Chapter VI: Section II: Recruiting and Distribution (2)

The Eastern provinces of the Empire occupy, as usual, a somewhat exceptional position. As in the West, these provinces began to contribute _praefecti_ in some numbers towards the end of the first century. A certain C. Julius Demosthenes of Oinoanda went through the ‘_militia equestris_’ in the reign of Trajan, and his son, Julius Antonius, followed in his footsteps in the succeeding generation.[300] To a citizen of Caria, L. Aburnius of Alabanda, probably, as his name shows, the descendant of one of the families of veterans settled by Augustus in the south of Asia Minor,[301] the wars of Trajan presented opportunity for a military career of considerable variety and distinction. This officer was successively _praefectus fabrum_, _tribunus legionis III Augustae_, _praefectus cohortis III Augustae Thracum equitatae_, _praefectus cohortis III Thracum Syriacae equitatae_, _praepositus_[302] _cohortis I Ulpiae Petraeorum_, _praepositus annonae_[302] on the Euphrates during the Parthian War, _tribunus legionis VI Ferratae_, during his tenure of which post he was decorated by Trajan, and _praefectus alae I Ulpiae singularium_.[303] These cases are not isolated, and it is clear that a military career was open to the Greeks and the more or less Hellenized orientals who constituted the equestrian class in the Eastern provinces. But while the _praefecti_ from the Western provinces were sent indiscriminately to every frontier, the majority of those drawn from the East seem, during the first two centuries, to have been confined to service with the Eastern commands. Aburnius, for example, only left the East once for service with the Legio III Augusta in Africa, and his son’s career seems to have been similarly localized.[304] We should perhaps add Moesia Inferior to the list of provinces in which Eastern _praefecti_ appear frequently during the second century, since those mentioned on the diplomata for 134 and 138 came from Palmyra and Side respectively.[305] But Moesia Inferior was reckoned in other respects as coming within the Hellenic sphere of influence. These restrictions are probably due to the low estimate which was placed throughout the first two centuries on the military qualities of Greeks and orientals, in spite of the value of the latter as archers.[306] But we may also see evidence of the unbridgeable gulf which still existed between the two halves of the Empire, and of the reluctance of the Hellene to embark upon a career in what he considered to be the barbarous provinces of the West. It is only with the advent of the semi-orientalized dynasty of the Severi that _praefecti_ drawn from the Eastern provinces appear in any numbers on the Western frontiers.

In all this the course of events is what one would naturally expect. The spread of uniform culture throughout the Western provinces of the Empire, the prosperity of the ubiquitous municipalities which were its material expression, and the general extension of the franchise which accompanied this development, involved a steady increase in the class qualified and eager for the equestrian career. The admission of these provincial _equites_ to the posts for which they were qualified followed automatically without special encouragement from any particular emperor,[307] and the diverse origins of the _praefecti_ at the beginning of the third century are one of the best proofs that can be adduced of the prosperity and civilization of the provinces at this period. It is impossible to follow von Domaszewski in concluding from the evidence that at this date the inhabitants of Italy and the more civilized areas in the provinces were deliberately excluded from the _militia equestris_, and that the auxiliary regiments were given into the hands of barbarians.[308] The army was indeed beginning to suffer from the introduction of a barbarian element, but it is not among the officers of the auxilia that this element is most noticeable. The following list of _praefecti_, who can be dated to the first half of the third century, does not bear out the accusation:

vii. 344. Britain.[309] Aemilius Crispinus natus in provincia Africa de Tusdro (dated 242).

viii. 2766. Britain. P. Furius Rusticus. Lambaesis. Severus or later. Britannia Inferior is mentioned.

xiii. 6658. Germania Superior. Sentius Gemellus. Berytus. Date probably 249.

xiii. 7441. Germania Superior. Flavius Antiochanus. Caesarea. Date 191 or 211.

I. G. R. R. i. 10. Raetia. T. Porcius Porcianus. Massilia. 3rd century.

iii. 1193. Dacia. C. Julius Corinthianus. Theveste. _circa_ 200.

