The Provinces of the Roman Empire 52

The Provinces of the Roman Empire 52

This is what Augustus means when he says that he had brought again

to the empire the provinces of the East in great part distributed among

kings (_Mon. Ancyr._ 5, 41: _provincias omnis, quae trans Hadrianum

mare vergunt ad orientem, Cyrenasque, iam ex parte magna regibus eas

possidentibus ... reciperavi_).

 

[24] The decorum, which was as characteristic of Augustus as its

opposite was of his colleague, did not fail him here. Not merely in

the case of Caesarion was the paternity, which the dictator himself

had virtually acknowledged, afterwards officially denied; the children

also of Antonius by Cleopatra, where indeed nothing was to be denied,

were regarded doubtless as members of the imperial house, but were

never formally acknowledged as children of Antonius. On the contrary

the son of the daughter of Antonius by Cleopatra, the subsequent king

of Mauretania Ptolemaeus, is called in the Athenian inscription,

_C. I. A._ iii. 555, grandson of Ptolemaeus; for Πτολεμαίου ἔκγονος

cannot well in this connection be taken otherwise. This maternal

grandfather was invented in Rome, that they might be able officially

to conceal the real one. Any one who prefers--as O. Hirschfeld

proposes--to take ἔκγονος as great-grandson, and to refer it to the

maternal great-grandfather, comes to the same result; for then the

grandfather is passed over, because the mother was in the legal sense

fatherless.--Whether the fiction, which is in my view more probable,

went so far as to indicate a definite Ptolemaeus, possibly to prolong

the life of the last Lagid who died in 712 {42 B.C.}, or whether they

were content with inventing a father without entering into particulars,

cannot be decided. But the fiction was adhered to in this respect, that

the son of Antonius’s daughter obtained the name of the fictitious

grandfather. The circumstance that in this case preference was given to

the descent from the Lagids over that from Massinissa may probably have

been occasioned more by regard to the imperial house, which treated the

illegitimate child as belonging to it, than by the Hellenic inclination

of the father.

 

[25] It is in itself credible that Antonius concealed the impending

invasion from Phraates as long as possible, and therefore, when sending

back Monaeses, declared himself ready to conclude peace on the basis

of the restitution of the lost standards (Plutarch, 37; Dio, xlix. 24;

Florus, ii. 20 [iv. 10]). But he knew presumably that this offer would

not be accepted, and in no case can he have been in earnest with those

proposals; beyond doubt he wished for the war and the overthrow of

Phraates.

 

[26] The account of the matter given by Strabo, xi. 13, 4, p. 524,

evidently after the description of this war compiled by Antonius’s

comrade in arms Dellius, and, it may be conjectured, at his bidding

(comp. _ib._ xi. 13, 3; Dio, xlix. 39), is a very sorry attempt to

justify the beaten general. If Antonius did not take the nearest route

to Ctesiphon, king Artavazdes cannot be brought in for the blame of

it as a false guide; it was a military, and doubtless still more a

political, miscalculation of the general in chief.

 

[27] The fact of the deposition and execution, and the time, are

attested by Dio, xlix. 32, and Valerius Maximus, ix. 15, ext. 2; the

cause or the pretext must have been connected with the Armenian war.

 

[28] The account of the seizure of Armenia is wanting, but the fact

is clearly apparent from Tacitus, _Ann._ xi. 9. To this connection

probably belongs what Josephus, _Arch._ xx. 3, 3, tells of the design

of the successor of Artabanus to wage war against the Romans, from

which Izates the satrap of Adiabene vainly dissuades him. Josephus

names this successor, probably in error, Bardanes. The immediate

successor of Artabanus III. was, according to Tacitus, _Ann._ xi. 8,

his son of the same name, whom along with his son thereupon Gotarzes

put out of the way; and this Artabanus IV. must be here meant.

 

[29] The statement of Petrus Patricius (_fr._ 3 Müll.) that king

Mithradates of Iberia had planned revolt from Rome, but in order to

preserve the semblance of fidelity, had sent his brother Cotys to

Claudius, and then, when the latter had given information to the

emperor of those intrigues, had been deposed and replaced by his

brother, is not compatible with the assured fact that in Iberia, at

least from the year 35 (Tacitus, _Ann._ vi. 32) till the year 60

(Tacitus, _Ann._ xiv. 26), Pharasmanes, and in the year 75 his son

Mithradates (_C. I. L._ iii. 6052) bore rule. Beyond doubt Petrus has

confused Mithradates of Iberia and the king of the Bosporus of the same

name (I. 316, note 1), and here at the bottom lies the narrative, which

Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 18, presupposes.

 

[30] If the coins, which, it is true, for the most part admit of being

distinguished only by resemblance of effigy, are correctly attributed,

those of Gotarzes reach to Sel. 362 Daesius = A.D. 51 June, and

those of Vologasus (we know none of Vonones II.) begin with Sel. 362

Gorpiaeus = A.D. 51 Sept. (Percy Gardner, _Parthian Coinage_, pp. 50,

51), which agrees with Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 14, 44.

 

[31] Gorneae, called by the Armenians _Garhni_, as the ruins (nearly

east of Erivân) are still at present named. (Kiepert.)

