grave emergen¬
cies and a shortage of friends and partisans. In 118 he put Dacia (along with
Pannonia Inferior, so it appears) under the charge of a Roman knight, Q. Mar-
cius Turbo.® That was a brief anomaly. But the successor of Turbo, namely
Hadrian’s first praetorian legate of Dacia Sextus Julius Severus {suff. 127),
had a tenure unusually prolonged. Military diplomata register him as legate
in 120.® That was the post he held after the command of XIV Gemina (in
Pannonia Superior) and preceding his consulship, as his cwsws shows.
A new diploma proves that Julius Severus was still in Dacia in 126.^^
No other praetorian province in the early years of Hadrian discloses an
anomaly of this order. There might, however, be a doubt about Pannonia
Inferior. And one would like to know who succeeded Claudius Severus in
Arabia and who governed Judaea after Lusius Quietus the Moor, whom
Hadrian promptly removed from that command. Lusius had been consul
suffect (in absence) in 117.
Lists of governors can be made to serve a variety of purposes. An up-to-
date catalogue for Pannonia Inferior had long been a sore need. It is now to
hand, drawn up with much erudition and supplemented by ingenuity
It is most welcome, and it will facilitate comparison with the records of
other provinces.

*HA, Pius, 5, 3.
^ JRS ,XLIII (1953), 149; XLVIII (1958), 2 etc. It might seem scholarly,
but it is hardly civil, to register the names of those who accord credit to the state¬
ment of the HA.
* PIR 2, C 1023. For the inception of his command, see JRS, XLVIII (1958),
4 f., discussing P. Mich. 466.
’ JRS, XLVIII (1958), 5.
® For the competence, extent and title of this command see JRS, XXXVI
(1946), 161 f.; LII (1962), 87 ff.
* CIL, XVI, 68 (doubted by the editor, H. Nesselhauf); AE, 1958, 30.
ILS, 1956.
Unpublished. I owe the information to C. Daicoviciu (in July, 1962).
J. Fitz, “Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae”, XI (1963),
245 — 324. See also his article in "Helikon”, III (1963), 373 ff.

226
 For reasons of convenience and concentration the present enquiry will
not go beyond the first years of Marcus, when manifold disturbances inter¬
vene. Pannonia Inferior takes its inception in 106. The first legate is P.Aelius
Hadrianus, suffect consul in the summer of 108, after an abbreviated tenure
And there are two interruptions: one in 118/9, the other in 137 when L. Aelius
Caesar (whom Hadrian had adopted towards the close of 136) governed the
two Pannonias temporarily conjoined. If one goes as far as Ti. Haterius
Saturninus (suff. 164), the new catalogue registers fourteen certain legates,
with four missing.
In preface, sundry comments are called for. In the first place, patterns
of promotion. One of them is clear and striking. Of the known legates in the
period, no fewer than five go on to govern Pannonia Superior in the sequel.
That province, with three legions for garrison, is at a nominal parity with
Britain and Syria, but not always as important as either.
Hence a temptation to rational conjecture. The author argues that the
Maximus who was legate c. 140 is not T. Statilius Maximus (cos. ord. 144)
but Claudius Maximus, who is on record as governor of Pannonia Superior
in 150 and 154 (see below). Moreover, it is suggested, some others might pre¬
viously have been legates of Pannonia Inferior. Thus Cornelius Proculus
(suff. probably before 125), and T. Haterius Nepos (suff. 134). Hence two
of the gaps might be supplemented — and those names in fact stand on the
list (in brackets) Caution is requisite. A certain regularity may be assu¬
med, but not rigour. Further, when a catalogue is once published, there is a
danger of its being accepted without doubt or challenge. It is expedient to
produce for inspection a list of a slightly different character. The list will
put emphasis on uncertainties of dating, especially in the reign of Hadrian ;
for some of the gaps, it will suggest a different incidence; and it will propose
a reversal in the order of two governors in the last years of Antoninus Pius.
The variants from the latest catalogue are explained below, in summary
annotation
*

106—8 P. Aelius Hadrianus (suff. 108) ILS, 308; HA, Hadr, 3, 9.

110 ? 108—112 T. Julius Maximus Manlianus (112) CIL, XVI, 164
114 ?112—114/5 P. Afranius Flavianus (?115) CIL, XVI, 61
114/5-117
\118—9 administration anomalous^
^119— L. Neratius Priscus (ann. inc.), ILS, 1034.
? -127 -
?127—130 L. Cornelius Latinianus (—) AE, 1962, 116.

13 ha, Hadr., 3, 9, cf. ILS, 308 (Athens). It will here be assumed that Panno¬
nia was divided in 106, at the end of the Second Dacian War.
1^ T. Fitz o.c. 323. Haterius Nepos, however, is ruled out, see below, p. 356
n. 60.
16 In the list only the items indispensable for dating are registered. Other
comments in this paper aim at a rigid economy of documentation.

227
 ? 130-133/4 L. Attius Macro (134) AE, 1937, 213.
133/4-136 -

[137 administration anomalous']

?138—142 (Claudius) Maximus (143 or 144) ILS, 1062.
? 142—144 M. Pontius Laelianus (144) ILS, 1094.
145 ?144—147 Q. Fuficius Cornutus (147) CIL, XVI, 91.
148, 150? 147—150 Cominius Secundus (—) CIL, XVI, 179 1.; 99.
?150—153 M. Nonius Macrinus (154) ILS, 8830.
153-156 -
156 ? 156—158/9 M. lallius Bassus (159 or 160) AE, 1952, 9; CIL, XII,
2718 f.
? 158/9—161 C. Julius Geminius Capellianus (—) CIL, XVI, 112
?161 —164 Ti. Haterius Saturninus (164) AE, 1962, 118.

« *

In the above list two spaces are left vacant in the period between 114/5
and 130/1. There are various hazards, and no fixed point before the gover¬
norship of L. Attius Macro (suff. 134). After Macro, a legate is missing, before
the year 137. Moreover, there is probably a hiatus after M. Nonius Macrinus
(suff. 154), before M. lallius Bassus (suff. 159 or 160).
Eight legates invite discussion, for various reasons or pretexts.
(1) T. Julius Maximus Manlianus (suff. 112). A recently found diploma
(CIL, XVI, 164) establishes him as legate of Pannonia Inferior in 110 and
fills out his career in a most welcome fashion. It dispels the notion that
Maximus might have passed to his consulship without holding a praetorian
province A problem subsists. The point of interest in his career (and of
genuine perplexity) is the antecedent legionary command. Two legions in
succession, I Adiutrix and IV Flavia (ILS, 1016).
A modest cumulation of military experience in the command of legions
might have been expected to turn up fairly often. It is not so. The routine
and system is quite different. Iteration for a legionary legate is so rare that
it can be styled anomalous. When it occurs, it deserves scrutiny, and scru¬
tiny often repays. Iteration indicates something abnormal — a crisis, a
war, the transference of a legion from one province to another. It does not
seem to happen when two legions are stable in the same province, or staying
there Some instances are clear and instructive. Thus, early in the Parthian
War under Marcus Aurelius, Claudius Fronto (ILS, 1060) and Antistius
Adventus (ILS, 8977). They encourage and support conjecture elsewhere.
For example, L. Cossonius Gallus {suff. 119) held the post of leg. legiomim

That notion was canvassed in “Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 282, addu¬

cing as parallel D. Terentius Gentianus [ILS, 1046). A mistake.
"Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 283.

228
1 Italicae etj [/]/ Traianae Fortis (ILS, 1038) The legion I Italica had
its station in Moesia Inferior. Did not Cossonius Gallus give up I Italica in
order to conduct II Traiana in the eastern lands for Trajan's Parthian War?
Again,P. Tullius Varro(^sM//. 127). After a legion in Cappadocia he commands
VI Victrix (ILS, 1047). Surely when that legion passed from Germanias
Inferior to Britain about 121 or 122 i®.
Of the instances discoverable between the accession of Trajan and the
first years of Marcus, none can be assigned to any normal season of concei¬
vable routine — unless it be L. Attius Macro (suff. 134), one of the gover¬
nors of Pannonia Inferior, who will be discussed later on.
The iterated command of Julius Maximus belongs to the period 104—8.
It has something to do with the movements of legions and of legates during
the Second Dacian War and in the establishment of the new province. Trajan
found nine legions in the Danubian provinces. He took two from the Rhine
in permanence, first XI Claudia, then X Gemina; and he added two new for¬
mations, II Traiana and XXX Ulpia Victrix (probably created at the same
time). It is not easy to determine how and where each of the thirteen was
allocated 2®.
Dacia began as a consular province, initiated by D. Terentius Scaurianus
(suff. 103 or 104). He was still in office in 110 (CIL, XVI, 163). Another
consular governor is C. Avidius Nigrinus (suff. 110), perhaps still there in
117. A centurion of IV Flavia was in charge of his equites singulares {ILS,
2417). That is Nigrinus’ sole attestation — doubly important.
Consular Dacia had a garrison of two legions, or rather three. Defence
was not their main function: the soldiers are skilled artisans. XIH Gemina
is not in dispute. There is strong evidence for IVFlavia The third might
be I Adiutrix. Both IV Flavia and I Adiutrix present tricky problems for
an enquirer who tries to nail down their movements and their stations bet¬
ween Domitian’s wars and the first years of Hadrian. I Adiutrix belonged
to the Pannonian establishment in 97 (ILS, 2720). It was probably at Bri-
getio It may have surrendered that station in 101 to XI Claudia (brought
from Germania Superior), being itself transferred to the seat of war.
I Adiutrix may have been assigned to the garrison of Dacia after the
conquest in 106 — or it may have reverted to Pannonia. There is no ascer¬
tainment. Several combinations might be hazarded. It has been suggested

“ The identity of the ]nius Gallus of ILS, 1038 with Gallus {suff. 119) and
with L. Cossonius Gallus is doubted in PIR C. 1541, rejected in G 71, Inspection
of CIL, VI, 32374 (AFAJ supports the idea that the gentilicum of the suffect consul
Gallus was Cossonius. The mutilated beginning of ILS, 1038 might have been
[L. Cossonio'[l \_An'\nio L.f. Stel. Gallo etc.
19 The tribunus laticlavius of the legion records the passage from Germany to
Britain (ILS, 1100); to be identified as the suffectus of 144, M. Pontius Laelianus
Larcius Sabinus (ILS, 1094), cf. E. Birley, Carnuntum Jahrbuch, 1957, II.
99 "Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 267 ff.
91 “Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 277 f.; JRS, LII (1962), 88.
99 As suggested in JRS, XVIII (1928), 51. Supported by J. Szildgyi, "Acta
Arch. Sc. Hung.", II (1952), 901; G. Alfoldy, ib. XI (1959), 138.

