Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T16:43:44.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who were the ‘Viri Militares’?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Brain Campbell
Brain Campbell
Affiliation:
Worcester College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has become the accepted view that a certain group of ‘viri militares’ can be identified among the legates who governed the consular military provinces in the Roman empire. The question of these ‘specialist soldiers’ is relevant to the understanding of how appointments to military commands were made, and, more generally, to the political history of the empire. For it can be argued that ‘viri militares’ were important not only because they were responsible for the defence of the empire and could raise revolts with their armies, but also because, as a group, they were particularly influential with the emperor. And so Professor Sir Ronald Syme, to whose work we owe most for the concept of ‘viri militares’, speaks of a ‘paramount oligarchy’ that was ‘drawn in the main from the men who govern the armed provinces of Caesar’. Now, Syme recognized a wide variety of factors that might influence the selection of consular legates. However, his theory of ‘viri militares’ tends to be repeated without qualification as accepted doctrine, and in the hands of those who do not mark his caution lends itself to a rather schematic approach and mechanical solutions. This incurs the danger to which Syme himself has adverted: ‘Historians in all ages become liable through their profession to certain maladies or constraints. They cannot help making persons and events more logical than reality’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 65 , November 1975 , pp. 11 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Brian Campbell 1975. 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 E. B. Birley, PBA 39 (1953), 197; JRS 40 (1950), 60Google Scholar; Syme, R., JRS 43 (1953), 153Google Scholar; 47 (1957), 133; 48 (1958), 2; Hist. 14 (1965), 342; Danubian Papers (1971); G. Alföldy, BJ 169 (1969), 233.

2 Tacitus (1958), 50.

3 The cautious views of Syme have become doctrine for W. Eck, ‘Zu den prokonsularen Legationen in der Kaiserzeit’, Epig. Stud. 9 (1972), 24. For a schematic solution to the problem, see Fitz, J., Acta Antiqua 9 (1961), 193Google Scholar; 11 (1963), 306.

4 Tacitus, 435.

5 JRS 47, op. cit., 134–5.

6 H 3. 73. 2; A 4. 42. 2; 15. 10. 1; 15. 67. 3.

7 cf. Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae, ed. Ogilvie, R. and Richmond, I. A. (1967), 159.Google Scholar

8 The 73 men listed form a sample of about 12/15 per cent of the presumed consular legates in the period under review. There were about 10 consular provinces from 70–98, giving c. 300 posts, and 11/12 provinces from 98–235, giving over 1,600 posts. Therefore a total of c. 2,000 posts at an average tenure of e. 2½–3 years (see below, n. 149) means that there were about 650–800 posts to be filled. 26 of the 73 men in the list held two legateships; 7 held three. Hence we know the careers of c. 106 legates in 70–235.

9 Nos. 1, 8, 30, 31, 36, 40, 43, 50, 71. The numbers correspond to the number given to each senator in the Appendix.

10 e.g. Professor Birley's attempt, o.c. (n. 1), 204 f., to explain away all examples that do not fit his definition that consular legates must hold only two praetorian posts, presupposes a belief that this pattern of praetorian career was normal for most consular legates.

11 Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 52, 53, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 73. Those holding 6 posts or more: nos. 7 (8 posts), 9 (7). 18 (6), 32 (6), 33 (8), 73 (7?). Cf. Birley, o.c. (n. 1), 204: ‘… men who had to serve in three or more posts at that stage in their careers were plainly not strong candidates for consular appointments’.

12 Those not holding any civil posts in their praetorian career are: nos. 1, 8, 10 (no posts at all), 14, 15, 17 (?), 28, 31, 36, 40, 43, 46 (no posts at all), 48, 50, 51 (?), 54 (?), 56, 65, 68. (?) indicates that the career is perhaps not complete. For no. 54 see literature cited in Appendix.

13 Those who reasonably certainly were not legatus legionis: nos. 4, 10, 12, 13, 21, 34, 46, 47, 48, 55, 58, 70, 73. It is legitimate to include equites here since most held the usual praetorian posts after their adlection. Note that nos. 24 and 54 are doubtful and that no. 57 was legatus legionis when he was of quaestorian rank.

14 See below, n. 80, for length of tenure. There were c. 23 posts for legionary legates in the second century.

15 Syme, Tacitus, 649.

16 Syme, Hist. 14 (1965), 358.

17 Immediately preceding the consulate: nos. 7, 11, 21, 25, 35, 37, 47, 55, 58, 62, 67, 72. Doubtful: 4, 63. Not immediately preceding: 33.

