The Provinces of the Roman Empire 53

The Provinces of the Roman Empire 53

 In what connection he refused to Vespasian the title of emperor

(Dio, lxvi. 11) is not clear; possibly immediately after his

insurrection, before he had perceived that the Flavians were the

stronger. His intercession for the princes of Commagene (Josephus,

_Bell. Jud._ vii. 7, 3) was attended by success, and so was purely

personal, by no means a protest against the conversion of the kingdom

into a province.

 

[42] The four Syrian legions were the 3d _Gallica_, the 6th _ferrata_

(both hitherto in Syria), the 4th _Scythica_ (hitherto in Moesia, but

having already taken part in the Parthian as in the Jewish war), and

the 16th _Flavia_ (new). The one legion of Palestine was the 10th

_fretensis_ (hitherto in Syria). The two of Cappadocia were the 12th

_fulminata_ (hitherto in Syria, moved by Titus to Melitene, Josephus,

_Bell. Jud._ vii. 1, 3), and the 15th _Apollinaris_ (hitherto in

Pannonia, but having taken part, like the 4th _Scythica_, in the

Parthian as in the Jewish war). The garrisons were thus changed as

little as possible, only two of the legions already called earlier to

Syria received fixed stations there, and one newly instituted was moved

thither.--After the Jewish war under Hadrian the 6th _ferrata_ was

despatched from Syria to Palestine.

 

[43] At this time (comp. _C. I. L._ v. 6988), probably falls also the

Cappadocian governorship of C. Rutilius Gallicus, of which it is said

(Statius, i. 4, 78): _hunc ... timuit ... Armenia et patiens Latii

iam pontis Araxes_, with reference presumably to a bridge-structure

executed by this Roman garrison. That Gallicus served under Corbulo, is

from the silence of Tacitus not probable.

 

[44] That war threatened to break out under Vespasian in the year 75 on

the Euphrates, while M. Ulpius Trajanus, the father of the emperor, was

governor of Syria, is stated by Pliny in his panegyric on the son, c.

14, probably with strong exaggeration; the cause is unknown.

 

[45] There are coins dated, and provided with the individual names

of the kings, of (V)ologasus from the years 389 and 390 = 77-78; of

Pacorus from the years 389-394 = 77-82 (and again 404-407 = 92-95);

of Artabanus from the year 392 = 80-1. The corresponding historical

dates are lost, with the exception of the notice connecting Titus and

Artabanus in Zonaras, xi. 18 (comp. Suetonius, _Ner._ 57; Tacitus,

_Hist._ i. 2), but the coins point to an epoch of rapid changes on the

throne, and, apparently, of simultaneous coinage by rival pretenders.

 

[46] This is proved by the detached notice from Arrian in Suidas

(_s. v._ ἐπίκλημα): ὁ δὲ Πάκορος ὁ Παρθυαίων βασιλεὺς καὶ ἄλλα τινὰ

ἐπικλήματα ἐπέφερε Τραιανῷ τῷ βασιλεῖ, and by the attention which

is devoted in Pliny’s report to the emperor, written about the year

112 (_ad Trai._ 74), to the relations between Pacorus and the Dacian

king Decebalus. The time of the reign of this Parthian king cannot be

sufficiently fixed. There are no Parthian coins with the king’s name

from the whole period of Trajan; the coining of silver seems to have

been in abeyance during that period.

 

[47] That Axidares (or Exedares) was a son of Pacorus and king of

Armenia before Parthomasiris, but had been deposed by Chosroes, is

shown by the remnants of Dio’s account, lxviii. 17; and to this point

also the two fragments of Arrian (16 Müller), the first, probably from

an address of a supporter of the interests of Axidares to Trajan:

Ἀξιδάρην δὲ ὅτι ἄρχειν χρὴ Ἀρμενίας, οὔ μοι δοκεῖ εἶναί σε ἀμφίλογον,

whereupon doubtless the complaints brought against Parthomasiris

followed; and the answer, evidently of the emperor, that it is not the

business of Axidares, but his, to judge as to Parthomasiris, because

he--apparently Axidares--had first broken the treaty and suffered for

it. What fault the emperor imputes to Axidares is not clear; but in Dio

also Chosroes says that he has not satisfied either the Romans or the

Parthians.