229
 that Maximus gave up I Adiutrix for IV Flavia in order to join Scaurianus
in the new province That governor was a Narbonensian, perhaps, like
Maximus, from Nemausus The notion, however, is vulnerable. Kinship
or friendship may determine the movements of laticlavii: it does not seem
to hold for legionary legates, and indeed the government would have
reasons for deprecating or forbidding the practice. Again, the transference
of Maximus may have occurred in 105 or 106, before the termination
of the war.
It was suitable that Julius Maximus after commanding Danubian legions
(though not decorated for service in the Second Dacian War) should proceed
at once to the governorship of Pannonia Inferior, succeeding P.Aelius Hadria-
nus in 108. There is no trace of a consular command. Such might have been
expected on his performance hitherto. Perhaps it can be produced. Accor¬
ding to Pronto, a consular legate was killed by the Parthians in Mesopotamia
(Pronto, Haines II, p. 20, cf. p. 214). His name was Maximus (Dio, LXVIII,
30, 1). Palaeographic operations on the palimpsest of Pronto have produced
“Appius Maximus Santra”. That acquires credence and authority [PIR^,
A 950). No such person is otherwise established or plausible, unless one
were to invent a son of A. Lappius Maximus (suff. 86, H suff. 95); and the
placing of his consulship would be a problem. Some other Maximus might
be available as a victim. T. Statilius Maximus Severus Hadrianus (suff. 115)
might occur. He can be summarily rejected. This man was alive and prospe¬
rous in the reign of Hadrian (PIR^, S 604) Instead, one might be permit¬
ted to evoke T. Julius Maximus Manlianus, who, like so many of the viri
militares, has no entry in the writings of historians or others, but onl}^ an
epigraphical commemoration
(2) P. Afranius Flavianus. A diploma of September, 114, registers his
governorship (CIL, XVI, 61). At once a question arises. Is he the direct
successor of T. Julius Maximus Manlianus (suff. 112), from 111 or 112? Or
was that an Ignotus, the year 114 marking the inception, not the end, of
Afranius’tenure? The new catalogue opted for the latter solution.
Two factors come into the estimate. First, the date of Afranius’ consul¬
ship. It was generally put in or about 115 (cf. PIR^, A 443). That was fine,
so long as nothing was known about the number of consuls in that year. The

*3 "Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 282 f. J. Fitz suggests the reverse process

(o.c., 248) — Julius Maximus in 106 joining IV Flavia and going with it to Moesia
Superior because I Adiutrix was allocated to Dacia at the end of the war. However
it be, the transference of Julius Maximus in 106 (or possibly in 105) cannot prove
that both legions did not belong to the garrison of the new consular province.
Tacitus (1958). 648.
For additional evidence about his brick stamps see H. Bloch, A JA, LXIII
(1959), 236.
For this conjecture, “Laureae Aquincenses”, I (1938), 282.

230
Fasti Potentini import perplexity ^7. For 115 (as also for 114) they show three
pairs only:
M. Vergilianus [Pedo
L. Julius S [
M. Pom. [

The one ordinarius is clear, and his colleague was L. Vipstanus Messalla.
As for the first consul in the third pair he can confidently be identified as
M. Pompeius Macrinus. Further, a fragment of the Fasti Ostienses shows
]rinu[ at the and of a year which has recently been claimed for 115 Impor¬
tant consequences follow. Macrinus’ consulship had generally been assumed
to belong in 100 or 101
Only two places are free in 115 — and there seemed to be too many clai¬
mants. Hence a strong inclination to throw Afranius forward into a later
year 3°.
However, there is a chance that the Potentini do not represent the true
structure of 115 One of the ordinarii, M. Pedo Vergilianus, resigned and
was replaced by a suffectus. That is proved by an inscription with the date
[L. Vips^tano Messallaj [T. Stat]ilio Severoj [Hadria]no cos.^^ By his full
style this suffectus is T. Statilius Maximus Severus Hadrianus (PIR^, S 604.)
He is presumably the Statilius Severus to whom Trajan addressed a rescript
about a soldier’s testament (Dig., XXIX, I, 24) — and certainly the Sta¬
tilius Maximus whom a new diploma, dated by the suffecti of the second
nundinium of 114, certifies as legate of Thrace with Juventius Celsus super¬
seding him

N. Alfieri, “Athenaeum”, XXVI (1948), 117, whence AE, 1949, 23.

G. Barbieri, "Riv. stor. it.”, LXVI (1954), 419; L. Vidman, "Rospravy
Ceskoslovenske Akademie Ved”, Rocnik 67, Sesit 6 (1957), 67.
Thus Tacitus (1958), 749, suggesting that the suffectus of 115 was indeed a
Pompeius Macrinus, but perhaps the son of the man whose career is registered on
IG, V, 2, 151 (Tegea). H.G. Pflaum argued that the consular of that inscription
was suffectus c. 120—22 ("Germania”, XXXVII (1959), 150 ff., whence AE 1960,
177). That was premature. An inscription from the city of lotape shows that Pom¬
peius Macrinus was praetorian legate of Cilicia at a date before Trajan became “Parthi-
cus” (unpublished, communicated by T.B. Mitford). That is to say, prima facie he
is the consul suffect of 115. Therefore his governorship of Cilicia and proconsulate
of Sicily fall c. 110 — 15. He was followed by an Ignotus in Cilicia, and Bruttius
Praesens was there in 117 (IRT, 545; AE, 1950, 66).
30 Thus "Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 493, briefly. The problem deserved a full
disquisition J. Fitz is against 117 and opts for a later year (o.c., 250).
31 As indicated in “Hermes”, LXXV (1957), 493; Tacitus (1958), 643.
32 JF, 1911, 95 (Lanuvium).
33 For the diploma in the Sofia Museum (still not published) see the brief indi¬
cation in “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 493. This document justifies the placing of
Juventius’ consulship in 117. Further it throws back the change in the status of
Thrace to 111 at the least; and Statilius might be the second legate under the new
 The Potentini may have omitted this suffectus. Moreover, the fragment
FO, XXXV, after registering something about a Vestal Virgin and an earth¬
quake, has the item [in locu]m Q. Asini Mar[celli]. This looks like the
decease of a consul suffect in 115 It further entails speculation about the
mysterious pair Q. Asinius Marcellus and A.Caepio Crispinus that belongs
somewhere after the year 96 (PIR^, A 1235; C 150). The Potentini as trans¬
mitted have no place for a fourth pair of suffecti.
Then there are two claimants — who fortunately can be banished. The
evidence of the new Thracian diploma removes Juventius Celsus. He can
be lodged in 117 That is not inconsistent with the date of his proconsu¬
late of Asia (? 130/1) The interval is shorter than normal, but this man, the
illustrious jurist, benefits from an exceptional favour anyhow, being pro-
consul after a second consulship (129). Next, P. Valerius Priscus, proconsul
of Africa in 127 (IRT, 361). When was he consul? Not 114, for that year is
full, if the Potentini are correct. Nor should 115 seem admissible. No interval
of less than thirteen years can so far be certified for a proconsul of Asia or
Africa in the reigns of Hadrian and Pius A number of datable proconsu¬
lates of Asia in the vicinity of 127 discredit the notion (see below'). A drastic
remedy is permissible — and imperative. The text as printed reads tr]ib.
[pot] XI [cos. Illp.] p. Let there be proposed XI [X, or X] XI. That is, 135
or 137.
The second factor concerning the year of Afranius’ consulship is the
proconsulate of Asia. It is registered on a dedication at Ephesus set up by
an Asiarch {AE, 1904, 96). The city is not here endowed with its title of
“second neocorate”. That honour accrued to Ephesus soon after. It is mentio¬
ned in 132, in the dated proconsulate of C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus
(suff. 116) It is hard to go against an Asiarch. Therefore, it should follow,
Afranius was proconsul in 130, consul after all in 115, not in 117 or 118 (116
is full)
Is there room for him as proconsul at that time? It has been claimed that
there is not Asia presents problems but some data. An inscription shows
that Juventius Celsus preceded Lamia Aelianus — a surprise, perhaps,
since the latter was consul ordmarius in 116, but not a scandal: Juventius was
cos. II in 129.

dispensation, not the first. That is not all. The missing colleague of C. Clodius Num-
mus is disclosed as L. Caesennius Sospes. Presumably the Sospes of ILS, 1017 —
with varied and important consequences.
L. Vidman, o.c., 67.
36 “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 493.
36 “Rev. et. anc.”, LXI (1959), 311.
3’ A. Stein in R-E X, 157 ff.; D. Magie, R. Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 1479 f.
38 Thus PIR 3, A 443; D. Magie, o.c., 147.
33 J. Fitz, O.C., 250; “we know the names of all proconsuls between 123 and
132”.
“0 JOAI, VIII (1905), 166 (Glares).