18 In what follows those in an armed province are italicized: 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14 (?), 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 64, 63, 68, 69, 71, (C. Iulius Severus (no. 35) is excluded since he was legatus Augusti of the usually proconsular Bithynia, and this crisis move cannot be seen as typical of appointments to imperial praetorian provinces). In these figures the tenure of the legateship of the III Augusta is taken as equivalent to a praetorian province. Those in this category are: 8, 16, 29, 43, 45, 68. In this I follow Professor Syme and other scholars, who classify the post in this way. It is not until Seyeran times that it can properly be termed the legateship of Numidia.

19 See n. 18.

20 This term is used throughout for convenience.

21 See Pflaum, H. G., Israel Exploration Journal 19 (1969), 225Google Scholar; Schürer, E., History of the Jewish People iti the age of Jesus Christ I, ed. Vermes, and Millar, (1973), 514, 518Google Scholar; Keppie, L. J. F., Latomus 32 (1973), 859Google Scholar. Cf. p. 184 below.

22 The evidence for Noricum and Raetia is very poor; see Winkler, G., Die Reichsbeamten von Noricum (1969)Google Scholar; Ritterling, E., Fasti des röm. Deutschland (1932)Google Scholar. There is little evidence for Arabia before the Severi; see Pflaum, H. G., Syria 34 (1957), 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Evidence in Thomasson, B. E., Die Statthalter der röm. Prov. Nordafrikas (1960), 161 f.Google Scholar And see now RE Supp. 13, 318 f.

24 L. Minicius Natalis, P. Metilius Secundus, Sex. Iulius Maior, T. Memmius Macrinus, C. Prastina Pacatus Messallinus, Vespronius Candidus, Q. Anicius Faustus, Claudius Gallus, M. Valerius Senecio, Ti. Iulius Pollienus Auspex (?).

25 Hist. 14 (1965), 357, n. 67.

26 Evidence in Stein, A., Die Reichsbeamten von Dazien (1944), 19 f.Google Scholar And see the review by Syme, Danubian Papers, 160 f. Those attested in further commands after the consulate: Iulius Severus, Papirius Aelianus, Curtius Iustus, Sedatius Severianus, M. Statius Priscus.

27 The evidence is conveniently assembled in Tacitus, App. 14–6.

28 PIR 2 I 114.

29 RE 1A, 2023. 14.

30 6. 64. 13. Plin., Ep. 4. 30. 11; 7. 27. 15.

31 1. 1.

32 Plin., Ep. 4. 27; 7. 22; 9. 15; ILS 1035–6.

33 Avidius Quietus—Tacitus, 52; Sosius Senecio—Tacitus, 505; Vibius Maximus—Statius, Silvae 4. 7. 52 f.

34 See Bardon, H., Les Empereurs et les lettres latines d'Auguste à Hadrien (1940), 415 f.Google Scholar

35 Tacitus, 52. Cf. G. Alföldy, o.c. (n. 1), 234 and 239 f. He appears to believe in a ‘halbdilettantische Heeresfuhrung’. But he accepts the usual views on deliberate patterns of promotion for consular legates (240 f.).

36 See above, p. 11 f.

37 Tacitus, 645 f. From the 37 it is reasonable to remove the 3 incerti, who may be identical with named legates in the list. 5 of the remaining 34 held at least two consular posts. Therefore c. 39 named legates are known in 92–106, when (assuming a tenure of c. 2½ years) there should be about 60, i.e. a sample of about 66 per cent.

38 Tacitus, 649. Syme's no. 15 is uncertain, since the inscription is very fragmentary and a legateship cannot be restored with confidence. In the following section the numbers in brackets are those used by Syme in App. 14.

39 PIR 2 I 507. And see Tacitus, 53. Despite IGR 4. 336 (Syme, no. 3), it is only an assumption from Quadratus' career that he was a friend of Trajan.

40 Only Antius Iulius Quadratus (see n. 39) is known definitely not to have commanded a legion.

41 Jones, C. P., JRS 60 (1970), 98 argues for Sosius SenecioGoogle Scholar

42 Tacitus, App. 16. Those attested in consular provinces: Iulius Quadratus Bassus, L. Minicius Natalis, Pompeius Falco, Catilius Severus.

