Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-02T08:30:07.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emperors, Frontiers and Foreign Relations, 31 b.c. to a.d. 378*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Fergus Millar
Fergus Millar
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Severus…. was in the habit of saying that he had gained a large additional territory and made it a bulwark for Syria. But the facts themselves show that it is a source of continual wars for us, and of great expenses. For it provides very little revenue and involves very great expenditure; and having extended our frontiers to the neighbours of the Medes and Parthians, we are constantly so to speak at war in their defence.’ So writes Cassius Dio about the extension of the Eastern frontier in the 190s and the creation of the provinces of Mesopotamia and Osrhoene. The significance of the passage however, extends beyond the question of the Eastern frontier itself at that moment. Written by an ex-consul, and former assessor of Severus, it reveals two types of justification for conquest uttered by the Emperor himself - one straightforwardly imperialistic, the other strategic; and a critique of this from two points of view, the balance of income and expenditure, and the wider strategic commitments incurred. Whether Dio had formulated such views already in Severus’ reign we cannot know; this section of his History will have been written at the earliest towards 220, and probably later. If he had, we have no reason to think that he expressed them to Severus. If he did, it can only have been after the event, for his own narrative at this point makes clear that the new province of Mesopotamia was entrusted to an eques, and an ‘honour’ (the status of colonia) given to Nisibis, either after the campaign of 195, or (less probably) after that of 198, in neither of which Dio himself took part. None the less, the fact that the passage retails both the authentic views of an Emperor and a critique of them by a consularis may encourage us to ask some general questions: how, by whom and within what conceptual frameworks were the foreign and frontier ‘policies’ of the Empire formulated?

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 13 , November 1982 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Fergus Millar 1982. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dio lxxv, 3, 2-3 (Boissevain iii, p. 340).

2 For an early chronology - probably too early - of the composition of the Roman History see F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (1964), ch. 2 and pp. 193-4.

3 Dio. loc. cit. (note 1); Nisibis as a colonia: Dio xxxvi, 6, 2. For the background see Bertinelli, M. G. Angeli, ‘I Romani oltre l'Eufrate nel II secolo d. C (le province di Assiria, di Mesopotamia e di Osroene)’, ANRW II. 9.I (1976), 3Google Scholar; cf. Kennedy, D. L., ‘Ti. Claudius Subatianus Aquila, “First Prefect of Mesopotamia”’, ZPE xxxvi (1979), 255Google Scholar. The exact date of the creation of the two provinces cannot be determined.

4 P. Oxy. 1453 = Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri 11, no. 327.

5 Ammianus xxv, 9.

6 E. N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century A.D. to the Third (1976).

7 So Mann, J. C., ‘Power, Force and the Frontiers of the Empire’, JRS lxix (1979), 175. Note also idem, ‘The Frontiers of the Principate’, ANRW ii, 1 (1974), 508Google Scholar.

8 Dio liii, 19.

9 Constantine: Eusebius, VC iv, 9-13. Eusebius (iv, 8) attests the preservation of a copy of the Latin original in Constantine's own hand (περεται μεν oνμ ‘Pωμαια λγωττή παρ’ αντoι∈ ήμιν καí τoντo τó βασιλεω∈ |βιóλραπoν λραννα) which he reproduces in Greek. See H. Dörries, Das Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins (1954), 48-9; 125-7. Shapur and Constantius: Ammianus xvii, 5.

10 Julian 268A-287D.

11 See Maricq, A., ‘Res Gestae Divi Saporis’, Syria xxxv (1958), 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This episode is described in 11. 6-9; Shapur claims that he killed Gordian in battle and that Philip then made peace on payment of a large sum. Zosimus i, 18-19 reports that Gordian won a victory and was then killed by the troops, instigated by Philip; cf. Eutropius ix, 2, 2-3; Aurelius Victor, Caes. 27, 8.

12 For recent discussions of these and comparable problems see for instance B. H. Warmington, ‘Frontier Studies and the History of the Roman Empire - some desiderata’, Actes du IXe Congrès international d'études sur les frontières romaines, 1972 (1974), 291; Birley, A. R., ‘Roman Frontiers and Roman Frontier Policy: Some Reflections on Roman Imperialism’, Trans. Archit. and Arch. Soc. Durham and Northumbd iii (1974), 13Google Scholar; Jones, G. D. B., ‘Concept and development in Roman Frontiers’, Bull. John Rylands Lib. lxi (1978), 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also J. C. Mann, op. cit. (note 7), the essays in D. H. Miller and J. D. Steffen (eds.), The Frontier: Comparative Studies (1978), and Bowersock, G. W., ‘The Emperor's Burden’, Class. Philol. lxxiii (1978), 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (henceforth ERW) (1977), 343.