232
 The following list can be presented —
126/7 P. Stertinius Ouartus (suff. 112)
127/8 -
128/9 L. Lollianus Avitus (114)
129/30 P. Afranius Flavianus (?115)
130/1 P. Juventius Celsus (?117)
131/2 L. Lamia Aelianus (ord. 116)
132/3 C. Julius Alexander Berenicianus (116)

No facts conflict. The first proconsul in this series is dated to the year (SIG^,
837), and the last of them must have held office either in 131/2 or in 132/3
For candour and for insurance, a possibility may be touched upon. The pro-
consul Messalla on the inscription of Claudius Chionis {ILS, 8860) might
be L. Vipstanus Messalla [ord. 115). If that were ever proved, Lollianus
Avitus would have to surrender 128/9 and move back to the previous year:
that is to say, an interval of thirteen years, which is possible but not wel¬
come. To terminate what has become a disquisition: on the facts available,
it is not necessary to deny Afranius that consulship in 115 which the evi¬
dence about Asia so strongly recommends.
(3) L. Neratius Priscus. Many problems infest the Neratii. Among
them, the existence of three consular homonyms, not easy to sort out — and
some scholars admitted only two. The first was suffectus in 87, the second in
97. The latter can be identified as the jurist, who was the brother of L. Nera¬
tius Marcellus (suff. 95); and he was legate of the undivided Pannonia, pre¬
sumably from 102 to 106 Of the third, nothing is known except what
the inscription at his native Saepinum discloses, austere like that of his
parent: consulate, priesthood (he 'WdiS, septemvir epulonum), the governorship
of Lower and of Upper Pannonia

The fixed points are Stertinius, dated precisely to 126/7 {SIG ®, 837), the
sequence Juventius and Lamia, the year of Berenicianus (either 131/2 or 132/3).
The above list modifies that of Magie (o.c. 1481) in two particulars. First, L. Lol¬
lianus Avitus is introduced on the basis of the Ephesian inscription reported in
PIR 2, H 39. Second, Q. Gargilius Antiquus (IGR, TV, 848) is to be expelled from
128/9. That year would imply a consulship in 113 or 114 (which is impossible on
the present evidence). Rather 118 or 119 or 120, with a pronconsulate in the trien-
nium 113 — 6, before or after T. Aurelius Fulvus (ord. 120), who might go in 134/5.
That thesis is argued in JRS, XLIII (1953), 159) “Hermes”, LXXXV
(1957), 480 ff; “Gnomon”, XXIX (1957), 521.
ILS, 1034 (the father’s inscription precedes, on the same stone, A new in¬
scription is published in “Contributi delT Istituto di Filologia Classica, Sezione di
Storia Antica”, I (Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1963), 238, with photo¬
graph, pi. 2. It gave a full cursus, but most of the lettering has perished. What sur¬
vives confirmes identity and reveals two new facts. Neratius was tribune in XXII
Primigenia and tribune of the plebs. The latter item is important. It was generally
held that Neratius’ father (suff. 97) was patrician, since Neratius Marcellus (suff.
95) certainly was (ILS, 1032). For already existing problems, and for conjectures
about adoptions and parentage, see “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 491.

233
 No clue avails anywhere for close dating. If Afranius is correctly dated
to 111/2—114/5. Neratius might have held Pannonia Inferior after him
until the beginning of 118. But it might well be preferable to have him as
the first legate from 119 after the dissolution of the special command of Mar-
cius Turbo Again, either a short tenure, to make him quickly available
for consulate and consular command, like Platorius Nepos in Thrace
or one prolonged, though not necessarily as long as that of Sex. Julius Seve-
rus (suff. 127), governing Dacia from 119 to 126 (see above). It is not likely
that Neratius’ consulship is later than 126.
His consular province does not help much. Between L. MiniciusNatalis,
attested in Pannonia Superior in 116 (CIL, XVI, 64) and holding the pro¬
vince when Trajan died {ILS, 1029) and Cornelius Proculus, attested in 133
(CIL, XVI, 76), there is a complete hiatus. The consulship of Cornelius
Proculus is probably anterior to 125, perhaps in 124 (cf. PIR^, C 1421).
That is all. No other missing consulate in Hadrian’s reign is more to
be lamented. The parent’s memory was perpetuated, through his science of
the law. Also in a legend. The Historia Augusta asserts that Trajan thought
of naming Neratius Priscus as his successor in the imperial power; and it
can even report what Trajan said — commendo tibi provincias si quid mihi
fatale contigerit {Hadr., 4, 8). Odd, were it authentic. Trajan seems not to
have thought of giving this excellent man a second consulship or elevating
him to the patriciate. The son did not become consul iterum either. Nor is
he named among the friends and allies whom Hadrian came to dislike in the
sequel (Hadr., 15. 2ff.; 23. 3ff,). His sole survival is on stone at Saepinum.
(4) L. Cornelius Latinianus. He is the product of a recent find at Aquin-
cum (AE, 1962, 116). A certain Latinianus, procurator of Moesia Inferior,
occurs in the remarkable Latin papyrus commonly styled “Hunt’s Pridia-
nwm” (BM Papyri 2851); and a Cornelius Latinianus received a rescript
from Hadrian (Dig., XLVIII, 5,28,6). It seemed permissible to identify the
two. And now the new legate gets amalgamated; it is supposed that the pro¬
curator was adlected into the Senate
That is not plausible. It depends, in part at least, on the date which
long obtained for the document, narpely 115. A new reading discovers the
name of Fabius Justus (suff. 102), governor of Moesia Inferior, hence a dating
to the period 105—8 It is therefore safer to assume that the legate of

For different conjectures about his dating see “Hermes”, LXXXV (1957),
492 f. (with an injunction to suspend judgement); J. Fitz, o.c., 253. The latter scho¬
lar suggests 118 — 20: he assumes that Turbo’s special command, and with it a suc¬
cessful campaign, was over in the spring of 118.
Platorius Nepos was legate of Thrace (ILS, 1052), clearly the successor
of Juventius Celsus (suff.} 117). He was consul early in 119, succeeding one of the
ordinarii. Possibly consul in absence. Another of Hadrian’s close friends was Brut-
tus Praesens, holding Cilicia when Trajan died (IRT, 545; AE, 1950, 66). Likewise
a curtailed tenure. It may be supposed that he acceded to the fasces in 118 or 119.
J. Fitz, O.C., 256 f. Also in P~W, Suppl. IX. 22.
JRS, XLIX (1959), 58 ff., using the improved text of R.O. Fink. See also
J.F. Gilliam, Hommages d Albert Grenier (1962), 747 ff.

234
Pannonia Inferior is the son of Latinianus the procurator. Again, it is pre¬
mature to assign him the tenure 133/4—136, succeeding L. Attius Macro
(suff. 134). He might just as well be his predecessor, or, for that matter,
he might occupy the years 125—8. Latinianus must therefore float unat¬
tached.
(5) L. Attius Macro {suff. 134). His governorship is attested by an
inscription at Aquincum with cos. des. (AE, 1937, 213), He had previously
been a legate commanding I Adiutrix at Brigetio in Pannonia Superior (CIL,
III, 4356). Legates of the period who go from a legion in Pannonia Superior
to this praetorian governorship are Maximus {ILS, 1062) and M. Nonius
Macrinus (ILS, 8830). So far so good. A further step was taken (PIR^, A
1360). The governor of Pannonia Inferior was assumed identical with L. At¬
tius Macro, legate of VII Gemina in Tarraconensis (ILS, 2289). Hesitation
might be felt. It is not at all common for a man to command two legions in
succession. Iteration appears to be caused by warfare, some disturbance, or
the transference of a legion from one province to another: compare observa¬
tions above on T. Julius Maximus Manlianus. That holds, at least from Tra¬
jan’s reign to the early years of Marcus. No exception can be established so
far. Therefore the commanders of VII Gemina and of I Adiutrix are not
likely to be identical. However, one is not entitled to postulate inflexible
rules where none existed. There was nothing to prevent an emperor from
sending a legate of the Spanish legion to take command of I Adiutrix in
Pannonia Superior, if he saw fit.
(6) Maximus (suff. 143 or 144). A dedication by canabenses honours a
consular ]Maximus and furnishes his cursus {ILS, 1062, better in CIL, III,
10336) After being legate of I Adiutrix and before governing Pannonia
Inferior he had been mridic[o]/pr.pr. utriusqu[e\ Pannoniae. That is, charged
with administration in both provinces under L. Aelius Caesar in the year
137. A ready identification was to hand: T. Statilius Maximus (ord. 144),
otherwise on record as curator operum publicorum in 146 (CIL, VI, 1008).
The Maximus of the inscription held that post.
No doubt or hesitation arose. Now, however, a fresh and bold idea. Not
Statilius Maximus but Claudius Maximus, later governor of Pannonia Supe¬
rior 49. He was in office in August of 150 (CIL, XVI, 99) and in November
of 154 (104). That suggests a tenure of five years, which, by the way, is as
long as can be certified for any consular legate in the reigns of Hadrian and
Pius. There are two other instances
The consular date of Claudius Maximus is deduced from his proconsu¬
late of Africa, when he presided at the prosecution of Apuleius. That tran¬
saction was generally put 160/1, hence a suffect consulate for Maximus in
144 or 145 {PIR"^, C 933). These dates can be modified. His predecessor in

^8 Found at Szekesfehervar (otherwise Alba Regalis or Stuhlweissenburg),

but clearly emanating from Aquincum.
« J. Fitz, O.C., 258 ff.
8® viz. Flavius Arrianus, in Cappadocia from 132 to 137 (PIR *,F 219); L. Atti-
dius Cornelianus in Syria from 157 to 162 (A 1341).

235
Africa, L. Lollianus Avitus (ord. 144), should go in 157/8 Therefore 143
or 144 for the suffect consulate of Maximus. (One observes the shorter inter¬
val, thirteen years only, for the ordinarius).
If Claudius Maximus is accepted, an immediate consequence is a new
curator operum puhlicorum. At this time the post was collegiate, held very
soon after the consulship — and further, so it may be inferred from the
names and dates available, for a biennium. Thus T. Statilius Maximus and
L. Lollianus Avitus, ordinarii in 144, attested together in 146 (CIL, VI,
1008). Among sixteen curatores who can be discovered between c. 135 and
161, the only other consul ordinarius is P. Salvius Julianus (ord. 148), on
record with C. Popillius Cams Pedo (suff. 147) in 150 (CIL, VI, 855)
It is no discomfort to lodge Claudius Maximus as a curator in the years 147
and 148.
For Claudius against Statilius spoke a pattern of promotion verifiable
in other legates of Pannonia Superior. The desire for rule or symmetry can
easily be delusive. This time it seems to work. Other arguments can be
adduced.
First, in the period here under review no legate of the province accedes
to the fasces as ordinarius, unless it be Statilius. Not but that a man who
had held the important post under Aelius Caesar might have seemed worthy
of the honour, whoever he was.
Second, the interval between governorship and consulship. Maximus
was succeeded by M. Pontius Laelianus (suff. 144), who must have had a
short tenure. The delay for Maximus is perhaps less awkward if he is
a suffectus (and suffectus in 143), not the ordinarius of 144.
Third, Statilius Maximus is patently the son of a consul, T. Statilius
Severus Maximus Hadrianus {suff. 115). Members of consular families are
not frequent among the legates of the praetorian provinces (see below). This
is a phenomenon of no small consequence, but not a criterion. It cannot avail
in single instances.
Fourth, and to the point. The Maximus of the inscription had a long
and slow career. He had been a tribune of IV Scythica, decorated by'Trajan,
i.e. in the period 114—7. If Statilius, peculiar indeed — the son of a consul
becoming ordinarius in his middle forties. If Claudius, no surprise in a new
senator. Such a person, however meritorious and liked by emperors, often
had to wait for long years. Compare Ti. Claudius Quartinus (suff. 130),
legate of Germania Superior in 134. Admitted to the Senate as quaestor after

J. Guey, “Rev. et. lat.”, XXIX (1951), 307 ff. That enables one to construct
a list of eight proconsuls, from 157/8 to 164/5, cf. “Rev. et. anc.”, LXI (1959), 318.
^2 For the curatores of the period, W. Hiittl, Antoninus Pius II (1933), 189 ff.
From his list two items must be expunged, as lacking any clear attestation, viz.
T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Pollio and Q. lallius Bassus. Add, however,
L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus, suffectus in 152 (ILS, 1081), and Valerius Urbicus,
dated to December 12, 138 {AE, 1934, 146): consulate not on record.