43 Tacitus, 243.

44 Ruso—PIR 3 C 350; Neratius Priscus—ILS 1034, and see Syme, , Hermes 85 (1957), 480Google Scholar.

45 See Tacitus, 67, n. 5; E. Birley, o.c. (n. 1), 198–9; W. Eck Epig. Stud. 9(1972), 24 f. See below p. 24.

46 See below, n. 61.

47 pp. 19 f.

48 Tac., Ag. 9. 1.

49 For the phrase, cf. Syme, , JRS 48 (1958), 2Google Scholar.

50 Listy Filologické 87 (1964), 316Google Scholar. There are about 1,800 known consuls.

51 Tacitus, 650—the first five in this list are classified by Syme as ‘viri militares’. To which add Agricola (p. 656).

52 Ag. 7. 5 and 7. 3.

53 o.c. (n. 50), 322.

54 On these privileges see Morris, o.c (n. 50), 317.

55 Some of the men in this list are not recorded in any praetorian posts and are not contained in the sample of 73. A few of them date from before 70. The 14 are: Ummidius Quadratus (over 50); Vespasian (41), Verginius Rufus (48); Corellius Rufus (c. 42); L. Iulius Ursus Servianus (c. 42); Rutilius Gallicus (c. 42); Glitius Agricola (42); P. Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus (c. 41); Claudius Maximus (over 43); M. Statius Priscus (over 50); Didius Iulianus (41); P. Helvius Pertinax (48); L. Septimius Severus (43); P. Mummius Sisenna (c. 48).

56 Those cited in the text and Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (PIR 1 P 363), Iulius Frontinus (PIR 2 I 322).

57 Gordon, A. E., Quintus Veranius, Consul A.D. 49 (1952), 246–54.Google Scholar

58 For example, between 96/7 and 138/9, of the 60 men who held datable consular legateships, only 5 had been consules ordinarii: Trajan (91); Cornelius Palma and Sosius Senecio (99); P. Mummius Sisenna (133); Calpurnius Artilianus (135). Only 1 is known to have been of consular family—Trajan. Evidence in Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (1970)Google Scholar.

59 Nos. 14, 15, 33, 56, 65, 67.

60 Possibly Pompeius Falco (ILS 1035–6); CIL 3. 254; Iunius Faustinus Postumianus—PIR 2 I 751.

61 Nos. 1(?), 2, 8, 16, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43, 45. 49, 50, 53, 56, 59, 64, 65. It should be noted that Hadrian (no. 1) had an unusual career, being comes of Trajan in Dacia when he was still quaestor, and legate of a legion when still holding the office of praetor. His appointments may owe more to the desirability of placing a kinsman and friend in militarily important posts, than to the needs of the administration. Nos. 14 and 54 are doubtful.

62 Nos. 33, 56, 65.

63 o.c. (n. 1), 204 f.

64 o.c. (n. 1), 200–1.

65 Ep. 4. 4. 2. See Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (1966), 269.Google Scholar

66 The Thorigny inscription (Pflaum, H. G., Le Marbre de Thorigny (1948), 26 ff.Google Scholar) records that Sollemnis received a ‘semestris’ post, apparently at half pay. His pay was 25,000 HS; if it can be assumed that the full equestrian tribunate brought 50,000, this would fit in well with the lowest procuratorial salary.

67 ILS 308; 1061 (no. 44); L. Marius Maximus (no. 42).

68 Suet., Aug. 38. 2.

69 Ep. 8. 14. 4 f.

70 167. 11. 4.

71 Silv. 5. 2. 164 f., 173, 180. Note that lines 8–9 refer only to the start of service in the first military post, i.e. the tribunate, not the ‘opening of a soldier's career’ as Mozley translates (Loeb, p. 289).

72 Ep. 3. 20. 5, ‘testes et laudatores dabat, vel eum sub quo militaverat’. This is for the praetorship.

73 Ep. 7. 31. 1. For the duties of the post in general see Dig. 49. 16. 12. 2.

74 Plin., Pan. 15. 3.

75 Tacitus, 31.

76 Ag. 5. 2.

77 Observe Pliny's recommendation of Voconius Romanus to a consular commander—Ep. 2. 13. 6 ff.; cf. 8. 23. 5.

78 Epig. Stud. 3(1967), 85.

79 Antistius Rusticus, 79–81; L. Munatius Gallus, 98–9; Tullius Varro 122–3/4; M. Priscus Plarianus, 122–3 or 123–4; Cn. Iunior Iustus, 234–5.