14 e.g. Antiochus of Commagene, Dio lii, 43; Archelaus of Cappadocia, Dio lvii, 17, 3-6; Rhescuporis of Thrace, Tacitus, Ann. ii, 67.

15 Dio liii, 33, 1-2.

16 Suetonius, Tib. 30; 32.

17 Geog. xii, 1, 4 (534).

18 Tacitus, Ann. ii, 63.

19 Diolix, 12, 2.

20 Dio lx, 23, 6. See Brunt, P. A., ‘Lex de Imperio Vespasiani’, JRS lxvii (1977), 95Google Scholar, on p. 103.

21 Tacitus, , Ann. xii, 10–11Google Scholar.

22 Dio lxviii, 9, 7-10, 1; 10, 3-4.

23 Dio lxix, 15, 2.

24 Dio lxxii, 33, 2.

25 Dio lii, 31, 1.

26 See e.g. Dio liv, 9, 1 (Augustus to the Senate on foreign policy issues, 20 B.C.); Suetonius, Calig. 44; Dio lxviii, 29, 1-3 (Trajan from Parthia); lxxvii, 12, 3 (Caracalla); lxxiii, 27, 3 (Macrinus, 218).

27 Fronto, Ad Verum Imp. ii, I, 3-4.

28 To take only two examples, note the triumphalia ornamenta voted by the Senate to Agricola (Tacitus, Agric. 40), and the three statues voted to M. Bassaeus Rufus on the motion of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, ILS 1326.

29 See e.g. Jones, LRE, 174-8.

30 On these see ERW, 259-72. Augustus’ breviarium (Suetonius, Aug. 101) did contain details of how many soldiers were under arms.

31 ERW, 252-9.

32 Dio lii, 33, 5.

33 Not. Dig., Or. xix; Occ. xvii (minus the epistolae graecae).

34 Dio lxxi, 12, 3. The Tabula Banasitana attests this form of his name.

35 Petrus Patricius, Fr. 14 (FHG iv, p. 189).

36 Ammianus xvii, 5 & 14, xviii, 2, 2 (tribunus); xix, 11, 5 (two tribuni with interpreters); xxv, 7, 7 (Praetorian Prefect and, probably, comes rei militaris); xxvii, 5, 1 (magister equitum); 5 (magistri)?; xxxi, 7, 1 (magister equitum).

37 Ammianus xvii, 5, 15: ‘ut opifex suadendi’; Libanius, Ep. 331; Eunapius, Vit. Soph. 365 (also noting that high military or civilian officials were normally sent on embassies).

38 Ammianus xxvi, 5, 7.

39 See further p. 15 below.

40 Eunapius, Fr. 12 (FHG iv, pp. 17-19).

41 ERW, 127.

42 Ann. xv, 24-5.

43 Tacitus, Hist, ii, 31-3.

44 HA, v. M. Ant. 22. 3.

45 Dio lxxiii, 1,2; Herodian i, 6. For the treaty negotiations see p. 15 below.

46 ERW, 121-2.

47 Ammianus xxiv, 7, 1; xxvi, 5, 8-13; xxx, 3; (see further p. 23 below). Note also Eunapius, Fr. 42 (FGH iv, pp. 31-3) on ‘he discussion of the Goths’ request to be allowed across the Danube.

48 Ammianus xxxi, 12, 5-7. For Sebastianus’ rank, PLRE i, Sebastianus 2.

49 xxxi, 12, 10.

50 xxv, 5 (Jovian), see 8, 8-11 (communications to the West); xxvi, 1-2 (Valentinian).

51 xxxi, 12, 4.

52 1LS 986.

53 I am very grateful to Dr G. E. M. de Ste Croix for letting me see in advance App. iii. of The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (1981), which contains the most complete collection of the evidence on barbarian settlement.

54 ERW, 314-17, corrected as regards proconsuls by Burton, G. P., ‘The Issuing of Mandata to Proconsuls and a New Inscription from Cos’, ZPE xxi (1976), 63Google Scholar.