236
equestrian service, and praetor c. 113, he is holding a praetorian post in
117-20 {PIR^, C 990) 53.
Even were the inscription ruled out, Claudius Maximus, legate of Pan-
nonia Superior and proconsul of Africa, is a remarkable personality. Apuleius
described him as virum tarn austerae sectae tamque diutinae miliiiae (Apol.,
19). Further he interlaced the oration with frequent compliments to the doc-
trina of this vir sanctissimus. No mere phrases and flowers of a florid sophist.
The proconsul is surely none other than the Stoic Claudius Maximus, from
whose instruction Marcus Aurelius derived much benefit {PIR^, C 934).
This senator illustrates the quality, tastes and training of the gover¬
ning class, the stamp of man to whom emperors were not sorry to consign
the government of armed provinces. Claudius Maximus had a notable pre¬
cursor in the person of Flavius Arrianus (suff.c. 130), Hadrian’s legate of
Cappadocia from 132 to 137 (PIR^, F 219). Maximus began as a tribune in
the Parthian War (ILS, 1062). Arrianus’ early career is a blank. Too old (it
would appear) to serve as a laticlvius at that time, too young to command
a legion.
(6) and (7). The last problem concerns the succession of legates in the
interval between M. Nonius Macrinus (suff. 154) and Ti. Haterius Saturni-
nus (suff. 164). The order proposed is C. Julius Geminius Capellianus in
155/4—56 and M. lullius Bassus in 150—60. There are reasons for rever¬
sing it.
An inscription shows lallius Bassus legate in the summer of 156 {AE,
1904, 95: revised in 1952, 9). His tenure might be from 153/4 to 158, or even
only 156—8, allowing for an Ignotus after Macrinus. The consulship of lal¬
lius belongs in 159 or 160 (the standard date is 160). lallius was a person in
favour. He accedes after his consulship to the cura operum publicoruni {CIL,
’ST, 1119 b) and is legate of Moesia Inferior almost at once, not later than
162 (CIL, III, 6169).54
As for Capellianus, a small item indicates that he cannot precede lal¬
lius Bassus. A diploma in his governorship carries the suffecti Q. Pomponius
Musa and L. Cassius Juvenalis, with a December dating {CIL, XVI, 112).
That rules out the years 153—5 inclusive, when the consuls of the last nun-
diniuni in each year happen to be certified.55 Therefore a later year, 157,
158 or 159, for this pair. But probably not 157, for to that year probably
belongs the December pair Q. Canusius Praenestinus and C. Lusius Sparsus,
in office when M. Statius Priscus (ord. 159) was legate of Dacia (CIL, XVI,
107).

He was adlected after being military tribune in the Egyptian legion III
Cyrenaica — perhaps for gerit shown in the annexation of Arabia. That legion may
be the first garrison of the new province (despite E. Ritterling, P-W, XIII, 1509 f).
The inscription shows P. Martius Verus as commander of V Macedonica.
Legate and legion were to depart to the East almost at once.
For the data, A. Degrassi, I Fasti consolari (1952), 43 f.

237
 The governorship of Capellianus can therefore be assigned to 158—161.®®
And the chance of there being an Ignotus where he was previously lodged
(after Nonius Macrinus) will not be overlooked.
*
* *

These observations are far from exhausting the theme. When an age
happens to bequeath no good witness to posterity (and perhaps never had
any), one uses what material one can. Notably inscriptions. Homogeneous
evidence, when sifted and arranged, may produce striking results. Lists
of provincial governors do not merely explain paths of promotion and meth¬
ods of government. They reveal people — most of therh, it is true, bare
name devoid of personality, but a basis for constructing social and poli¬
tical history. In that way operates a science that owes almost
nothing to written sources.
Statistics (in the modern sense) are not often available or valid in Roman
history. There is one exception, the upper order in Roman society, republi¬
can or imperial. Here is an opportunity (few have taken it) to work on restric¬
ted categories such as consuls and consular families.
There are hazards and impediii.ents. Especially when the evidence is
imperfect. Negative arguments or analogy erected into a rule are highly
vulnerable; anything can happen in human history. For the reigns of Hadrian
and Pius the documentation is abundant in patches, but capricious (the rea¬
sons are not always a mystery). A mass of suffect consuls is missing. They
must be allowed for. Under Pius there seem normally to have been eight or
ten consuls each year. Moreover, when new Fasti are discovered, they tend
to disclose some persons totally unknown: thus three of the six suffecti in
the year 148.®’ Again, provincial governors. For Asia between the dated
proconsuls of 103/4 and 137/8 there are now (it can be contended) only four
empty places: one in 127/8, three towards the end of Hadrian’s reign.®®.
By contrast, certain of the imperial praetorian provinces under Pladrian and
Pius: two legates each for Belgica and Aquitania.®®

lallius was in fact placed before Capellianus by W. Hiittl, o.c., 146 f.;
T. Ndgy, "Budapest Regiseg6i’’, XX (1963), 38.
FO, XXVIII. The novelties are Satyrius Firmus, C. Salvius Capito, P. Orfi-
dius Senecio.
The list of D. Magie [o.c., 1583 f.) cam be amended or made more precise
in certain particulars. For the years 103/4 to 120/1 see Tacitus (1958), 655. In this
series there was an uncertainty about 117/8: Pliny’s friend Cornutus Tertullus (suff.
100) was proconsul of either Asia or Africa {ILS, 1024). Q. Servaeus Innocens (suff.
101) has now emerged as the proconsul [JOAI, XLIV (1959), Beiblatt 266]. Next,
down to 126/7 all places are secure, for Q. Pompeius Falco (suff. 108) is nailed to
123/4 {AE, 1957, 17). For the later proconsuls, see above, p. 349 f.
Such are the data on the tables in P. Lambrechts, La composition du Sinat
Romain de I’accession au trdne d’Hadrien d la mort de Commode (1936). Many of his
data are inadequate or obsolete, it is true — and one might produce three or four
more legates of Aquitania.

238
 After this due invocation of the obvious, one may go on to a summary
exploitation of Pannonia Inferior down to the first years of Marcus. For com¬
parison and support the other one legion provinces offer: Arabia, Dacia,
Numidia. Arabia does not help — only four legates under Hadrian and Pius.®*^
But Dacia can be of some modest help. After the prolonged command of
Sex.‘ Julius Severus (suff. 127) there are two places vacant. Then, from Cn.
Papirius Aelianus (suff. c. 135) attested in 132, down to P. Furius Saturni-
nus (suff. 161 or 162), there is a complete list save for two missing legates.®^
Reference will be made to Dacia. It is Numidia that provides the adequate
check and comparison. To parallel Pannonia Inferior, let the period from
c. 106 to 162 be adopted, beginning with A. Larcius Priscus (suff. 110) and
ending with D. Fonteius Frontinianus {suff. 162 or 163). The span of years
is almost identical (there were interruptions in Pannonia Inferior in 118/9
and in 137). Numidia is complete, except for four gaps, possibly five.®^

Lambrechts {o.c., 221) has three, all under Pius. Add the legate Claudius
Modestus [AE, 1958, 234) if he is the same person as L. Claudius Modestus (suff.
152), one of the Arval Brethren in 155 {PIR C 938). But there is a truly notable
accession. The names of three governors on Greek papyri found in the “Cave of the
Letters” have been briefly reported by H.J. Polotsky, “Israel Exploration Journal”,
XII (1962), 259. They are given as Julius Julianus in 125,Aninius Sextius Floren-
tinus in 127, Haterius Nepos in 130. The first is not with certainty to be identified,
the third is the suffectus of 134, governor of Pannonia Superior in 138 (CIL, XVI,
84, cf. ILS, 1058): hence the idea is at once dispelled that he might have held Pan¬
nonia Inferior as his praetorian province (J. Fitz, o.c., 314).
The second is no stranger. He died when governor of Arabia, and his son dedi¬
cated a magnificent mausoleum toL. [...] ninio L.fil. Pap. Sextio Florentino. with
his full cursus. Before governing Arabia he had been legate of IX Hispana and pro-
consul of Narbonensis (CIL, III, 14148 i®). The date is most important — it tou¬
ches the survival of IX Hispana subsequent to 122, which has been vigorously main¬
tained by E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1953), 20 ff.
Seven legates are registered in that period by A. Stein, Die Reichsbeamten
von Dazien (1944), 21 ff. And now L. Annius Fabianus (CIL, III, 7972) fits in.
A fragment of the Fasti Ostienses (AE, 1959, 38) gives a Fabianus as suffect, c. 141 —
4: if 141, he is the precedessor of the legate Q. Mustius Priscus (CIL, XVI 90), cos.
suff. in 144 with M. Pontius Laelianus (CIL, VI 24162). As for the two gaps, one is
in c. 153 — 6. For the other, c. 144 — 8 (after Mustius Priscus), the name of P. Orfi-
dius Senecio has been suggested, cf. JRS, XLIII (1953), 160. A vertically split dedi¬
cation at Sarmizegethusa honours a man who was legate and consul (CIL, III,
1465). The endings of nomen and cognomen would fit this man — but thay would
also fit, e.g., a Claudius Pollio or a Fufidius Pollio.
For those legates and their dating see Bengt E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter
der romischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletianus, II (1960), 164 ff.
Two suggestions are preferred by E. Birley in review of this work, JRS, LII (1962),
224. Using CIL, VIII, 18081 and an unpublished fragment from Lambaesis giving
T. Marcio T.f. Pol., he produces persons to fill the gaps c. 142 and c. 155. Q. Corne¬
lius Quadratus, the brother of Fronto, was consul suffect in 147 ; and a Marcius Avi-
tus was praetor in the reign of Pius (Dig., IV, 1, 7).