 

[48] The remnants of Dio’s account in Xiphilinus and Zonaras show

clearly that the Parthian expedition falls into two campaigns, the

first (Dio, lvi. 17, 1, 18, 2, 23-25), which is fixed at A.D. 115

by the consulate of Pedo (the date also of Malalas, p. 275, for the

earthquake of Antioch, 13 Dec. 164 of the Antiochene era = A.D. 115

agrees therewith), and the second (Dio, c. 26-32, 3), which is fixed at

A.D. 116 by the conferring of the title _Parthicus_ (c. 28, 2), took

place between April and August of that year (see my notice in Droysen,

_Hellenismus_, iii. 2, 361). That at c. 23 the titles _Optimus_

(conferred in the course of A.D. 114) and _Parthicus_ are mentioned

out of the order of time, is shown as well by their juxtaposition as

by the later recurrence of the second honour. Of the fragments most

belong to the first campaign; c. 22, 3 and probably also 22, 1, 2 to

the second.--The acclamations of _imperator_ do not stand in the way.

Trajan was demonstrably in the year 113 imp. VI. (_C. I. L._ vi. 960);

in the year 114 imp. VII. (_C. I. L._ ix. 1558 _et al._); in the year

115 imp. IX. (_C. I. L._ ix. 5894 _et al._), and imp. XI. (Fabretti,

398, 289 _et al._); in the year 116 imp. XII. (_C. I. L._ viii. 621,

x. 1634), and XIII. (_C. I. L._ iii. D. xxvii.). Dio attests an

acclamation from the year 115 (lxviii. 19), and one from the year 116

(lxviii. 28); there is ample room for both, and there is no reason to

refer imp. VII. precisely, as has been attempted, to the subjugation of

Armenia.

 

[49] The pungent description of the Syrian army of Trajan in Fronto

(p. 206 f. Naber) agrees almost literally with that of the army of

Corbulo in Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii. 35. “The Roman troops generally had

sadly degenerated (_ad ignaviam redactus_) through being long disused

to military service; but the most wretched of the soldiers were the

Syrian, insubordinate, refractory, unpunctual at the call to arms,

not to be found at their post, drunk from midday onward; unaccustomed

even to carry arms and incapable of fatigue, ridding themselves of

one piece of armour after another, half naked like the light troops

and the archers. Besides they were so demoralised by the defeats they

had suffered that they turned their backs at the first sight of the

Parthians, and the trumpets were regarded by them, as it were, as

giving the signal to run away.” In the contrasting description of

Trajan it is said among other things: “He did not pass through the

tents without closely concerning himself as to the soldiers, but showed

his contempt for the Syrian luxury, and looked closely into the rough

doings of the Pannonians (_sed contemnere_--so we must read--_Syrorum

munditias, introspicere Pannoniorum inscitias_); so he judged of the

serviceableness (_ingenium_) of the man according to his bearing

(_cultus_).” In the Oriental army of Severus also the “European” and

the Syrian soldiers are distinguished (Dio, lxxv. 12).

 

[50] This is shown by the _mala proelia_ in the passage of Fronto

quoted, and by Dio’s statement, lxviii. 19, that Trajan took Samosata

without a struggle; thus the 16th legion stationed there had lost it.

 

[51] It may be that at the same time Armenia also revolted. But when

Gutschmid (quoted by Dierauer in Büdinger’s _Untersuchungen_, i. 179),

makes Meherdotes and Sanatrukios, whom Malalas adduces as kings of

Persia in the Trajanic war, into kings of Armenia again in revolt,

this result is attained by a series of daring conjectures, which shift

the names of persons and peoples as much as they transform the causal

nexus of events. There are certainly found in the confused coil of

legends of Malalas some historical facts, _e.g._ the installation of

Parthamaspates (who is here son of king Chosroes of Armenia) as king of

Parthia by Trajan; and so, too, the dates of Trajan’s departure from

Rome in October (114), of his landing in Seleucia in December, and of

his entrance into Antioch on the 7th Jan. (115) may be correct. But,

as this report stands, the historian can only decline to accept it; he

cannot rectify it.