C. I. Gr. 3497. Dacia. T. Claudius Alfenus. Asia. _circa_ 200-210.

These men cannot fairly be called barbarians. Massilia of course speaks for itself, but in Theveste, Thysdrus, and Lambaesis Roman culture was no new thing at the beginning of the third century. The same may be said of Caesarea, if the capital of Mauretania be meant. Berytus, too, was a colony famous for its Roman character, and Asia was not a province notorious for its barbarism. The increased oriental element, which is certainly noticeable among the auxilia of this period, although not to the same extent as in other branches of the service, is a more significant fact. But however undesirable one may consider the influence of oriental religions and ideals to have been, the conflict cannot be called one between civilization and barbarism. The real matter at issue is the wisdom of the imperial government in utilizing the material which the spread of culture and prosperity provided, and substituting for the old hegemony of Italy a governing class drawn from all parts of the Empire. It is true that this policy was a failure, and that the Empire organized on this basis did not succeed in erecting defences strong enough to resist the external pressure brought to bear upon them in the third and fourth centuries. But if it was a failure it was not necessarily a mistake.[310] It is more than doubtful whether a narrower policy which rigidly maintained the supremacy of the Italians and denied to the majority of the provincials all share in the administration would have been more successful: it is certain that, had the progress of civilization lacked the stimulus which the hope of political power supplied, the after-effects of the Roman Empire in Europe would have been less.

Footnotes:

[158] The distinction was not necessarily connected with the position of _civitas foederata_ in the technical sense. Several important _civitates foederatae_, such as the Aedui and Remi in Gaul, did not, so far as we know, give their name to regiments, and many of the tribes which did were not _civitates foederatae_.

[159] In Asturia, however, the administrative conventus formed the recruiting districts; hence the regiments of Astures, Bracaraugustani, and Lucenses. Mommsen, _Conscriptionsordnung_, p. 47.

[160] We find regiments of Batavi, Canninefates, Cugerni, Frisii, Lingones, Menapii, Morini, Nemetes, Nervii, Sunuci, Sugambri, Tungri, Ubii, Usipi, and Vangiones. In the other Gallic provinces the only tribal names which occur are the Bituriges and Aquitani from Aquitania and the Vocontii from Narbonensis.

[161] A Cohors II Augustia Nervia Pacensis Brittonum is mentioned on a Pannonian diploma for 114 (D. xxxix) and the name of Cohors I of the series should probably be restored on the Dacian diploma dated 145-61 (D. lxx). This title is unintelligible; it does not seem possible to connect it with the Emperor Nerva.

[162] For further information as to the evidence on which this table is based see Appendix II.

[163] Including one ala and four cohorts of Batavians who replace the regiments which mutinied under Civilis.

[164] Including all the alae with titles derived from proper names but no racial title. Inscriptions show that they were mostly recruited in Gaul, but some should perhaps be given to Belgica.

[165] Including all the cohorts which bear the general title Galli.

[166] The Ala Vocontiorum which appears in Britain is to be distinguished from the regiment of the same name in Egypt.

[167] The cohorts of Alpini, Montani, and Ligures, which represent the contingents of all the little Alpine provinces.

[168] Four _cohortes miliariae_ which appear late in the second century and were probably raised at the time of the Marcomannian War.

[169] The regiments of Bosporani. Some of the auxilia of Moesia are perhaps included among the regiments of Thracians.

[170] The Ala Vespasiana Dardanorum and the cohorts I and II Aurelia Dardanorum.

[171] A cohors Macedonum E. (_A. E._ 1909. 58), and two regiments of Cyrrhestici.

[172] The mysterious Ala VII Phrygum. When this regiment was only known by one inscription (vi. 1838) the number was naturally emended. It has, however, been confirmed by the diploma for 139 and a Greek inscription (_A. E._ 1899. 177). The explanation is still uncertain. It is incredible that Phrygia really contributed seven alae, six of which have mysteriously vanished.

[173] Three cohorts of Paphlagonians and three of Galatians raised by Trajan.

[174] Including two alae Parthorum.

[175] Including the three ‘cohortes sagittariorum’.

[176] Including the Ituraean regiments.

[177] There is no reason why these regiments should not have been raised between 40 and 70, but they do not appear on inscriptions until much later.

[178] Some of the cohorts of Hispani may of course have come from Baetica.

[179] _Conscriptionsordnung_, p. 56.

[180] It appears on diplomata of 93 and 103. D. ciii and _A. E._ 1912. 128.

[181] A cohors IV Cypria is mentioned on the Dacian diploma of 110 (xxxvii), and a cohors Cypria appears in the Crimea.