239
 The inquiry can suitably be organised under seven heads: —
First, length of tenure. Postulating the gaps, the triennial average
obtains for Pannonia Inferior and for Numidia. Dacia adds a partial confir¬
mation — ten governors to be assumed between 132 and 161 inclusive.
Second, accession to the consulate. Surely normal, though sometimes
after an interval (compare above, Claudius Maximus). As for the Pannonian
legates, so far there happens to be no document to register the consulships
of three of them: L. Cornelius Latinianus, Cominius Secundus, C. Julius
Geminius Capellianus. That need not surprise or disconcert. Numidia im¬
ports a degree of confidence. Of the fourteen known legates in the long period
under examination, only one misses attestation as a consul. This is M. Vale¬
rius Etruscus, in office in 151 and 152. He might have died, or lapsed abruptly
from favour. These things happened.®^ Yet there is a chance that Valerius
Etruscus proceeded to the fasces, perhaps not till 155 (there is no place avai¬
lable in 153 and 154, only one free in 152, but none of the five inscriptions
dated to that year give him the title of cos. des.)
As for Dacia, all of the eight known legates between 132 and 161 became
consuls.
Third, consules ordinarii. None from Pannonia Inferior. From Numidia
two: Q. Fabius Catullinus {ord. 130), who was there when Hadrian in 128
carried out his review of the army (ILS, 2487 + 9133 f.), and C. Prastina
Messallinus {ord. 147). In comment on which phenomenon, Dacia is instruc¬
tive — one, and clearly exceptional. M. Statius Priscus after equestrian ser¬
vice made a late entry to the Senate as quaestor (not specially adlected) and
went from Dacia to hold the fasces as ordinarius in 159 {ILS, 1092). He had
fought a war in Dacia
Fourth, subsequent consular provinces. Of the fourteen legates of Pan¬
nonia Inferior, five go on to be governors of Pannonia Superior ®® A sixth,
0. Fuficius Cornutus {suff. 147) was probably legate of Moesia Inferior {ILS,
8975, cf. PIR^, F 497)'. Numidia, so it happens, can produce only four for
certain ®'^. Hazards of various kinds may be taken into account. Of the eight

For examples, JRS, XLIII (1953), 152 f. One of them is L. Aninius Sextius
Florentinus the legate of Arabia.
Bengt E. Thomasson, o.c., 175 f.
A. Stein, o.c., 28.
Viz., L. Neratius Priscus, date uncertain {ILS, 1034); M. Pontius Laelianus
{ILS, 1094 - 1100), attested in 146, 148, 149 (CIL, XVI, 178 and 96 f.); Maximus
{ILS, 1062), to be identified, cf. above, as Claudius Maximus, in 150 and 154
{CIL, XVI, 99 and 104); M. Nonius Macrinus (ILS, 8830) c. 158-162 (CIL, V,
4343), or perhaps c. 162 — 6; L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus {ILS, 1081), c. 162 — 6,
or perhaps rather 158 — 162; M. lallius Bassus, ? 166 — 9 (CIL, XII 2718 f, cf. Dio,
LXXI, 3, 1).
P. Metilius Secundus (suff. 123 or 124), province onknown (ILS, 1053)
Sex. Julius Maior (? 126), both Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior, apparently
(IG, IV 454), also Syria (AE, 1938, 137); P. Cassius Secundus (138), probably
Cappadocia, cf. PIR C 521; T. Caesernius Macrinus (140 or 141), Germania Supe¬
rior (CIL, XIII, 5609).

240
Dacian governors called up for comparison (in 132—161), four commanded
military provinces In the dearth of active warfare in this age the praeto¬
rian legates of Dacia might seem to command a high premium when the
government needed, for example, a general in Britain. The peaceful reign
of Pius witnessed two wars on the Dacian borders, one in the earlier years
(in 142), the other towards the end Under Hadrian Sex. Julius Severus
(suff. 127) after Moesia Inferior was taken to Britain, then quickly sent to
deal with the Jewish insurrection {ILS, 1056). And, thirty years later,
M. Statius Priscus {otd. 159), after a brief tenure of Moesia Superior and of
Britain, was required for command in the East after the catastrophes of the
year 162 {ILS, 1092). It would be a temptation to look for some of the mis¬
sing legates of Britain on the roll of Dacia.
A brief digression is here in place. The praetorian paevince is not the
only recommended path to a consulship and a consular command. There is
the charge of the Aerarium Saturni, held by pracjecti with a tenure gene¬
rally presumed triennial. The post conveys fine prospects and high prestige.
Twelve praefecti can be discovered under Hadrian and Pius. All consuls.
That is not the most striking feature. All except two are later certified as
consular legates
In parallel and as equipollent will be observed another post, one of the
big Italian roads conjoined with supervision of the alimentary foundations.
It can stand in lieu of a praetorian province, just before the consulship. For
example, in the cursus of L. Minicius Natalis {ILS, 1061) and T. Caesernius
Macedo (ILS, 1069). The latter instance is instructive. Macedo’s younger
brother, Macrinus, accedes to the fasces by way of Numidia {ILS, 1068).
An important consequence follows. Certain senators enjoy a privilege.
Instead of having to go abroad to earn promotion they are allowed to stay
at home There is a curious parallel in support. Allusion has already been
made to the curatores operum puhlicorum — sixteen on record from c. 135
to 161, and one will now add Claudius Maximus

•* Cn. Papirus Aelianus {suff. c. 135), in Britain in 146 {CIL, XVI, 93);
C. Curtins Justus (150 or 151), Moesia Superior (CIL, III, 8110); M. Sedatius Seve-
rianus (153), Cappadocia in 161/2 (Dio, LXXI, 2, 1 etc.); M. Statius Priscus (ord.
159) Moesia Superior, Britannia, Cappadocia (ILS, 1092).
The second war, conducted by M. Statius Priscus (ord. 159) has tended to
attract notice, cf. A. Stein, o.c., 28. For the first, in 142 or 143, see JRS LII (1962),
92, discussing the carrer of T. Flavius Priscus Gallonius Fronto Q. Marcius Turbo,
the equestrian governor of Dacia Inferior (AE, 1931, 25-f AE 1946, 113). The legate
of Dacia was Q. Mustius Priscus (suff. 144), attested by a diploma of February,
144 (CIL, XVI, 90).
That is another theme, and it is not practicable to furnish details and docu¬
mentation in this place.
As pointed out by E. Birley, "Proc. Brit. Ac“., XXXIX (1953, 210. That
scholar is disposed to regard the charge of roads in Italy and the post of curator
operum publicorum at Rome asa kind of "paid leave” for senators (o.c., 207).
Above, p. 236, n. 52.

241
 No fewer than twelve of them proceed in the sequel to consular pro¬
vinces. Of those twelve, seven had come to the consulship after the charge
of the Aerarium Saturni .
A clear pattern emerges, and light on governmental policy under Pius
— and even under Hadrian. In the pre-selection of consular governors,metro¬
politan occupations seem to gain a premium over experience in the provin¬
ces. Furthermore, one notes under Pius consular legates who had not comman¬
ded a legion A suspicion arises. Was not the government in its peaceful
habits and routine undervaluing knowledge of provinces and armies? That
touches much larger questions of the high Antonine prime.
Fifth, proconsulates of Asia and Africa. These posts are the peak of an
approved and blameless senatorial career. They tend to go to persons of
good family. Therefore one might have expected a heavy preference for con-
sules ordinarii. That is not borne out by the facts, at least for the record of
the years 103/4 to 138/9. Only five of those proconsuls had been ordinarii
The vir militaris might waive desire for this honour. He had his fame
and reward elsewhere — repeated consular commands or an iterated consu¬
late. That seems to hold for the reign of Trajan, suggested by missing pro¬
consulates for certain eminent persons Yet some may have perished before
they attained the requisite year (fifteen or even more from the consulate).
Thus Sosius [Senecio (cos. 99, II ord. 107), or L. Fabius Justus (suff. 102),
the friend of Cornelius Tacitus.
Given the predictable prospects for legates of Pannonia Inferior, one
would not anticipate many proconsuls on the list. There are two, P. Afra-
nius Flavianus {suff. P115, see above), andJM. Nonius Macrinus {suff. 154).
Numidia yields one. Sex. Julius Maior [suff. ? 126) ; and Dacia one, L. An-
nius Fabianus {sujf. c. 141)

The detailed justification for these statistics must be reserved for another
place.
E. Birley (p.c., 208) draws attention to P. Salvius Julianus {ord. 148), cf.
ILS, 8973, and L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus {suff. 152), cf. ILS, 1081. In the latter
case (as he concedes) a legionary command may well have fallen out of the text:,
otherwise, between praetorship and consulship, Dasumius held one post only, the
Aerarium Saturni. Add C. Popillius Cams Pedo [suff. 147) — legato legionis X
Fretensis a cuius cura se excusavit {ILS, 1071). The legion was stationed in Judaea,
and Popillius had reason to know the land and people, having fought with honour
as a military tribune in Hadrian’s war.
For the basis of the list, see above, p. 233 n. 41. The five ordinarii are
L. Nonius Asprenas (94), M. Peducaeus Priscinus (110), L. Lamia Aelianus (116),
T. Aurelius Fulvus (120), L. Venuleius Apronianus (123).
Tacitus (1958), 67.
” Proconsul of Africa or of Asia {IG, IV^, 454), cf. “Rev. et. anc.’’, LXI
(1959), 313.
Proconsul of Asia on an unpublished inscription of Ephesus referred to in
P-W, VIII, A, 566.