80 RE, s.v. ‘legio’, cols. 1529, 1537, 1546 f. Titus served in Iudaea from 66–9.

81 ILS 1055—the son of Larcius Lepidus, who was himself a legionary legate of quaestorian rank under Vespasian (ILS 987). Corbulo's son-in-law was legate of quaestorian rank under Nero (Tac., A 15. 28. 3). Nero indeed appointed to legionary commands men beaten in the elections for the praetorship (A 14. 28).

82 ILS 1071.

83 AE 1957. 161.

84 See above, n. 13.

85 ILS 8973; 1081. This is not a phenomenon of the reign of Pius. Cf. nos. 10 and 34 under Trajan.

86 Tac., A 14. 32–3. This was not a distinguished performance.

87 Tac., Ag. 8. 2 f.

88 Ἔκτάξις κατὰ Ἀλανων 5; 24.

89 e.g. Josephus, BJ 2. 510; 3. 289; 6. 131 f.; 6. 237.

90 Tacitus thought it worth mentioning that Agricola avoided all ‘contentio’ with his colleagues (9. 5), and did not stand in the way of his subordinates' glory (22. 4). Perhaps this was not very common, cf. 8. 2.

91 See n. 87.

92 RE 19. 1138, ‘Petilius’ (8). And note the case of Funisulanus Vettonianus (PIR 2 F 570), who was legate with Caesennius Paetus at Rhandeia, and went on to govern three consular provinces under the Flavians.

93 ILS 8826 = IGR 3. 174; cf. ILS 1055 (see Syme, Tacitus, 631); cf. Josephus, BJ 7. 58.

94 AE 1920. 45.

95 D 1. 16. 13 (Pomponius); 1. 16. 4. 6 (Ulpian); 1. 16. 5 (Ulpian); 16.6. pr.–2. Interpolation is unlikely since in the fifth and sixth centuries there were no proconsuls and the question had no practical relevance.

I am particularly indebted to Professor Brunt for advice on the following section.

96 Implied again in their title ‘pro praetore’.

97 D 1. 21. 5. pr. (Paul); 2. 1. 5 (Iulianus).

98 Jolowicz, , Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law3, ed. Nicholas, (1971), 47, n. 9.Google Scholar

99 D 1. 17 (Ulpian) for the Prefect of Egypt. For proconsuls, see n. 95.

100 cf. ILS 1011 and 1015.

101 cf. Ogilvie and Richmond, o.c. (n. 7), 76 f.

102 Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (1969), 81 fGoogle Scholar.

103 Alföldy, o.c. 90, 94, 97.

104 In the republic men to whom jurisdiction was delegated did not have to be high officials, cf. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht 1, 231, n. 3Google Scholar; 232, n. 3.

105 Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres (ed. Dobson, B., 1967), 73Google Scholar.

106 D 1. 16. 6 pr. Indeed there is no way of telling if the suggested jurisdiction of the legatus legionis was contentiosa or voluntaria.

107 Domaszewski, o.c. (n. 105), 31 lists only 10 cases where the commentarienses of a provincial governor are known.

108 CIL 2. 4122; 3. 4452; ILS 2383.

109 Von Premerstein, RE s.v. a comment, (col. 762. 7).

110 Birley, Carnuntum Jahrb. 3 (1957), 7–8; Syme, Hist. 14 (1965), 357; J. Fitz, o.cc. (n. 3).

111 o.c. (1961), 193–4; (1963), 308, 317. Fitz originally confined his scheme to time of war, but he later dropped this qualification (1963, 308).

112 ILS 1062. This acephalous inscription is usually associated with Statilius Maximus. But Syme, o.c. (n. 110), 352 f.) strongly supports Fitz's suggestion that it should be referred to Claudius Maximus. The iuridicus post is exceptional, probably being held under L. Aelius Caesar.

113 See n. 94.

114 Evidence in Fitz, o.c., 1963 (n. 3); cf. Syme, Danubian Papers, 225; A. Dobó, Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus (1968).

115 op. cit., 1961, p. 195.

116 Danubian Papers, p. 188, 190, referring in the first instance to his treatment of the legates of Lower Moesia.

117 See n. 110.

118 Evidence in Reidinger, W., Die Statthalter des ungeteilten Pannoniens und Oberpannoniens (1956)Google Scholar. And see n. 138.