 

[32] Even after the attack Tiridates complained _cur datis nuper

obsidibus redintegrataque amicitia ... vetere Armeniae possessione

depelleretur_, and Corbulo presented to him, in case of his turning

as a suppliant to the emperor, the prospect of a _regnum stabile_

(Tacitus, _Ann._ xii. 37). Elsewhere too the refusal of the oath of

fealty is indicated as the proper ground of war (Tacitus, _Ann._ xii.

34).

 

[33] The report in Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii. 34-41, embraces beyond doubt

the campaigns of 58 and 59, since Tacitus under the year 59 is silent

as to the Armenian campaign, while under the year 60, _Ann._ xiv. 23

joins on immediately to xiii. 41, and evidently describes merely a

single campaign; generally, where he condenses in this way, he as a

rule anticipates. That the war cannot have begun only in 59, is further

confirmed by the fact that Corbulo observed the solar eclipse of 30th

April 59 on Armenian soil (Plin. _H. N._ ii. 70, 180); had he not

entered the country till 59, he could hardly have crossed the enemy’s

frontier so early in the year. The narrative of Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii,

34-41, does not in itself show an intercalation of a year, but with his

mode of narrating it admits the possibility that the first year was

spent in the crossing of the Euphrates and the settling in Armenia, and

so the winter mentioned in _c._ 35 is that of the year 58-9, especially

as in view of the character of the army such a beginning to the war

would be quite in place, and in view of the short Armenian summer

it was militarily convenient thus to separate the marching into the

country and the conduct proper of the war.

 

[34] From the representation of Tacitus, _Ann._ xv. 6, the partiality

and the perplexity are clearly seen. He does not venture to express the

surrender of Armenia to Tiridates, and only leaves the reader to infer

it.

 

[35] This is said by Tacitus himself, _Ann._ xv. 10: _nec a Corbulone

properatum, quo gliscentibus periculis etiam subsidii laus augeretur_,

in naive unconcern at the severe censure which this praise involves.

How partial is the tone of the whole account resting on Corbulo’s

despatches, is shown among other things by the circumstance that

Paetus is reproached in one breath with the inadequate provisioning

of the camp (xv. 8) and with the surrender of it in spite of copious

supplies (xv. 16), and the latter fact is inferred from this, that

the retiring Romans preferred to destroy the stores which, according

to the capitulation, were to be delivered to the Parthians. As the

exasperation against Tiberius found its __EXPRESSION__ in the painting of

Germanicus in fine colours, so did the exasperation against Nero in the

picture of Corbulo.

 

[36] The statement of Corbulo that Paetus bound himself on oath in

presence of his soldiers and of the Parthian deputies to send no troops

to Armenia till the arrival of Nero’s answer, is declared by Tacitus,

_Ann._ xv. 16, unworthy of credit; it is in keeping with the state of

the case, and nothing was done to the contrary.

 

[37] As, according to Tacitus, _Ann._ xv. 25 (comp. Dio, lxii. 22),

Nero dismissed graciously the envoys of Vologasus, and allowed them

to see the possibility of an understanding if Tiridates appeared

in person, Corbulo may in this case have acted according to his

instructions; but this was rather perhaps one of the turns added in the

interest of Corbulo. That these events were brought under discussion

in the trial to which he was subjected some years after, is probable

from the statement that one of the officers of the Armenian campaign

became his accuser. The identity of the cohort-prefect, Arrius Varus,

in Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii. 9, and of the primipilus, _Hist._ iii. 6, has

been without reason disputed; comp. on _C. I. L._ v. 867.

 

[38] In Ziata (Charput) there have been found two inscriptions of a

fort, which one of the legions led by Corbulo over the Euphrates, the

3d Gallica, constructed there by Corbulo’s orders in the year 64 (_Eph.

epigr._ v. p. 25).

 

[39] Nero intended _inter reliqua bella_, an Ethiopian one (Plin. vi.

29, comp. 184). To this the sending of troops to Alexandria (Tacitus,

_Hist._ i. 31, 70) had reference.

 

[40] As the aim of the expedition both Tacitus, _Hist._ i. 6, and

Suetonius, _Ner._ 19, indicate the Caspian gates, _i.e._ the pass

of the Caucasus between Tiflis and Vladi-Kavkas at Darial, which,

according to the legend, Alexander closed with iron gates (Plin. _H.

N._ vi. 11, 30; Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ vii. 7, 4; Procopius, _Pers._

i. 10). Both from this locality and from the whole scheme of the

expedition it cannot possibly have been directed against the Albani

on the western shore of the Caspian Sea; here, as well as at another

passage (_Ann._ ii. 68, _ad Armenios, inde Albanos Heniochosque_), only

the Alani can be meant, who in Josephus, _l. c._ and elsewhere appear

just at this spot and are frequently confounded with the Caucasian

Albani. No doubt the account of Josephus is also confused. If here the

Albani, with consent of the king of the Hyrcanians, invade Media and

then Armenia through the Caspian gates, the writer has been thinking

of the other Caspian gate eastward from Rhagae; but this must be his

mistake, since the latter pass, situated in the heart of the Parthian

kingdom, cannot possibly have been the aim of the Neronian expedition,

and the Alani had their seats not on the eastern shore of the Caspian

but to the north of the Caucasus. On account of this expedition the

best of the Roman legions, the 14th, was recalled from Britain,

although it went only as far as Pannonia (Tacitus, _Hist._ ii. 11,

comp. 27, 66), and a new legion, the 1st Italic, was formed by Nero

(Suetonius, _Ner._ 19). One sees from this what was the scale on which the project was conceived.