[182] We find on inscriptions Cohors I Cyrenaica, II Augusta Cyrenaica, III Cyrenaica sagittariorum, and III Augusta Cyrenaica. (See Cichorius in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. _cohors_). The difficulty is that _Cyrenaica_ is sometimes used as a purely descriptive title to indicate previous residence in the province. It is thus borne by the Cohors II Hispanorum scutata and the Cohors I Lusitanorum. Arrian, however, had Κυρηναῖοι, both cavalry and ὁπλῖται, in the army under his command in Cappadocia in Hadrian’s reign, so that in some cases at any rate Cyrenaica = Cyrenaeorum, just as Gallica is sometimes used for Gallorum. A levy in Cyrenaica is mentioned by Tacitus (_Ann._ xiv. 18), but he does not say whether legionaries or auxiliaries were required.

[183] Gardthausen, _Augustus_, p. 631. Liebenam in Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. _dilectus_.

[184] The crucial passage is of course Tac. _Ann._ xvi. 13 ‘eodem anno dilectus per Galliam Narbonensem Africamque et Asiam habiti sunt supplendis Illyrici legionibus’, which appears to come from the _acta senatus_. But the evidence for imperial control is very strong, and the Senate may merely have been consulted as a matter of courtesy. Tiberius used to bring military questions before the Senate in the same way—‘de legendo vel exauctorando milite ac legionum et auxiliorum descriptione’, Suet. _Tib._ 30—without giving up his prerogative.

[185] Later, of course, the franchise became as widely spread in Africa as in Spain. In the first half of the first century, however, this was not yet the case, and the example of Tacfarinas (‘natione Numida, in castris Romanis auxiliaria stipendia meritus’, Tac. _Ann._ ii. 52) shows that auxilia were recruited in this province while it was still completely under senatorial control.

[186] xiii. 6860, 6864. Dio, lxxiv. 2, brackets Italy, Spain, Macedonia, and Noricum together, as the ‘civilized’ provinces from which the Praetorians were recruited before the reforms of Severus.

[187] If the _cohortes voluntariorum_ be excluded from the reckoning.

[188] Strabo, p. 196 κρείττους δ’ ἱππόται ἢ πεζοί, καὶ ἔστι Ῥωμαίοις τῆς ἱππείας ἀρίστη παρὰ τούτων.

[189] _Tactica_, 33.

[190] See the boastful words of the Gascon Antonius Primus. Tac. _Hist._ iii. 2 ‘Duae tunc Pannonicae ac Moesicae alae perrupere hostem: nunc sedecim alarum coniuncta signa pulsu sonituque et nube ipsa operient ac superfundent oblitos proeliorum equites equosque’. Cf. also Tac. _Ann._ xv. 10 ‘alaris Pannonios, robur equitatus’.

[191] Arrian, loc. cit.

[192] The list shows that the majority of the oriental regiments were not raised until after 70.

[193] Two cohorts numbered III and VII bear this title, for which I can find no explanation. To be distinguished from these is the Cohors I Campanorum voluntaria (vi. 3520), which was stationed first in Dalmatia, then in Pannonia. Apparently it really was originally a regiment of Campanians, since a soldier gives Suessa as his birthplace (iii. 14246¹). The statement of Cichorius that the Dalmatian Cohors I Campanorum is identical with the Pannonian Cohors I Campestris is misleading. On no Pannonian inscription does the title occur otherwise than in the abbreviated form ‘Camp.’ On the other hand, the Roman inscription cited above speaks plainly of the _coh(ortis) primae voluntariae Campanorum in Pannonia Inferiore_.

[194] Tac. _Ann._ i. 8.

[195] Dio, lv. 31, lvi. 23; Velleius, ii. 111; Suet. _Aug._ 25. Similar regiments may have been raised at a later date, e.g. the cohorts I and II Italica c. R., which seem to form a fresh series and appear only in the East. Can they represent the remainder of the 4,000 oriental freedmen whom Tiberius enrolled to put down the brigands in Sardinia (Tac. _Ann._ ii. 85)? If any survived, the Eastern provinces would have been the natural place to send them to.

[196] Cf. the previous passages with Macrobius, _Sat._ i. 11, 32 ‘Caesar Augustus in Germania et Illyrico cohortes libertinorum complures legit, quas voluntarias appellavit’.

[197] There were at least thirty-two cohortes voluntariorum, among which VI is the highest number borne by a _cohors ingenuorum_ (xiii. 8314, 8315). At about this point the supply of free-born recruits probably gave out, since cohors VIII does not bear this designation.