 

[52] Fronto, _Princ. hist._ p. 209 Naber: _cum praesens Traianus

Euphratis et Tigridis portoria equorum et camelorum trib_[_utaque

ordinaret, Ma_]_cer_ (?) _caesus est_. This applies to the moment when

Babylonia and Mesopotamia revolted, while Trajan was tarrying at the

mouth of the Tigris.

 

[53] Nearly with equal warrant, Julian (_Caes._ p. 328) makes the

emperor say that he had not taken up arms against the Parthians before

they had violated right, and Dio (lxviii. 17) reproaches him with

having waged the war from ambition.

 

[54] Hadrian cannot possibly have released Armenia from the position

of a Roman dependency. The notice of his biographer, c. 21: _Armeniis

regem habere permisit, cum sub Traiano legatum habuissent_ points

rather to the contrary, and we find at the end of Hadrian’s reign a

contingent of Armenians in the army of the governor of Cappadocia

(Arrian, _c. Alan._ 29). Pius did not merely induce the Parthians by

his representations to desist from the intended invasion of Armenia

(_vita_, 9), but also in fact invested them with Armenia (coins from

the years 140-144, Eckhel, vii. p. 15). The fact also that Iberia

certainly stood in the relation of dependence under Pius, because

otherwise the Parthians could not have brought complaints as to its

king in Rome (Dio, lxix. 15), presupposes a like dependent relation for

Armenia. The names of the Armenian kings of this period are not known.

If the _proximae gentes_, with the rule of which Hadrian compensated

the Parthian prince nominated as Parthian king by Trajan (_vita_, c.

5), were in fact Armenians, which is not improbable, there lies in it

a confirmation as well of the lasting dependence of Armenia on Rome as

of the continuous rule of the Arsacids there. Even the Ἀυρήλιος Πάκορος

βασιλεὺς μεγάλης Ἀρμενίας, who erected a monument in Rome to his

brother Aurelius Merithates who died there (_C. I. Gr._ 6559), belongs

from his name to the house of the Arsacids. But he was hardly the king

of Armenia installed by Vologasus IV. and deposed by the Romans (p.

74); if the latter had come to Rome as a captive, we should know it,

and even he would hardly have been allowed to call himself king of

Great Armenia in a Roman inscription.

 

[55] As vassals holding from Trajan or Hadrian, Arrian (_Peripl._ c.

15) adduces the Heniochi and Machelones (comp. Dio, lxviii. 18; lxxi.

14); the Lazi (comp. Suidas, _s. v._ Δομετιανός), over whom also Pius

put a king (_vita_, 9); the Apsilae; the Abasgi; the Sanigae, these

all within the imperial frontier reaching as far as Dioscurias =

Sebastopolis; beyond it, in the region of the Bosporan vassal-state,

the Zichi or Zinchi (_ib._ c. 27).

 

[56] This is confirmed not only by Arrian, _Peripl._ c. 7, but by the

officer of Hadrian’s time _praepositus numerorum tendentium in Ponto

Absaro_ (_C. I. L._ x. 1202).

 

[57] Comp. p. 75 note 2. The detachment probably of 1000 men (because

under a tribune) doing garrison duty in the year 185 in Valarshapat

(Etshmiazin) not far from Artaxata, belonged to one of the Cappadocian

legions (_C. I. L._ iii. 6052).

 

[58] Hadrian’s efforts after the friendship of the Oriental

vassal-princes are often brought into prominence, not without a hint

that he was more than fairly indulgent to them (_vita_, c. 13, 17,

21). Pharasmanes of Iberia did not come to Rome on his invitation, but

complied with that of Pius (_vita Hadr._ 13, 21; _vita Pii_, 9; Dio,

lxix. 15, 2, which excerpt belongs to Pius).

 

[59] We still possess the remarkable report of the governor of

Cappadocia under Hadrian, Flavius Arrianus, upon the mobilising of the

Cappadocian army against the “Scythians” among his minor writings; he

was himself at the Caucasus and visited the passes there (Lydus, _de Mag._ iii. 53).