55 Tacitus, Ann. ii, 77, implies that the mandata given to the legatus of Syria concerned his military role, but says nothing of their contents.

56 Josephus, , Ant. xviii, 4, 4 (96)Google Scholar. For the date see Tacitus, , Ann. vi, 31–7Google Scholar, and Dio lviii, 26.

57 ibid, xviii, 5, 1 (115); 5, 3 (120-4).

58 Dio lxvi, 20, under A.D. 79, and mentioning the fifteenth acclamation, correctly dated to that year, together with the circumnavigation of Britain, which happened in Agricola's sixth year (83).

59 For this view S. S. Frere, Britannia2 (1978), 126-8.

60 See Frere, op. cit. (note 59), 136-8.

61 Tacitus, , Ann. xi, 19–20; Dio lxi, 30, 4-5 (4)Google Scholar.

62 Josephus, , Ant. xix, 7, 2 (326-7)Google Scholar.

63 Josephus, , B.J. vii, 7, 1-3 (219-43)Google Scholar.

64 Suetonius, Aug. 49.

65 For discussions of the Imperial communication-system see W. Riepl. Das Nachrichtenwesen des Altertums mit besonderer Riicksicht aufdie Romer (1913), 123-240; Ramsay, W. M., ‘The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post’, JRS xv (1925), 60Google Scholar; Amit, M., ‘Les moyens de communication et la defense de l'Empire romain’, Parola del Passato xx (1965), 207Google Scholar.

66 Procopius, Hist. Arc. 30, cited by Riepl. op. cit. (note 65), 186.

67 Pliny, NH xix, 3.

68 Josephus, BJ ii, 10, 5 (203); Ant. xviii, 8, 9 (305).

69 C. G. Starr, The Roman Imperial Navy (1941), 177-8.

70 ERW 39; 254.

71 CTh xii, 12,2. Note that Flavius Abinnaeus spent three years escorting back refugae or legati of the Blemyes (P. Abinn. 1).

72 The camp of IX Hispana in Pannonia is not known. The march must have meant going either through Noricum and Raetia or through N. Italy and across the Alps.

73 Petrus Patricius, Fr. 8 (FGH iv, pp. 186-7). For the governor, Iulius (?) Menophilus see Barbieri, Albo senatorio, no. 1071.

74 Eunapius, Fr. 42 (FGH iv, p. 31); cf. Zosimus iv, 20, 6.

75 Ammianus xxxi, 7, 1; 11, 1-2; 12, 1-4; Zosimus iv, 21.

78 See Gagé, J., ‘L'empereur romain et les rois: politique et protocole’, Rev. Hist, ccxxi (1959), 22Google Scholar.

77 Geog. iv, 5, 3 (200).

78 ibid, xv, 1, 73 (719) = Jacoby, FGrH 90, F. 100.

79 Dio liv, 9, 8-to.

80 Geog. xvii, 1, 54 (820-1); cf. JRS lxix (1979), 127.

81 Appian, Praef. 7/25-8.

82 Pan. viii (V), 14, 2, Loeb trans. {Correspondence of M. Cornelius Fronto ii, 251),

83 HA, v. Ant. Pii 7, 11-12.

84 HA, v. M. Ant. 24, 5; cf. 27, 10. See A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (1966), 205-6, and op. cit. (note 12), 20-1; cf. A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia (1974), 183-6; 193.

85 Herodian iii, 14, 1-2.

86 vi, 7, 4-5, Loeb trans.

87 Zosimus iii, 1.

88 Strat. i, 3, 10.

89 So R. Syme, CAH xi, 162-3.

90 So H. Schoenberger, JRS lix (1969), 159.

91 Strat. i, 1, 8; ii, 3, 23; ii, 11, 7.

92 V. Had. 11.2.

63 lxxvii, 13, 4 (388-9).

94 Circesium: Ammianus xxiii, 5, 2. Rhine: xxviii, 2, 1-6, cf. xxx, 7, 6. See Schoenberger, H., JRS lix (1969), 182–6Google Scholar.

95 CIL xiii, 8502 = ILS 8937; see J. J. Wilkes, ‘British anonymity in the Roman Empire’ in D. E. Johnston (ed.), The Saxon Shore (1977), 76.