[198] Seeck suggests that, as the Western legions were recruited mainly in Italy at the beginning of the first century, these cohorts represent the contribution of the enfranchised communities in the provinces. _Rheinisches Museum_, xlviii. 611. This, however, is not only opposed to the literary evidence, but inscriptions also show us soldiers of Italian origin. Cf. iii. 9782 (Cemenelium) and _A. E._ 1909. 130 (Placentia).

[199] The original mutineers in Dalmatia seem to have been militia rather than regulars, cf. Dio, lv. 29 καί τινα καὶ σφεῖς δύναμιν πέμψαι κελευσθέντες, συνῆλθόν τε ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν σφῶν ἀνθοῦσαν εἶδον, but the phraseology of Velleius (ii. 110) leaves little doubt that regular auxiliaries were also implicated.

[200] Tac. _Ann._ ii. 17.

[201] Ib. iii. 42.

[202] Ib. iv. 73.

[203] Ib. xii. 27.

[204] ‘Immissa cohorte Thraecum,’ Tac. _Hist._ i. 68.

[205] ‘Praemissis Gallorum Lusitanorumque et Britannorum cohortibus,’ Ib. i. 70. The regiments referred to are probably the Cohors III Britannorum and the Cohorts VI and VII Lusitanorum which appear in Raetia at a later date. Cf. D. lxxiii, _I. G. R. R._ iii. 56.

[206] Early inscriptions mention Cohorts VII and VIII Breucorum (xiii. 7801, 8313, 8693), IV Delmatarum (Ib. 7507, 7508, 7509), I Pannoniorum (Ib. 7510, 7511, 7582), I Ituraeorum (Ib. 7040, 7041, 7042, 7043), I Sagittariorum (Ib. 7512, 7513, 7514), and Silauciensium (Ib. 8593). The last title is unintelligible, and possibly corrupt. The soldier mentioned is a certain Tib. Iulius Sdebdas from Tyre, so the regiment clearly came from the East, and its title should perhaps read Seleuciensium—i.e. from Seleucia.

[207] Tac. _Ann._ ii. 52.

[208] Josephus, _Ant._ xx, 6, 1. _Bell. Iud._ ii. 12, 5. The small garrisons maintained in the _provinciae inermes_ seem also to have been of local origin; cf. the _Ligurum cohors, vetus loci auxilium_ stationed in the Alpes Maritimae, Tac. _Hist._ ii. 14. See also D. xx and xxvi for the composition of the garrison of Sardinia.

[209] Tac. _Ann._ iv. 46. See above, p. 19.

[210] ‘Flavus aucta stipendia, torquem et coronam aliaque militaria dona memorat,’ Tac. _Ann._ ii. 9.

[211] ‘Non tulit ala Picentiana gaudium insultantis vulgi, spretisque Sancti promissis aut minis Mogontiacum abeunt,’ Tac. _Hist._ iv. 62. I follow the diplomata in using the form Picentiana—not Picentina, which Tacitus preferred.

[212] D. ii.

[213] iii. 3271.

[214] This supports the statement of Macrobius, already cited, that some of the cohorts _voluntariae_ were stationed in Illyricum.

[215] The list given above probably does not contain all the regiments originally sent to the Rhine. A large proportion of the auxilia stationed in Britain are of Danubian origin, and these troops are more likely to have come from Germany, than, as has been sometimes suggested, with Legio IX Hispana from Pannonia.

[216] It seems that all the eight Batavian cohorts which supported Civilis were dismissed, and that the Cohorts I and II Batavorum, which we meet on second-century inscriptions, were new creations. The Alae Petriana and Sebosiana and two cohorts of Tungrians, which had formed part of the Rhine army in 69, appear later in Britain. But they had left the Rhine to take part in the civil war in Italy, and were not guilty of complicity in the mutiny.

[217] Legio IV Scythica remained permanently in Syria; V Macedonia and XV Apollinaris were in the East from 62 and 63 respectively to 70. Auxiliary regiments probably accompanied these legions, and some in all likelihood remained with the first named.

[218] It is true that although five legions (I Adiutrix, X Gemina, XI Claudia, XIV Gemina, and XXI Rapax) were transferred from the Rhine to the Danube between 70 and 107 the list of auxilia does not alter so much as might be expected. Still the transference of some regiments can be traced, e.g. the Ala Claudia Nova and the Cohors V Hispanorum were sent to Moesia Inferior between 74 and 82 and remained there. Cf. D. xi, xiv, and ciii.

