Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:52:13.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Army in Politics, A.D. 68–70

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

G. E. F. Chilver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For offering Dr. Last observations on a topic which over thirty years ago he reasonably described as ‘trite’ I have little excuse save that our own generation has given the Four Emperors less attention than did the two generations which preceded it. Perhaps the most valuable contribution has come from the numismatists, who have left the believers in provincial ‘nationalism’ with the need for a radical restatement of their case. Epigraphical studies, moreover, have told us more, but not nearly enough, about the origins of the chief actors in the drama, the soldiers and their commanders. Above all, the flood of writing on the thought of Tacitus has continued unchecked. A bibliography here would be tedious but one example will illustrate the theme of this paper. In 1939 Paola Zancan, later reviewed by Dr. Last in this Journal, sought to analyse each of the ancient literary versions of the year 69, and to show how each author's interpretation sprang from his personality, from his position in society, or from the time at which he wrote.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1-2 , November 1957 , pp. 29 - 35
Copyright
Copyright ©G. E. F. Chilver 1957. 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 JRS XVI (1926), 125Google Scholar.

2 esp. Kraay, C. M., Numismatic Chronicle, 6th ser., IX (1949), 129 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 La crisi del Impero nell'anno 69 D.C. (Padova, 1939Google Scholar). See JRS XX (1940), 199 fGoogle Scholar.

4 ‘Furor principum’ or ‘militaris seditio’? Have II, 37, or III, 72, for instance, more claim to sound the keynote of the work than 1, 46, or IV, 46? (Further numerical references without an author's name are to Tacitus, Histories.)

5 Paratore, E., Tacito (Milan, 1952) 541 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 For possible views see Münzer, F., Klio I (1902), 300 ff.Google Scholar; Klingner, Fr., Hermes LXIII (1928), 167Google Scholar; Köstermann, E., Historia VI (1956), 214Google Scholar.

7 The rhetorical points conceded to Civilis and to Vocula (IV, 17, 57) are no necessary guide to Tacitus' own view. See also n. 12 below on 1, 65.

8 I, 8, 51, 65. No doubt Vindex recruited his army by playing on taxation grievances, just as Galba did in Spain, Plutarch, Galba 4.

9 Note Otho's offer of the consulate to Pompeius Vopiscus of Vienna, to conciliate the party he had himself disintegrated (1, 77).

10 It is impossible here to discuss the view of Walser, G., Rom, das Reich, und die fremden Völker (Baden-Baden, 1951Google Scholar), that even this movement had no true nationalist colour.

11 The Actian war was doubtless in Vespasian's mind when he refused aid from Vologaesus (IV, 51; cf. his supporters' caution in regard to the Sarmatians, III, 5).

12 I, 51. The words ‘cuncta illic externa et hostilia’, used by the Lugdunenses about Vienna (1, 65), are typical taunts by a Roman against a Gallic army, but they prove nothing about the objectives of the latter.

13 I, 51, ‘seque et Gallias expertae.’

14 I, 53.

15 IV, 65.

16 II, 80. The regimental custom of legion III Gallica, whose soldiers saluted the rising sun (III, 24), is not a serious piece of evidence.

17 Il reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano (Milan, 1953Google Scholar).

18 Tacitus, Ann. XIII, 7, 35Google Scholar. ILS 2483 already proves eastern recruiting for the Egyptian legions, probably under Augustus.

19 I, 60.

20 There is no element in Rostovtzeff's account of the ‘proletarian’ legionary's attack on Julio-Claudian ‘military tyranny’ (Soc. and Econ. Hist, of the Roman Empire, 1926, 84 ff.) which has stood examination, especially now that Forni (o.c., App. A.4) can help to prove that legionaries were scarcely proletarians.

21 cf. Brunt, P. A., BSRP new ser., v (1950), 55, 67Google Scholar.

22 I, 8.

23 II, 11, 27.

24 Galba had his friends among this group. Cornelius Laco and Piso Licinianus had belonged to Rubellius Plautus' circle (1, 14), and Helvidius Priscus was alleged to have retrieved Galba's body (Plutarch, Galba 28).