119 Six certain cases: nos. 33, 48, 49, 54, 64, and M. Iallius Bassus. Uncertain case: Claudius Claudianus (no. 14) who perhaps governed both provinces together. Those who held other posts before returning to Pannonia: no. 33 and Iallius Bassus.

120 Nos. 21, 23, 45, 61, Commodus Orfitianus, L. Aelius Caesar, Cassius Dio. The doubtful case: Claudianus (no. 14).

121 Evidence in A. Stein, o.c. (n. 26), 19 f. Those who proceed to Moesia: nos. 20, 36, 65. Those who do not: 50, 59.

122 Nos. 56, 15, 33, 62, 28. For Bassus see PIR 2 I 4.

123 ILS 1097–98 record his remarkable career, ‘ad postremum pro r.p. fortiter pugnans ceciderit.’

124 Catonius Vindex (no. 12); C. Iulius Vettius Sabinianus (no. 33); Statius Priscus (no. 65).

125 See n. 94.

126 The Appendix sets out the praetorian careers of the legates in the list. It is not intended to give a comprehensive account of the order in which the posts were held. However, under their separate headings, the civil and military posts are listed in order of tenure. Those who hold only civil posts are: nos. 4, 13, 21, 34, 47, 55, 58, 70, 73. Those who hold only military posts: 1, 8, 14, 15, 31, 36, 40, 43, 48, 50, 56, 65, 68. Of the 7 senators not considered in this analysis, 2 held no posts at all (nos. 10, 46), the careers of 2 others are perhaps known incompletely, (nos. 17, 51), 1 is doubtful (no. 54), and 2 are equestrians who held only one praetorian post, but both civil and military offices as equites (nos. 12, 28).

127 Nos. 10 and 46.

128 See n. 126.

129 Rome, Italy and the provinces: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 37, 41, 42, 44, 49, 52, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 72, 73, Rome, Italy or the provinces: 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 56, 57. 58, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71. For nos. 10, 12, 17, 28, 46, 51, 54, see n. 126.

130 pp. 13 f.

131 Nos. 1, 31, 36, 43, 50, who all hold a legionary command and a praetorian military province, though not the same province. Nos. 30 and 71 hold a legionary command and a praetorian unarmed province. Nos. 37 and 72 were legatus legionis and prefect of the public treasury. Such coincidences between only 2 senators are not significant.

132 In the second century there were perhaps about 70 praetorian posts available every year: 13 praetorian provinces, 8-9 proconsuls, 2 iuridici, c. 23 legati legionum, 2 praefecti aer. Sat., 3 praefecti aer. mil., 2 praefecti frum. dand., 10 (?) curatores viarum, 2 (?) adiutores of consular curatores, an uncertain number of curatores civitatum. An average tenure of c. 2½ years is assumed for these posts. This produces c. 4,600–4,700 available posts in the period. There were perhaps c. 800 consular legates in office in 70–235 (see above, n. 8), and the 73 consulars on the list on average each held 3 praetorian posts: hence a total of c. 2,400 posts. Between 70–235 there will have been 2,970 praetors (18 × 165). The other figures noted above are very approximate.

133 If we deduct the 800 presumed consular legates from the total number of praetors and if we assume that most ex-praetors continued in the career, c. 2,100 men (who never reached consular commands) will be responsible for holding c. 2,300 praetorian posts (see above note). This would produce an average of just over one post per man. The average for consular legates is three.

134 Men of high birth would pass straight from praetorship to consulship. In the same category can be placed men who gained conspicuous imperial favour; others perhaps fell from the emperor's favour after the praetorship, or were simply disinclined to accept more posts (cf. e.g. Pliny, Ep. 10. 12. 2 and 5. 14. 2). Finally, the careers of some would be interrupted by death or illness.

135 See n. 45.

136 Evidence in A. R. Birley, Epig. Stud. 4 (1967), 63. With Britain as first consular post: App. no. 30, and Ostorius Scapula, Q. Veranius, Petronius Turpilianus, Trebellius Maximus, Vettius Bolanus, Iulius Frontinus, P. Mummius Sisenna. With Britain possibly as first consular post: nos. 46, 50, Suetonius Paulinus, Avidius Quietus, Calpurnius Agricola, L. Ulpius Marcellus. Those holding Britain after one or more consular posts: nos. 28, 36, 37, 40, 51, 52, 53, 56, 65, Didius Gallus, Caerelius Priscus, Valerius Pudens, Appius Bradua, Clodius Albinus, Virius Lupus, Alfenus Senecio, Pollienus Auspex. Uncertain: Sallustius Lucullus, Metilius Nepos, Ulpius Marcellus.