[219] In 1884 Mommsen collected the existing evidence in _Eph. Ep._ v. pp. 159-249, and stated his conclusions in the _Conscriptionsordnung_. Later epigraphical discoveries, while clearing up many points of detail, have left his main argument unaffected, and it forms the basis of the following discussion.

[220] e.g. a certain T. Flavius Draccus of the Ala I F(lavia) D(omitiana) Brit(annica) M(iliaria) c(ivium) R(omanorum) describes himself as a _civis Sequanus_ (iii. 15197). Now the title D(omitiana) shows that the inscription must have been erected between 81 and 96, and Draccus, who had served 22 years, was enrolled, therefore, between 60 and 74. But his regiment, which formed part of the Vitellian army in 69 (Tac. _Hist._ iii. 41), must have been in Germany or Britain before that date. Probably it was sent in 70 to Germania Inferior, won its title, like other regiments of that province, for loyalty at the time of the rebellion of Saturninus in 89, and was transferred to Pannonia shortly afterwards.

[221] The regiment was in Moesia Inferior by 99 (D. xxxi) and remained there. The Pannonian inscriptions therefore probably belong to the pre-Flavian period, as the soldiers had served 30 and 17 years respectively.

[222] This soldier, T. Flavius Bonius, was apparently given the franchise by one of the Flavian emperors, but might then have been serving some time.

[223] _Allectus_ into the Equites Singulares Imperatoris. A date is indicated by his name Ulpius Titius.

[224] The soldier bears the name Aurelius, and the style of the monument suggests a third-century date. See below, p. 128, n. 4.

[225] _Allectus_ into the Equites Singulares at Rome.

[226] The soldier has the Thracian name of Mucapor.

[227] Probably a _corps d’élite_ formed originally for the Dacian War and placed afterwards on a permanent footing. In the reign of Antoninus Pius it seems to have been given the title of Ala Illyricorum.

[228] The Pannonian to whom D. ii belonged cannot have been enrolled later than 35, and owner of D. ci was probably enrolled earlier still.

[229] iii. 14214.

[230] Unfortunately the name of the cohort to which the men belonged has been lost. The names of some men of the Cohors II Batavorum are preserved, but without their nationalities.

[231] iii. 2016, 4227. The regiment may of course have been sent to Spain and have returned only after a long absence, say with Legio VII Gemina in 69 (Tac. _Hist._ ii. 11).

[232] viii. 18084. The majority come from the Eastern provinces.

[233] There is evidence for a garrison of at least 25,000 men in the second century, but it probably reached a higher figure. See Appendix I.

[234] xiii. 7024, 7025, 7579, D. xxxv.

[235] viii. 3101. For the recruiting of Legio III Augusta cf. Cagnat, _L’Armée romaine d’Afrique_, 2nd edition, pp. 287-303.

[236] We find the Ala I Ulpia Dromedariorum, the Cohorts I, III, IV, V and VI Ulpia Petraeorum, II and III Ulpia Paflagonum, I and II Ulpia Galatarum, and I Ulpia Sagittariorum all in Cappadocia, Syria, or Palestine in the second century, and only one of this series of regiments, the Cohors III Ulpia Galatarum, can be traced elsewhere.

[237] iii. 6580. The non-Egyptians all come from the Eastern provinces, except two from Africa.

[238] iii. 14507. 7 come from Dacia, 7 from Pannonia, 5 from Dalmatia, 3 from Thrace, 6 from Macedonia, and 1 from Pergamum.

[239] It is impossible to go into this question here. The soldiers mentioned on vi. 31138, who were discharged in 118, must, if they served their full time, have been enrolled before Trajan’s accession. The corps seems to have replaced the old _Germani corporis custodes_, disbanded by Galba; Suet. _Vit. Gal._ 12.

[240] In the hundred cases only five men are actually described as _allecti_ from an ala, but the fact may not always have been mentioned on the tombstones.

[241] I have taken the first hundred inscriptions on which nationality is recorded, beginning with vi. 3173.

[242] The contingents of the two Pannonian and the two Moesian provinces cannot be distinguished, because in a large number of cases the deceased is simply described as Pannonius or Moesus.

[243] Using this term to apply only to the contingents of Lugdunensis. The inhabitants of Belgica still appear.

[244] Between 70 and 107 the garrison of the Danubian provinces was increased to ten legions, chiefly at the expense of the Rhine army, in which the legions were reduced from eight to four.