242
 Sixth, birth and rank. For these posts the government accords a prefe¬
rence to rising families. Of consular houses, Pannonia Inferior exhibits two
specimens: L. Neratius Priscus, enigmatic on various counts, and M. Nonius
Macrinus [suff. 154) There are only two from Numidia: L. Acilius Strabo
Clodius Nummus {suff. 114), and P. Metilius Secundus {suff. 123 or 124)
From Dacia none (in the restricted period here under scrutiny).
Seventh, local and regional origins. That is a vast subject. It demands
precise and delicate handling. Investigations that produce statistics and
proportions and percentages of senators will be contemplated with distrust,
and sometimes with distaste. All too often the categories are crude or super¬
ficial ; and no adequate allowance for the enormous vagaries of documenta¬
tion. Some of the results registered are highly vulnerable. One suspects, for
example, that the proportion of senators allegedly deriving from the eastern
provinces under Hadrian and Pius is misleading. Italy and the provinces
of the Roman West are underestimated — compare, the scant testimony
for legates of Belgica and Aquitania.
With that proviso, one can subjoin a brief (and inconclusive) statement
about the fourteen governors of Pannonia Inferior, down to Ti. Haterius
Saturn inus.
The first of them, P. Aelius Hadrianus from Italica in the province
Baetica is best kept out of the reckoning, for he is anomalous: a senator, but
also the next of kin to the Emperor Trajan. For the rest, Gallia Narbonensis
claims two, viz. T. Julius Maximus of Nemausus {ILS, 1016) [and M. lal-
lius Bassus from Alba Helvorum {CIL, XII, 2718 f.). Africa can be assumed
the home of C. Julius Geminius Capellianus.®^ From Italy derive four beyond
dispute. Saepinum in Samnium is the “patria” of L. Neratius Priscus, Histo-
nium that of Q. Fuficius Cornutus {ILS, 8975). M. Pontius Laelianus, with
the tribe “Pupinia” {ILS, 1094), is patently Italian: his town defies preci¬
sion. And M. Nonius Macrinus is from Brixia in Transpadane Italy.
What is to be made of the remaining six? None of them possesses a
distinctive gentilicium. Cominius looks Italian (of low degree, no consul of
that name hitherto), but a provincial origin is not excluded, possibly Narbo-

’» Nonius Macrinus is probably the nephew of M. Nonius Mucianus, the polyo-

nymous suffectus of 138, cf. P-W, XVII, 897.
For the identity of the former see above, p. 226. There is an early Vespa-
sianic suffectus. L. Acilius Strabo {PIR 2, A 82). As for Metilius Secundus, he was
close kin to P. Metilius Nepos [suff. 91) and P. Metilius Sabinus Nepos [suff. 103).
The word Pont following his cognomen suggests a Pontius Sabinus somewhere in
the family. These Metilii derive from Novaria in Italia Transpadana, cf. CIL, V,
6503.
Observe P. Julius Geminius Marcianus (suff. c. 166) who belongs unimpeach¬
ably to Cirta in Numidia (P-W, X, 610). For the proper nomenclature of Capel-
lianus observe AE, 1905, 113: “C. Gemini Capelliani". Hiittl [o.c., 147) has "Gemi-
nus”, as likewise the article in P-W, X, 611 and J. Fitz o.c., 266.
»* He has the "Fabia", the tribe of that town, cf. CIL, V, 4343 (Brixia).

243
nensian.®® That might also be tho home of P. Afranius Flavianus.®^ Nothing
can be affirmed about L. Cornelius Latinianus (son of a procurator) or
L. Attius Macro; and there is no certainty that Ti. Haterius Saturninus is
Italian. Finally, the philosopher Claudius Maximus rnay derive from the
eastern lands.
All in all, not a distinguished collection. The most presentable is
patently L. Neratius Priscus. Next in social acceptability probably stand
M. Nonius Macrinus and M. Pontius Laelianus. But T. Julius Maximus de¬
serves a good rating. He is polyonymous, and presumably related to families
of substance and repute in his native town and province.
*

* *

The enquiry thus terminates on the note of rank and hierarchy and social
categories. Not unsuitably. How the Roman army functions as a channel of
social advancement is patent — natives to the Roman franchise, soldiers
to centurions, centurions to equestrian status, knights to eligibility for the
upper order. The senatorial cursus exhibits a comparable process. New men
are brought into the Senate by Caesar, their friend and patron. They have to
work their way. They make requital by service. Hence access to the consul¬
ship. The new nobility thus being created all the time prefers for the most
part to enjoy status, however, and opulence subsequently; and the Caesars
for their provincial governors pass over the sons of consuls, turning ever
and again to newer families and a widening zone of recruitment. Such at
least is the conclusion enforced by the lists of provincial legates in this
period.
One inclines to put emphasis on the demands of administration, on the
need to furnish a regular crop of governors for the provinces in the portion
of Caesar. That is only one aspect of the steady self-regulating device. To a
philosophic mind the thing looks as though it were ordained by Providence
to ensure the ascent of families and the renovation of the upper order.

AL. Cominius Secundus has been produced, aedile at Tusculum {ILS,

9388), cf. Groag in PIR C 1271. He might be immigrant rather than Tusculan.
For equestrian Cominii from Concordia in Transpadana in the Antonine period, note
PIR 2, C 1264 and 1266; and also one from Mantua, 1268. The inscriptions of Narbo-
nensis show about twenty Cominii, among them two magistrates of early date, CIL,
XII, 4389 (Narbo); 537 (Carcaso).
L. Afranius (cos. 61 B.C.), the legate of Pompeius Magnus, may have hel¬
ped to spread the nomen in the western provinces. Sex. Afranius Burrus, the Pre¬
fect of the Guard, can be adduced (ILS, 1321: Vasio of the Vocontii).
86 By his full style T. Julius Sex. f. Volt. Maximus Manlianus Brocchus Servi-
lianus A. Quadronius L. Servilius Vatia Cassius Cam[ (ILS, 1016, with CIL, XVI,
164 supplying the second cognomen).

244
 XVII

PLINY AND THE DACIAN WARS

Certain fields of study, large or small, have an easy appeal because no

fresh information has accrued through the ages, or seems likely to emerge.
Hence scope for sound judgement, for the careful weighing of opinions, or,
at the lowest, for industrious compilation. By the same token, what could
be more attractive than a subject so tenuous that it can barely be said to
€xist? It may even have to be invented.
Such would be the Dacian Wars of Trajan, as illuminated by Pliny’s
correspondence. Two wars and four campaigns (101 and 102; 105 and 106),
signalised by the celebration of two triumphs: what do the nine books of
letters contribute? Next to nothing, at first sight. A letter reporting several
legal cases carries a reference of the most casual — cum esset Caesar in Dacia
(Epp., VI, 31, 8). Otherwise the only commemoration of Trajan’s wars and
Trajan’s conquest beyond the Danube is the letter to Caninius Rufus, a
local bard at Comum (VIII, 4). This man was proposing to write an epic
poem. Pliny adds eager encouragement. What a theme! Tam fabulosa mate¬
ria — but it is all true. Pliny goes on to exemplify the magnitude of the
theme, and the arduous task, eschewing, however, the names of persons and
places.
*

* *

That is all, but that is not the end of the matter. Negative evidence
can be variously instructive. It is often worth the effort to look for the words
and phrases an author avoids, the persons, topics or episodes he has decided
to omit. That is a clue to his style and idiosyncrasy. Also and further, a
revelation of social conventions or political attitudes.
The motives that induced Pliny to edit and publish his correspondence
are not beyond conjecture. And the product carries its meaning on its face:
a sympathetic portrayal of the better people in their life and habits. Under¬
neath, a carefully contrived autobiography.
Warfare is an accident. The main theme is peace and polite studies,
with the premium on eloquence, though other literary pursuits are not exclu¬
ded. The writer being a senator, tradition and propriety forbade any conti-

245
nual obtrusion of the Emperor as a person or a power. Pliny’s thoughts were
on fame and posterity. That meant no kind of hostility to the ruler.
Cornelius Tacitus, when composing the Annales of Rome under the Caesars
from Tiberius to Nero, was not remote from concern with the present. The
name of Trajan is absent from these pages. Which has surprised some scho¬
lars of the recent age. They fancy that it indicates or proves the author’s
disillusionment with Trajan h They are baffled by the obvious.
To obtrude the Dacian Wars would have disturbed Pliny’s principal
themes and spoiled the whole colouring of his work. He is eager to assert
the primacy of literary fame over military honours. Similarly Tacitus, for
whom the tragedies of Pomponius Secundus stood higher than his ornamenta
triumphalia Tacitus also paid proud tribute to the excellence of his own
time — nostra quoque aetas inulta laudis et artium imitanda posteris tulit
Plin}/ was not one of the viri militares. Their path to the consulate nor-
mall}^ led through the command of a legion and the governorship of a praeto¬
rian province. Pliny had got there by eloquence and two civilian posts.
Several notable persons or influential groups find no mention at all in
Pliny’s correspondence. They are worth registering Among them are three
generals in the First War, viz. C. Cilnius Proculus, M.’ Laberius Maximus
and Q. Glitius Agricola. The latter two were rewarded with second consuls¬
hips in 103. Glitius, who has escaped all literary record, belongs to Pliny’s
own country, the Transpadana ®.

The loyal Pliny duly pays his tribute to the conquering Emperor. It
comes late in the collected letters, and after the end of the Second War.
That is a surprise, be it conceded. No surprise, however, that it should be
brought in indirectly — in letter to a poet. But the testimony is potent and
splendid. It exalts the achievement of the Imperator, and it is rounded off
with language of fervent devotion — invocatis dis et inter decs ipso, cuius res
opera consilia dicturus es (VIII, 4, 5).
Pliny in his remarks to Caninius starts off, not with battles and blood¬
shed, but with engineering and siege-works — dices immissa terris nova flu-
mina, novos pontes fluminibus iniectos, insessa castris montium ahrupta. He
also commemorates the heroism of the Dacian king — pulsum regia, pulsuni
etiam vita regent nihil desperantem. The selection and emphasis of items is
noteworthy. In one aspect it corresponds with the theme expounded on the
pictorial scroll of Trajan’s Column: hard work, not the glory of war ®.

