a comparative study of a Roman frontier province. - Historia Antigua

-408-
5: 2
42. Benabou 1976,250-51 (Table III); Rachet 1970,57-264, gives the longest
and most questionable account of these "wars".
43. CIL9.4194 - ILS 8979 for his cursus honorem. See also Thomassen 1960,
II, 151-52; 244-45.
44. CIL 8.23084,25967; AE 1912,148-51; 1936,28; 1939,31. The composite
text reads: Ex auct. imp. Vespasiani Cae. Aug. p. p. fines provinciae
novae et veter. derecti qua fossa regia fuit per Rutilium Gallicum cos.
pont. et Sentium Caecilianum praetorem legatos Aug. pro. pr.
45. As part of Vespasian's general recensus of the empire, see Leglay 1968,
222-29; Dilke 1971,41-42. Suetonius, Vesp. XVI, 1-3, emphasises
Vespasian's fiscal concerns and his desire to increase the tribute from
the provinces. Surveyors were dispatched by Vespasian to several areas
to define land boundaries; for instance, Corsica (CIL 3.567) and
Cyrenaica (Reynolds and Goodchild 1965,103-07; Reynolds 1971c, 47-51).
46. AE 1941,79.
47. Leglay 1968,219; Benabou 1976,109. Pflaum 1960/1961,114-116,966,
for the career of Velius Rufus. See now Kennedy 1983,183-96.
48. There is of course no evidence for land survey carried out by Velius,
but neither is there any independent evidence that comprimendas meant
military action in this case. There was, however, tribal delimitation
taking place in other parts of Africa at this time, see Table 5: E.
49. When Vannius, king of the Suebi was overthrown in an internal coup,
Rome declined to send him aid. Instead a show of force was made on
the opposite bank of the Danube to intimidate the eventual victors and
they immediately sought a hegemonic alliance with Rome, Tacitus,
Ann, XII, 29.
50. During the Jewish revolt of A. D. 66-73, after early crises, the major
part of the war was taken up with the Roman counter offensive and the
sieges of Jerusalem and Masada, Josephus, Jewish war, passim.
51. Rebuffat 1971a, 41-42; 1975e, 399-400; Euzennat 1977a, 431-34;
1978,295-329.
52. Thomassen 1960, II, 297-99; Benabou 1976,137.
53. Gsell and Carcopino 1931,1-39; AE 1931,38. Rebuffat 1974a, 503;
1979,240-41; 1982a, 485-90, deals with some of the misconceptions about
the nature of the inscription.
54. Benabou 1976,138-41. Most of the inscriptions recording reinforcements
are undated and some at least must be from earlier or later periods.
See inter alia on the reinforcements, Christol 1981,133-41; Speidel
1977,167-73; 1982,850-60; Leglay 1959,217-20.
55. Benabou 1976,251, gives the date bracket as A. D. 144-152, but the only
evidence for the revolt continuing beyond A. D. 150 (when some of the
troops who had served in Mauretania were discharged CIL 16,99-100)
is an inscription from Lambaesis (CIL 8.2728 - 18122) which records an
engineer of the Third Legion who was attacked by brigands and robbed
on his way to Saldae. There is nothing to suggest that this was
anything but an isolated incident of highway robbery, see Romanelli
1959,358.
56. Frezouls 1957,105 (Volubilis); Baradez 1966d (Tipasa); CIL 8.20834,
20835 (Rapidum vicus); Gsell and Carcopino 1931 (Sala).
57. Rebuffat 1974a, 501-22, establishes exactly this point.
58. See, for instance, Courtois 1955,118-26; Camps 1955,253-64;
Matthews 1976,165-66.
59. Two examples from Roman Britain are instructive. One of the main causes
of the Boudican revolt was the rapacity and brutality of the imperial
procurator empowered to oversee the peaceful incorporation of the Iceni
into the province, Tacitus, Ann, XIV, 29-39; Agric, 14-16. In the case
of the Brigantian client kingdom, the reign of Queen Cartimandua was
disrupted several times by a powerful anti-Roman faction in the tribe.
Roman hegemony was disrupted several times, necessitating military