[245] In 69, when Antonius Primus boasted of the superiority of the Danubian cavalry, there were, according to Tacitus, sixteen alae in Pannonia and Moesia (Tac. _Hist._ iii. 2). In the second century seventeen regiments can be traced in the two Pannonias and Moesia Inferior, while in Dacia, which covered Moesia Superior, were ten more. These figures, moreover, are probably below the real total. See Appendix I.

[246] It appears in a Pannonian diploma for 98 (D. xxvii) and in the first Dacian diploma for 110 (D. xxxvii).

[247] See _Archaelogiai Ertesitö_, 1905 and following, and for the inscriptions _A. E._ 1906 and following.

[248] D. lviii (138-46), iii. 3331.

[249] iii. 10316, 10318. _A. E._ 1906. 110. Ib. 1909. 150. Ib. 1910. 137.

[250] D. lviii. The name of the town is missing.

[251] _A. E._ 1910. 141. Cf. 133.

[252] D. xxvii, xxxvii; iii. 4371. Another inscription (iii. 4368) mentions a Batavian, but he is a decurion who may have been transferred on promotion from another corps.

[253] For orientals on the Rhine, cf. xiii. 7512, 7514.

[254] Throughout the Empire the archer regiments seem to have been exclusively Thracians or orientals, but the latter alone preserved their national character in the second century.

[255] iii. 10315, 10316.

[256] The difficulty is to establish clear cases of men who must have entered a regiment after its original formation. The ‘Britto’ of the Dacian diploma for 145-61 (lxx) seems to be one.

[257] ‘Nectovelius natione Brigans’ in the Cohors II Thracum. The inscription comes from Mumrills and probably dates, therefore, from between 142 and 180. _Eph. Ep._ ix. 623.

[258] The _numeri_ have been discussed by Mommsen in the latter part of the _Conscriptionsordnung_, a discussion which naturally forms the basis of the following pages.

[259] xiii. 6526, 6542, 6592, 6622, 6629, 6642, 7749. Elantienses—6490. Gurvedenses—7343. Murrenses—6471. Triputienses—6502, 6511, 6514, 6517, 6518, 6599, 6606.

[260] _A. E._ 1910. 152.

[261] viii. 2486, 2505, 18007, 18008, 18026, &c.

[262] iii. 837, 907, 7999, 14216.

[263] The Palmyrene _vexillarius_, whose tombstone was found at Corbridge in 1911, is most likely to have belonged to a _numerus_ formed from his countrymen. _Eph. Ep._ ix. 1153a.

[264] D. lxvii (158).

[265] _Eph. Ep._ ix. 1191, where all the references are collected.

[266] iii. 8032.

[267] viii. 21015, 21017.

[268] iii. 7493.

[269] If Mommsen’s interpretation of _Eph. Ep._ vii. 957 as n(umerus) m(ilitum) S(urorum) S(agittariorum) be correct.

[270] Hyginus, 29. Accepting this emendation for the meaningless Getati of the manuscripts.

[271] iii. 12601 a and b, 12605. The inscriptions date from the reign of Hadrian, showing that this usage was an early one.

[272] Hyginus, 30.

[273] _Praepositus_ is more usual, and probably the original title. Later we find the title _praefectus_, and the inclusion of this post at the bottom of the equestrian census, below the previous three posts, gave rise to the phrase _a quattuor militiis_. Cf. xiii. 6814 and von Dom. _Rangordnung_, p. 131.

[274] Von Dom. _Rangordnung_, pp. 60, 61.

[275] viii. 2505, 2515. The latest inscription is a dedication to Malagbel, the native god of Palmyra, for the safety of Gordian III.

[276] iii. 907, 14216 (Oriental names).

[277] If the Brittones were really, as has been suggested, transported wholesale to Germany, these _numeri_ also would have preserved their national character.

[278] These disappeared during the period, which came in the history of almost every regiment, when it contained drafts from different nationalities.

[279] This is shown by Hyginus, 43, as von Dom. has pointed out, _Rangordnung_, p. 60.

[280] Dio, lxviii. 8 and 32.

[281] Arrian, _Tactica_, 44.

[282] The Κελτοὶ ἱππῆς, however, which are mentioned in the _Ectaxis_, 2, are probably, as Ritterling (_Wiener Studien_, xxiv. 127-40) suggests, cavalry of the Cohors Germanorum M. E.