96 Velleius ii, 101.

97 Dio lxviii, 18-19; 21 (Abgar of Osrhoene, cf. Arrian, Parth., Fr. 46*).

98 xxx, 3, 4-5.

89 Dio lxxii, 1-3 (282-4).

100 Jacoby, FGrH 100, F. 6; see Millar, F., ‘P. Herennius Dexippus’, JRS lix (1969), 12, on p. 25Google Scholar.

101 Pliny, NH vi, 141.

102 ibid, vi 181-6; xii, 18-19; Seneca, NQ vi, 8, 3-5. See J. Desanges, Recherches sur l'activité des Méditerranéens aux confins de l'Afrique (1978), 323-5.

103 See the edition by G. Marenghi, Arriano, Periplo del Ponto Eusino (1958). Note also H. F. Pelham, ‘Arrian as legate of Cappadocia’, Essays (1911), 212, and P. A. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia (1980), 32-41. An English translation and discussion of this extremely important text for frontier studies would be of great value.

104 HA, v. Sev. Alex. 45, 2. See D. van Berchem, ‘L'annone militaire dans l'Empire romain du IIIe siècle’, Mém. Soc. Nat. Ant. Fr. viiie ser., x (1937), 117-201; cf. ERW, 31-3. For all questions relating to itineraria and maps note the invaluable discussions in A. L. F. Rivet and Colin Smith, The Place-Names of Roman Britain (1979); for the Itin. Ant., pp. 150-4.

105 For the text see Geog. Gr. Min. i, 244-55. See Nodelman, A. S., ‘A Preliminary History of Characene’, Berytus xiii (1960), 83Google Scholar, on pp. 107-8, arguing against a possible identification with Dionysius of Charax, and suggesting a date in the later first century.

106 See RE s.v. ‘Klaudios Ptolemaios’, in Supp. x (1965), cols. 680-833; Rivet and Smith, op. cit. (note 104), 103-31.

107 See now the invaluable facsimile edition, with accompanying volume of discussion and commentary, by E. Weber, Tabula Peutingeriana: Codex Vindobonensis 324. Vollständige Faksimile-Ausgabe im Originalformat i-ii (1976). For the functional character of the map see esp. A. and M. Levi, Itineraria Picta: contributo allo studio della Tabula Peutingeriana (1967).

108 Cumont, F., ‘Fragment de bouclier portant une liste d'étapes’, Syria vi (1925), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fouilles de Dura-Europos (1926), 323 f.

109 Vegetius, Epit. rei mil. iii, 6. See Barnes, T. D., ‘The Date of Vegetius’, Phoenix xxxiii (1979), 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The remarkable description of the arrangements for the march of an army unit in Ambrose, Sermo v. 2 in Ps. 118 also refers to movements through provincial territory. I owe this reference to Koeppel, G. M., ‘A Military Itinerarium on the Column of Trajan: Scene L’, Röm. Mitt, lxxxvii (1980), 302, on p. 305, n. 24Google Scholar.

110 Julian, Ep. 30 Hertlein; 10 Bidez-Cumont; 7 Loeb. See Rivet and Smith, op. cit. (note 104), 71.

111 This is, as need hardly be said, the theory put forward in the classic chapter of Syme, R., ‘The Northern Frontiers under Augustus’, CAH x, 340–81Google Scholar, esp. 353-4. For a different view, Brunt, P. A., JRS liii (1963), 172–3Google Scholar.

112 This conclusion seems to me to emerge from the survey by Sherk, R. K., ‘Roman Geographical Exploration and Military Maps’, ANRW ii 1 (1974), 534Google Scholar. Note also the suggestion by Rivet and Smith, op. cit. (note 103), 196-7 that for N. Britain the Ravenna Cosmographer was using a map with ethnic and place names revised as a result of Severus’ campaigns of 208-11.

113 Pliny, NH vi, 40.

114 Geog. vii, 1, 2-3, 1 (290-5).

115 NH vi, 112-41.

116 xxiii, 6.

117 NH vi, 23.

118 ibid, vi, 84-8.

119 pp. 4, 11-12 above.