25 Especially the descendants of the consuls of A.D. 27, L. Calpurnius Piso and M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, for whom see PIR 2, C. 289, 293. Unfortunately the connection mentioned in IV, 11, is the only evidence about the precise genealogy of C. Piso the conspirator of 65.

26 Not 67, or Corbulo would surely have been mentioned by Josephus.

27 The Scribonii were Sulpicii, therefore probably connected with the great Scribonian gens (cf. Tac., Ann. II, 30Google Scholar, on P. Sulpicius Quirinius), and therefore also connected with Camillus Scribonianus the conspirator of A.D. 42 (ILS 976). The father of Annius Vinicianus had been Scribonianus' associate in that enterprise.

28 ‘divites senes,’ II, 86, though possibly appointed by Galba. On Mucianus, II, 76.

29 Suetonius, , Galba 24, 1Google Scholar.

30 Gerber-Greef, coll. 1060–2 are highly instructive.

31 BGU 1563. Most recently, Turner, E. G., JRS XLIV (1954), 60Google Scholar.

32 See II, 98, on the Vitellio-Flavian struggle in Africa.

33 οἱ δύνατοι τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, Josephus, , BJ IV, 440Google Scholar. Vienna was ‘sedes belli’, I, 65. On Valerius Asiaticus, Tac., Ann. XI, 1Google Scholar.

34 II, 86.

35 Plutarch, Galba 4, is the fullest source on this part of the story, but the tradition is unanimous.

36 Not only in his dealings with the Praetorians, but in despatching the unreliable I Italica to Lugdunum, of all places, and allowing his own VII Galbiana to leave Rome so soon.

37 1, 9; the offer was renewed after Otho's death, II, 51.

38 II, 11; see above p. 31. Zonaras, however (= Dio 63, 27, Ia), says that Petronius Turpilianus went over to Galba.

39 Dio (Xiphilinus) 63, 25, 3; Plutarch, , Galba 6, 2Google Scholar; Suet., Nero 47, 1Google Scholar.

40 Yet the first week of June (Kraay. o.c. 129, n. 5) is surely too late for Vesontio. Galba had first to get the news, then to withdraw to Clunia, all by 16th June.

41 For the later embarrassments of Verginius over the facts of history see Pliny, Epp. IX, 19, 5Google Scholar. To them may be owed the story that Vesontio was fought against the will of the generals (Plutarch, , Galba 6, 3Google Scholar, and the fuller version in Joann. Antioch., fr. 91 = Dio, 63, 24).

42 I, 25, ‘suscepere duo manipulares imperium populi Romani transferendum et transtulerunt.’

43 I, 23; cf. Fabia, Les sources de Tacite 278.

44 On the attitude of Barbagallo's, Vinius C. analysis is still of interest (Att. Ace. Napol. new ser., III (1915), 72Google Scholar).

45 I, 51 ff.

46 I, 52.

47 Especially of Caecina; cf. JRS XLVI (1956), 204Google Scholar.

48 I, 57.

49 III, 61; cf. IV, 27, ‘haud dubie gregarius miles Vitellio fidus, splendidissimus quisque in Vespasianum proni’.

50 II, 6, ‘ne penes ceteros imperii praemia….’

51 II, 82; III, 3.

52 This distinction from the accounts of Josephus and Dio is analysed in the most valuable part of the work of Briessmann, C., Tacitus und die flavische Geschichtsbild (Hermes, Einzelschriften 10 (1955))Google Scholar; cf. JRS XLVI (1956) 203 fGoogle Scholar.

53 V, 10, ‘proximus annus civili bello intentus quantum ad Iudaeos per otium transiit.’ There was in fact a short campaign in June in order to clear the decks once the civil war was ready to start, Josephus, , BJ IV, 550 ffGoogle Scholar. (for the date, but not the motive).

54 At Bedriacum forty days after the battle, II, 70; in Rome by 18th July, 11, 91, but still outside ‘maturis iam frugibus’, II, 87.

55 They composed their differences ‘exitu demum Neronis’, II, 5.

56 III, 57.

57 IV, 39–40.

58 II, 82; cf. Suetonius, , Vesp. 8, 2Google Scholar.

59 In particular III, 49.

60 II, 82.

6l For the mounting evidence about the recruitment of Italians after 70 see Forni, o.c. App. B, III.