137 Birley, ox. (n. 136), 71.

138 Evidence in W. Reidinger, o.c. (n. 118). He lists 22 legates, but Syme, Danubian Papers, 185, rejects P. Alfius Maximus. Those holding the province first after the consulate: nos. 14, 45, 48, 49, 54, 61, L. Aelius Caesar. Those who hold Pannonia after at least one other consular province: nos. 21, 23, 33, Iallius Bassus, Commodus Orfitianus, Cassius Dio.

139 o.c. (n. 110), 9 f.; A. Mócsy, ‘Pannonia’, RE Supp. 9 (1962), 516–776.

140 M. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE 2 (1957), 244 f.

141 49. 36. 2 f. On this passage, cf. Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (1964), 209Google Scholar. It may be argued that Britain was not much more civilized than Pannonia in the second century. But there does seem to have been more urban development in Britain and the process of Romanization seems to have made good progress by the end of the second century. (See Frere, S., Britannia 2 (1974), p. 134, 342 f. and esp. 344–5Google Scholar). If any case, Britain was hardly regarded as the crown of a legate's career. Out of 20 named legates in 100–214, 6 ended their career in Britain (28, 40, 46, 53, Mummius Sisenna, Valerius Pudens); 4, and perhaps 5 held another consular province (36, 37, 65, Calpurnius Agricola, and perhaps Appius Bradua). Rest uncertain.

142 Evidence in Alfoldy, o.c. (n. 102), 17 f., 202 f., 216 f.

143 Those attested in further posts: Cornelius Palma; Aufidius Victorinus. Those ending their career in Spain: Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, M. Arrecinus Clemens, Salvius Iulianus, Vitrasius Pollio, Flavius Titianus, Lollianus Gentianus, Atrius Clonius, (Ti Iulius?) Pollienus Auspex.

144 Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (1), Valerius Festus (1), Salvius Iulianus (1), Vitrasius Pollio (1), Victorinus (1), Ignotus (1), Iunius Postumianus (2), Atrius Clonius (2), Pollienus Auspex (3).

145 Ag. 40. 1.

146 Evidence in Harrer, G. A., Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Syria (1915)Google Scholar; RE s.v. ‘Syria’ (1932); J. F. Gilliam, AJP 79 (1958), 225. Those who probably ended their career in Syria: nos. 7, 11, 29, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 54, M. Ulpius Traianus (Bowersock, G. W., JRS 63 (1973), 133–5Google Scholar). Those who did not end their career in Syria:—28, 31, Alfenus Senecio (for whom see A. R. Birley, o.c. (n. 136), 79–80); Atrius Clonius. No. 27 and Atrius Clonius ended their career in Hispania Tarraconensis.

147 See below, pp. 26–7.

148 Those with more than two commands: nos. 25, 28, 31, 36, 37, 65, 72. 26 senators are definitely registered in 2 posts: nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 29, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62, 68, 69 (?), 70. Those italicized reasonably certainly held only 2 posts. The remaining 40 are registered in one post, but only about one-quarter of these careers is demonstrably complete. The balance of the evidence seems to suggest that the tenure of 2 posts was usual.

149 This is only a conjecture, but some examples can support it. The legates of Britain are fully known from 43–84. 11 legates in 41 years produces an average of 3·7, or 3·4 if we deduct Agricola's unusually long tenure. Syme in Danubian Papers, 216, lists 26 legates of Lower Moesia, 92–162, and notes one gap. This produces 2·5 years for the average tenure. Thomasson lists 37 legates in Numidia c. 110–200. His conjectural names might equal the number of gaps in the Fasti. This gives an average tenure of 2–7 years.

150 Nos. 25, 31.

151 Cf. Tiberius' dilemma, Tac., A 1. 80. 2.

152 74. 6. 1.

153 Cic., De Off. 1. 71; 116; 2. 45–9; Pro Sest. 139; Tusc. 3. 2. 3. Sallust, Bell. Jug. 3. 1. It is noticeable that, although Cicero had little military experience before his command in Cilicia, he never hints that the military responsibilities daunted him.

154 Ep. 3. 1. 12. He also wrote elegant verse—ibid. 7.

155 H 3. 75. 1.

156 Ag. 9. 2 f.; 19; 40. 4.

157 Tac., H 1. 2. 3.

158 A 1. 47. 1.