120 Pliny, Epp. x, 63-4; 67.

121 Josephus, Ant. xvi, 10, 8-9 (335-55).

122 Dio lxxvii, 12, 2a-3 (387).

123 Ammianus xxii, 7, 8; Libanius, Or. xii, 78.

124 Eunapius, Fr. 22. 1 (FHG iv, p. 23).

125 Ammianus xxxi, 1-4; Eunapius, Fr. 42 (FHG iv, pp. 31-3).

126 xxxi, 2: cf. Eunapius, Fr. 41 (FHG iv, 30); Zosimus iv, 20.

127 The Congress of Roman Frontier Studies 1949, ed. E. Birley (1952), I.

128 See e.g. Josephus, , BJ ii, 16, 4 (363; 377)Google Scholar; Statius, , Silv. v, 1, 89-90Google Scholar; Tacitus, , Ann, i, 9Google Scholar, iv, 5. For the function of the Euphrates as a symbolic frontier see e.g. Strabo xvi, 1, 28 (748); Velleius ii, 101; Suetonius, Cal. 14; Josephus, , BJ vii, 5, 2 (105)Google Scholar; Ant. xviii, 4, 5, (101-2); Dio lix, 27, 3. For the Danube see p. 8 above.

129 For a good collection of the evidence see P. A. Brunt, ‘Laus Imperii’, in P. D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (eds.), Imperialism in the Ancient World (1978), 159.

130 Fronto, Princ. Hist. 4.

131 Florus, Epit. praef.; Tacitus, Ann. iv, 32; cf. Pliny, Ep. viii, 4.

132 Fronto, Princ. Hist. 10; Eutropius vii, 6, 2; Festus, Brev. 14; 20; v. Had. 5, 3.

133 Eutropius loc. cit. (Fronto. loc. cit., (note 132), appears to say that Hadrian gave up Dacia).

134 Appian, Praef. 4/14-15. cf. Pausanias i, 9, 5, for very similar conceptions.

135 Herodian ii, 11, 5, Loeb. trans.

136 The few lines of Eutropius, ix, 15, 1 represent the fullest account of the abandonment, and the creation of Dacia Ripensis south of the river, Reated in HA, v. Aurel. 39, 7. cf. Festus, Brev. 8. See. H. Vetters, Dacia Ripensis (1950).

137 cf. p. 11 above (crossing by Goths); Pan. ii (10) ed. Galletier, 2, 6; iii (11), 6, 6. Note Pan. iv (8), 3, 3: ‘Dacia restituta’, referring to Dacia Ripensis. Anon. Vales, i, 135/13 on the origin of Licinius ‘ex nova Dacia’ in an implicit allusion to the old province.

138 Eutropius ix, 17, 1-2; Festus, Brev. 29; Ammianus xxv, 7; Zosimus iii, 31-2.

139 e.g. Onasander, Strategemeta; Frontinus, Strategemata; Arrian, Techne Taktike see F. Kiechle, ‘Die “Taktik” des Flavius Arrianus’, 45. Ber., Röm-Germ. Kom. 1964 (1965), 87; Arrian, Ektaxis, see Bosworth, A. B., ‘Arrian and the Alani’, HSCPh lxxxi (1977), 217, esp. 232-55Google Scholar, and cf. P. A. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia (1980), 41-9; Polyaenus, Strategemata (addressed to Marcus Aurelius and Verus). The anonymous de rebus bellicis (see the new text and discussions, ed. by M. W. C. Hassall and R. I. Ireland, BAR Int. Ser. 63, 1979), is of course more original, being concerned with practical measures for the defence of a static frontier.

140 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, de Administrando, ed., trans., com. G. Moravcsik, R. J. H. Jenkins, i-ii (1949-62). For its importance as a source of ethnographical information on the area north of the Black Sea see D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500-1453 (1971), esp. 24 f.

141 See Josephus, , BJ ii, 16Google Scholar, 4 (345-401), the speech of Agrippa II; Suetonius, Vesp. 8; Tacitus, , Ann. iv, 5Google Scholar; Hist, i, 8-11; ii, 81. Note esp. Dio lv, 23-4 on the positioning of (a) those legions which had existed under Augustus and were still in service, and (b) those raised by successive later Emperors. It will be recalled (p. 4 above) that according to Suetonius, Tib. 30, Tiberius used to consult the Senate ‘de legendo vel exauctorando milite ac legionum et auxiliorum discriptione’.

142 Gaius, Inst. iii, 94.

143 Porphyry, v. Plot. 3.

144 xvi, 12, 70.