^ E. Paratore, Tacito (1951), 625 f.

* Ann., XII, 28, 2: modica pars famae eius apud posteros in quis carminum gloria
praecellit. There is no cause to suspect irony.
® Ann., Ill, 55, 5. The historian’s own claim and pride is unmistakable.
* Tacitus (1958), 87 f. Also in "Historia”, IX (1960), 378 f.
* ILS, 1021 (Augusta Taurinorum).
* I.A. Richmond in “BSR Papers”, XIII (1935), 1 ff.

246
 The portrayal of contemporary campaigns in heroic verse might well
excite curiosity. How would Caninius manage the structure, the devices and
the episodes?
No poet could be so incompetent as to neglect one primordial and tradi¬
tional matter: the mustering of the armed forces on both sides. That furnished
excuse for ethnography, the exotic, the picturesque. He would describe the
Dacians. Also their Sarmatian allies, the horsemen with their panoply of
armour and their long heavy spears. These Sarmatians (the Rhoxolani) had
already made an irruption into Moesia (and into Roman annals) during the
winter of the year 68/9 ’ — and Sarmatian weapons and armour had found
entry in a recent Roman epic, the Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus
Nor was the Roman army itself devoid of colour, variety and vitality.
The legions had their proud names and emblems, some known long since in
battle and glory, and one of them recent, the Prima Minervia, which in the
Second War was conducted by its legate P. Aelius Hadrianus (This young
man, consul suffect in 108, lacks record in the Plinian correspondence).
Rather than the legions it was the auxiliary regiments or tribal levies
that would inspire a pictorial talent. The poet could use the archers from
Syria and the Moorish cavalry led by a native chieftain, the famous Lusius
Quietus. All of which is relevant to Trajan’s Column.
There is something else. It would be expedient to have a council of
war and high debate. A recent model was available, which one might be
tempted to improve or surpass on various counts. Statius wrote De hello Ger-
manico to glorify a campaign of Domitian, namely the war against the Chatti
in 83. That poem inspired a satirist. Juvenal composed his Fourth Satire as
a parody, putting on parade the Emperor's counsellors in the debate about a
big fish. The scholiast on Juvenal, so it happens, preserves four lines from
the De hello Germanico of Statius. The extract registers four eminent perso¬
nages present at the deliberations of Domitian
Even without that precedent, the poetical friend of Pliny had a given
device. He could bring in a Trajanic council of war, either at Rome or in
Moesia. It would exalt the allies of Trajan, in the forefront Julius Servianus
and Licinius Sura. Their rank and ostensible parity was published on the
Fusti, for they introduce the year 102 as consules ordinarii, after the first
campaign of the First War.

But enough of speculation — and the poet was in fact proposing to write
Graecis versihus. Let the argument revert to its point of departure, namely
the slight impact of the wars on Pliny’s correspondence. Several of the mar¬
shals receive letters: governors of the military provinces, chiefs of staff, or

’ Hisi., I, 79, perhaps written about the time of the first Dacian War.
« Argonautica, VI, 231 ff., cf. CQ, XXIII (1929), 129 ff.
'‘HA, Hadr., 3, 6, cf. ILS, 308.
1® Schol. on Juvenal, IV, 94.

247
 commanders of army corps Pliny is never slow to praise his friends. Yet
none of those men gets credit for action and glory.
Only one of them is linked to the hazards and actions of warfare. It is
Julius Servianus. Pliny complains of the cessation of news and avows him¬
self anxious — exspectantem in horas timentemque pro capita amicissimo (III,
17, 3). That is a valuable item. It shows that Servianus, previously legate of
Pannonia (?98—100), as emerges from another letter (VIII, 23, 5), was with
the Emperor at the seat of war, either in 101 or in 102 The order of the
letters indicates the former year. If that is so, a further consequence. Both
Servianus and Sura being absent in Dacia, who had charge of affairs at Rome?
The answer must be Sex. Attius Suburanus: he took Trajan’s place as consul
in 101 and was ordinarius in 104. A potent character, who had previously
been Prefect of the Guard i®.
Of Julius Servianus, the historian Cassius Dio has no mention in this
war — only Licinius Sura, Laberius Maximus (and the Guard Prefect Clau¬
dius Livianus) And Pliny furnishes no hint of Sura's fame. Two letters
stand to his address. The one reports curiosities of nature (IV, 30), the other
narrates some ghost stories (VII, 27).
Again, Q. Sosius Senecio (co?. 99), the personage next in favour with
Trajan, so it can be claimed — and, like Sura, not alien to literary tastes.
He has two letters. The first, probably of the year 97, reports a great crop of
poets at Rome (I, 13). The second, in 102 or 103, commends a young man for
a military tribunate when Sosius is governor of a province (IV, 4). Sosius,
however, must have won great glory later as a general in the Second War, for
he accedes to a second consulship in 107 as colleague of Licinius Sura, now
cos. Ill (coming ahead of his senior, Julius Servianus).
So far, Servianus, Sura, Sosius: all three (be it noted in passing) concern
the identity of persons depicted in Trajan’s company on the Column

The generals not at the time provincial governors are worth noting: Lici¬
nius Sura in both wars, Sosius Senecio in the second. Further, Cilnius Proculus
and Laberius Maximus may have earned honours after vacating their commands
(Moesia Superior and Moesia Inferior, where they are attested in 100, see below).
A clear case of an independent army commander in the Second War is the man
of Pergamum, C. Julius Quadratus Bassus (suff. 105). Like Cilnius and Laberius,
he has no letter from Pliny.
JRS, XLVII (1957), 131. Following Mommsen, Groag assigned this letter
to the time of Servianus’ governorship of Pannonia (P-W, X, 884).
PIR 2, A 1366. For his earlier career see AE, 1939, 60 (Heliopolis), which
shows him in two posts the adiutor of Julius Ursus, the man who adopted Julius
Servianus.
Dio, LXVIII, 9, 3 f. For Laberius Maximus, cf. Pliny to Trajan (Epp., X,
74, 1). Claudius Livianus (PIR C 913) being with Trajan in Dacia, one must
conjecture an Ignotus at Rome, his colleague in the Prefecture of the Guard. Compare
the situation in 122. If Septicius Clarus was with Hadrian in Britain (HA, Hadr.,
11, 3), Marcius Turbo had charge of the capital.)
15 See E. Groag in P-W, XIII, 477 (Sura); III, A, 1184 (Sosius).

248
 One item can be added that carries an allusion to the time of the Second
War. Writing in or about 106 to a man called Justus, Pliny mentions aesta-
tem inquieiam vobis exercitamqiie (VII, 2, 2). The language points to warfare,
the person is none other than L. Fabius Justus (suffectus in 102, taking the
place of Sura), the man to whom Tacitus dedicated his Dialogus His
name can also be deciphered on a Latin papyrus, of no small interest and
debate (BM Papyri, 2851, otherwise “Hunt’s Pridianum”) i’. Fabius Justus
it follows, was legate on the Danube, precisely governor of Moesia Inferior
in the period 105—8.
*

* *

Pliny’s correspondence can thus be made to disclose two allusions to

the Dacian Wars, in the letters to Julius Servianus and Fabius Justus. But
warfare is absent from the missives to Licinius Sura and Sosius Senecio.
These were cultivated persons. The former had been celebrated as an orator
by Martial. The latter was the friend and patron of Plutarch. Pliny delibe¬
rately confines himself to one aspect only of their lives and pursuits.
There is a parallel procedure. All of Pliny’s letters to consular legates
have a feature in common. They fail to specify the region or the province
The list is instructive, for another purpose. It concerns various dates and
identifications, of no small consequence.
1. To Priscus, commending Voconius Romanus, probably in 100 (II,
13). Not, as has often been held, L. Neratius Priscus (suff. 97), governor
of Pannonia (IPS, 1033f.). That province was governed by Glitius Agricola
(suff. 97, suff. II 103), presumably from 99 or 100 to 102 (ILS, 1021a, cf.
CIL, XVI, 47), as successor to Julius Servianus (cf. VIII, 23, 5). Rather
Javolenus Priscus (suff. 86), a known legate of Syria (ILS, 1015), hence
Trajan’s first governor of that province
2. To Sosius Senecio, commending Varisidius Nepos in 102 or 103 (IV,
4). Probably legate of either Moesia Superior or Moesia Inferior 20. If the
former, he held it after C. Cilnius Proculus (suff. 87) attested by a diplopia
of May, 100 (CIL, XVI, 46), further honoured with dona militaria (“Not.
Scav’’., 1925, 224): Sosius’successor would then be L. Herennius Saturninus

i« JRS, XLVII (1957), 131. Groag suggested that Justus was Pliny’s elderly
equestrian friend Minicius Justus (P-W, VI, 1773, cf. PIR^, F 41).
JRS, XLIX (1959), 26 ff., using the revised text of R.O. Fink in JRS,
XLVIII (1958), 102 ff. See further J.F. Gilliam in Hommages d Albert Grenier (1962),
747 ff.
18 Tacitus (1958), 96. In sharp contrast is Pliny’s report to the Emperor about
the escaped slave Callidromus — servisse aliquando Laberio Maximo captumque
a Susago in Moesia et a Decibalo muneri missum Pacoro, Parthiae regi (X, 74, 1).
i» As proposed in "Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 487f.; “Historia”, IX ( 1960), 365f,
Tacitus (1958), 648. A. Stein did not reckon with this letter in Die Legaten
von Moesien (1940).