[283] The nearest case I know of is xiii. 3177, where we have the order signifer-centurio-tribunus, but this is in one of the Cohortes civium Romanorum, which occupy an exceptional position.

[284] _Rangordnung_, pp. 112-15, 122-30.

[285] ix. 996, x. 4862.

[286] _Rangordnung_, pp. 57, 72. He also considers that at this date the centurions and decurions of the auxiliary regiments were drawn from the ranks of the legions, a suggestion which has already been discussed. See above, p. 38.

[287] See pp. 16-20.

[288] Tac. _Hist._ iv. 12 ‘(Batavorum) cohortibus quas vetere instituto nobilissimi popularium regebant’.

[289] Ib. iv. 18. Its _praefectus_ Claudius Labeo, ‘oppidano certamine aemulus Civili,’ was clearly a Batavian.

[290] Ib. iv. 16.

[291] Ib. iii. 35; ii. 14; iv. 55. To the same class of officers belonged ‘Chumstinctius et Avectius tribuni ex civitate Nerviorum’, who played an important part in one of the campaigns of Drusus. Epit. Livy, cxxxxi.

[292] v. 7003 is an example of a career of this kind which dated from the reign of Claudius.

[293] ix. 2564; _A. E._ 1902. 41.

[294] Cf. iii. 1918 ‘I. O. M. Sulpicius Calvio c(enturio) leg(ionis) I Min(erviae) praepositus coh(ortis) I Belgarum’.

[295] Cf. viii. 18007 ‘… M. Annius Valens leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) praepositus n(umeri) Palmyrenorum’; xiii. 6526 ‘… M. Octavius Severus (centurio) leg(ionis) VIII Aug(ustae) Praeposit(us) Brit(tonum)’. The office of _praefectus numeri_ does, however, occur; iii. 1149. See above, p. 87.

[296] xi. 5669 ‘C. Camurio C. f. Lem(onia) Clementi … praef(ecto) coh(ortis) VII Raet(orum) equit(atae), trib(uno) mil(itum) coh(ortis) II Ulpiae Petraeor(um) miliar(iae) equit(atae), praef(ecto) alae Petrianae …’.

[297] D. xlvii, li, lix, lx, lxi, lxvi, lxx.

[298] In a list of over two hundred and fifty _praefecti_ whose place of origin is known I have not come across one from either of these provinces. But it is of course impossible to be sure that such a list is even as complete as the existing evidence permits.

[299] For the military qualities of the Gauls in the fourth century cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, xv. 12, xix. 6.

[300] _A. E._ 1899. 177.

[301] Such men probably stood a better chance than the Greeks. See my article on the Caristanii of Pisidian Antioch in _J. R. S._ iii.

[302] Possibly curator, the Greek being ἐπιμελητής.

[303] _A. E._ 1911. 161. A son, or other relative, who erected the inscription was _praefectus cohortis II Hispanorum equitatae, C. R., tribunus cohortis III Ulpiae Petraeorum_.

[304] It is true that we do not know where the Cohors III Thracum Syriaca was stationed, but the other units in the series of four bearing this title all appear in the East. The Cohors II Hispanorum, in which his son served, is probably that mentioned on an inscription from Ancyra. iii. 6760.

[305] D. xlviii and cviii.

[306] Cf. Tacitus’s remarks in the _Annals_, xiii. 35, with the account in Dio Cassius, lxxv. 11-13, of the siege of Hatra by Septimius Severus, especially τῶν μὲν Εὐρωπαίων, τῶν δυναμένων τι κατεργάσασθαι and the promise of one of the officers ἐάν γε αὐτῷ δώσῃ πεντακοσίους καὶ πεντήκοντα μόνους τῶν Εὐρωπαίων στρατιωτῶν, ἄνευ τοῦ τῶν ἄλλων κινδύνου τὴν πόλιν ἐξαιρήσειν.

[307] This point has been well made by Dessau in _Hermes_, 1910. The evidence does, however, suggest that an unusually large proportion of Africans obtained commands during the reign of Septimius Severus.

[308] This is put very strongly on pages 133 and 134 of the _Rangordnung_, ‘die Italiker und die Weströmer sind von der _militia equestris_ ausgeschlossen.’

[309] The first name is that of the province in which the praefectus was stationed. His place of origin is placed last.

[310] Its best justification is the solidarity of the Empire in the fourth century, which appears so markedly in the pages of Ammianus, and exercised so powerful an influence over the minds of the barbarian invaders.