249
 (suff. 100), who belongs somewhere in the period 103—6 (CIL, XVI, 54)
If the province was Moesia Inferior, Sosius might have followed M.’ Laberius
Maximus (suff. 87), attested in October of lOO (SEG, I., 329), but perhaps
not still governor when fighting in the campaign of 102 (Dio, LXVIII, 9, 4).
There is not much room for Sosius’ tenure after Laberius Maximus and before
Q. Fabius Postuminus (suff. 96), who is attested in 103 (CIL, III, 14451)
To be sure, a stray fact might be adduced in support of Moesia Inferior-
Q. Pompeius Falco (suff. 108) commanded V Macedonica in the First War,
a legion which was stationed at Oescus in that province (ILS, 1035). He
was the son-in-law of Sosius However, the marriage might not have been
contracted until a later date: the son of Falco, consul ordinarius in 149, w'as
born in 117 (ILS, 1106)
A Moesian governorship for Sosius .Senecio at the time of the First War
has relevance to another problem. Since he also had a high command in the
Second War (deduced from the second consulship in 107), Sosius might have
received consular dona twice. That is to sa}^, Sosius, not Sura, may be the
Ignotus of the inscription ILS, 1022 .
3. To Justus, c. 106 (VII, 2). Clearly L. Fabius Justus (suff., 102),
legate of Moesia Inferior in the period 105—8, cf. above. He succeeds A. Caeci-
lius Faustinus (suff. 99), attested in 105 (CIL, XVI, 50)
4. To Nepos, in 105 (IV, 26). He is described as maximae provinciae
praefuiurus. To be identified as P. Metilius Sabinus Nepos (suff. 103). He
was still at Rome in the month of Ma\% 105, with the Fratres Arvales (CIL,
VI, 32372). Which was his province? Pannonia, it has been conjectured,
because a young kinsman, P. Metilius Secundus (suff.? 124) was tribune in
X Gemina (ILS, 1053), which legion may be supposed to have reached
Pannonia, if not in 105, a couple of years later. If so, Nepos was the successor

** In favour of Moesia Superior as Sosius province, cf. JRS, XLVII (1957),

132. He could have held it from 100 or 101 to 103 or 104. The dona militaria of
Cilnius Proculus do not quite prove that he was still governor in 101 — he might
then have been a staff officer or commander of an army corps.
** For the legates of Moesia Inferior from 97 to 108 see JiJS, XLIX (1959),
28. The space for another legate is indeed constricted, for Laberius Maximus was
probably still governor at the time of the Dacian raid in the winter of 101/2 which
is referred to in Pliny’s despatch to Trajan (X, 74, 1, quoted above, n. 18).
Adduced by Groag — who, however, put both Falco and Sosius in Moesia
Inferior at the time of the Second War (P-W, III, A, 1184 f.). Stein concurred (Die
Legaten von Moesien (1940), 112). But now Fabius Justus excludes Sosius from
105-8, cf. JRS, XLIX (1959), 28.
** The chance of more marriages than one has often to be taken into account.
Thus for C. Bruttius Praesens (suff. c. 119, cos. II, 139). An inscription from Trebula
Mutuesca discloses as his wife Laberia Hostilia Crispina, daughter of Laberius Maxi¬
mus ("Epigraphica”, XXIV (1962), 58). Clearly the mother of the consul of 153,
who was born about 119 — but not the same as the Campaiiian wife of Bruttius
referred to by Pliny c. 106 (VII, 3, 1).
JRS, XLVIII (1957), 134.

250
of L. Neratius Priscus (sufj. 97), the latest known legate of the undivided
Pannonia (ILS, 1033f.)
There is another possibility — a different and previous military pro¬
vince. The inscription of the young Secundus (ILS, 1053) permits the suppo¬
sition that he was military tribune twice, in an unnamed legion and then
in X Gemina 2’. That phenomenon may reflect the transference of a governor
as well as a tribune
And another item comes into the reckoning. There is the letter to Sabi-
nus c. 108 (IX, 2) — observe the phrase anna vestra. Are not Sabinus and
Nepos identical ^9? If that be conceded, Metilius Sabinus Nepos may have
received the letter when governing his second consular province. That is
to say, Pannonia — or rather, Pannonia Superior, the division having occur¬
red during the Second War, or rather at its termination 2*'.
5. To Mamilianus, c. 108 (IX, 25). It contains the phrase inter aquilas
vestras. Another letter shows that he has been hunting (IX, 16). The person
is clearly T. Pomponius Mamilianus {suff. 100), the province evades identi¬
fication. Some have opted for Britain They invoke the dedication set up
at Deva by [T]. Pomponius T.f. Gal. Mamilianus Rufus Antistius Funisula-
nus Vettonianus (CIL, VII, 164). But that man is only leg. Aug., hence legate
of the legion XX Valeria Victrix^^. This legate is therefore either the suf/ec-
ius oi 100 (supposing him polyonymous) or T. Pomponius Antistianus (suff.
121), who has “Funisulanus Vettonianus” in his nomenclature (IGR, III,
739, ch. 14). That is to say, a legionary commander either c. 95 or c. 115,
that is the man at Deva.

So far five consular legates of the armed provinces. For confirmation,

one will adduce Pliny’s letter to Suetonius Tranquillus. It reports an abor-

*• The conjecture about Pannonia as the province of Metilius Nepos is due to

Groag (P-W, XV, 401). Not admitted as a governor by W. Reidinger. Die Statthalter
des ungeteilten Pannonien und oberpannoniens (1956), 67. For L. Neratius Priscus*
(suff. 97) as the legate succeeding Glitius Agricola in 102 see „Gnomon”, XXIX (1957)
621; "Hermes”, LXXXV (1957), 487.
"Gnomon”, XXIX (1957), 522. The cursus (in descending order) breaks off
with [trib]uno m [ilitum leg. X], tn[. The supplement does not have to be tri(umviro
monetali).
Compare the cases of Hadrian (HA, Hadr., 2, 2, and 5; ILS, 308) and the
younger Minicius Natalis (ILS, 1061). Each served in three legions - whence due
cause for speculation.
** As suggested in JRS, XLVII (1957), 132.
30 Thus L. Neratius Priscus is perhaps, but not certainly, the governor under
whom the division was made; on him see n. 26. The first legate of Pannonia Inferior
is P. Aelius Hadrianus, for a short period from late 106 or early 107 to the summer
of 108.
31 PIR 1, M. 92. Also the (defective) article P-W, XXI, 2342.
33 E. Ritterling in P-W, XII, 1778.

251
 tive military tribunate under Neratius Marcellus (III, 8). Neratius was in
fact the governor of Britain, attested in January, 103 Again, a letter of
recommendation to Pompeius Falco (VII, 22): clearly written to Falco when
he was praetorian legate of Judaea, shortly before his suffect consulship in
108
And, to conclude, no legionary legate is anywhere addressed as such,
no legion is named. Yet the excellent Fabius Justus was probably holding
that post in 97 when he received a missive with the words fac sciam quid agas,
quod sinesollicitudine summa nescire non possum (I, 11,2) Likewise Sosius
Senecio when he was told about poetry at Rome (I, 13). Still less would the
legion of a young tribune be denominated. And certainly not the author’s
own legion long ago — III Gallica in Syria
Pliny’s procedure is consistent. He adopted a convention. It is a pheno¬
menon that illustrates his literary technique, namely the eschewing of pre¬
cise details. Genuine letters revised and edited or literary vignettes and
prose-poems (Pliny in one aspect is the heir of Statius and Martial), the cor¬
respondence is a graceful product of artistic contriving. On the face of things,
real letters addressed to real persons. How small they be evaluated? In the
case of consular legates, as is demonstrated, local or military detail has been
avoided — or excised. That fits in neatly with the author’s main purpose and
attitudes, as exemplified by all that he has chosen not to say about the Dacian
wars, the glory of battle and the fame of the generals.

3® CIL, XVI, 48.

3^ ILS, 1035.
35As conjectured in JRS, XLVII (1957), 131. Perhaps in Pannonia because
of the, Suebicum (Plinius, Paw., 8, 2; ILS, 2720; AE, 1923,128); perhaps
elsewhere, given the meneace of an armed proclamation against Nerva (Epp, IX.
13, 11).
Epp. Ill, 11, 5. cf. ILS. 2927.

252
 Jacket illustration:

COLUMN OF TRAJAN

Metope
K :ip(U .. ,

5' I ^-iv-rM. v^,'/' ^ti-'., I f ■ ■’> ' v^y ' J^'i'-'' ^ .

^ ji.-.h^^'’--'4#-»fc' ' t ‘ <, lit *■ '* ^ ' i', ' ', •

f ' ■''^V^-*' •’ ' ■ '-(^ ' :» I"-. ^.'1' '^cWC'M ■ •■* ’ '! ■-
I ‘ .•■ “ ‘ '• ■ ‘ -I . '^.

i.i , ..rt - • ■»!

r- « \i ‘Vt -H ^ ^ uV
i;"* i , ’ -t;,,*,'* "fj. — — -
A . . « I. ^
i.,If -'.■-lif V *-Uf ;'■-
: ij 'ri. ^•
• 4i' •J
'F ,* ‘^4- .V^ <u J* 'Vj
,£■■) ^

4 •-til,. ^ a-m'
kr,. '■' "' ’'-•fW'' ^'’
.l' ■ ''t I, '*■ . [J[^'^#0. ' A ' i: •'V. ,# ♦ 4 i?l>
"• ' t, . ,i> ■..’ }• . > ' f* •vf' «r'

■4f

<^i 'Vft'^,4 ,. 'L ,

■ -*. '■ - y-

f, .

j i'

I ►'^•4. V '. ^ , ‘ A, ..‘V; f*|f*,

* V '“^ -***»,•■'>• (**>*-",'• ■■■ ■ ■<.'■■ 4:i!i S ’
i|. .- •■ *ift-. -,V-< %■;■-'■'■“'• ■- ‘■•V
B- » •*. '^-A ■:•
3-*- •i.' • .■ iV ■'
,, .■' • 'ji
V;.
>.. : 1.. ■■ *
. v
.Z-„ .
• • ' ’ ' L*
L . ^ ■ ■' . " '
'A- ■'•' 'Vt,• "'^t'*'
r , i’*^'
.
I
I V r^i,.
ft
u
V
V ' V r’’-'

It

I • .•»
" >*'•
*
I
. ■ ^'lir^/j^V ^*:iiJlXm '• > v«s;4,i^
^ *■. 'ij, • :.' ' ,. ■

-*-* ;.-^'i
PRINTED IN ROMANIA
 DATE DUE / DATE DE RE■TOUR

CARR MCLEAN 38-297

 f

>
'i.

f
 ,.v

■f>

/ '- '•

^ ■'
i*:.
• tr

i
-'.A-

•4