Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T10:08:42.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

C. Velius Rufus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

D. Kennedy
D. Kennedy
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From the moment of its first publication in 1903 the career inscription of C. Velius Rufus has been the subject of a great deal of attention and scholarly debate. Why this should have been so is clear enough: the text records the career of a man who, beginning as a centurion (probably not in the ranks), not only rose to the coveted primipilate but went on to important independent field commands and an administrative career which culminated in major procuratorial governorships. More important still for historians of the period, the career included special commands which shed vital new light on the otherwise often obscure warfare of the reign of Domitian. The interpretation and chronology of the career as it appears in standard textbook treatments of the period may be said to be essentially that of Ritterling as modified and refined by a succession of eminent scholars, notably Syme, Pflaum and Dobson. This mainstream interpretation was summarized most recently by the last of these in 1978. From the outset, however, and in parallel with the development of this standard view, there have been a number of dissenters: von Domaszewski disagreed with Ritterling on a crucial point and, since then, there have been challenges to various aspects from, for example, McElderry, Hanslik, Saxer and Visy. Indeed, in the same year as Dobson presented a refined restatement of the orthodox interpretation, Visy coincidentally, offered a major re-examination. These earlier challenges, however, tend often to disagree with one another and, just as many to-day will be unconvinced by Visy's proposed revisions so, in most cases, his forerunners have found little support. This should not, however, obscure an important point, namely that there has been persistent dissatisfaction with the standard view from the outset. Nor should the implausibility or weakness of the proposed alternatives detract from the very serious nature of some of the objections raised.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 14 , November 1983 , pp. 183 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © D. Kennedy 1983. 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 T. Mommsen, ‘Inschrift aus Baalbek’, Sitzungbericht der Akademie der Wissenschaft in Berlin, (1903), 817–24.

2 The origin of this article lies in an appendix of my unpublished doctoral thesis, The Auxilia and Numeri Raised in the Roman Province of Syria (Oxford, 1980), and I am grateful to my examiners (Dr A. K. Bowman and Mr M. W. C. Hassall) for suggestions made then, and to Dr B. Dobson, Prof. S. S. Frere, Drs V. Maxfield and M. Roxan who read a draft for the thesis. Since then, it has undergone many changes and has in its most recent form benefited in particular from the valuable criticism of Prof. A. R. Birley and Dr M. Roxan, and advice from my colleagues Derek Mosley and John Drinkwater. None, of course, are responsible for what has finally emerged, nor do they necessarily agree with any or all of it.Google Scholar

3 Ritterling, E., JÖAI, vii (1904), Bbl., 23–38;Google ScholarSyme, R., JRS, xviii (1928), 41–55;Google ScholarPflaum, H.-G., Les Carrières Procuratoriennes Equièstres (Paris, 1960), I, no. 50, 114–17 and III, 966;Google ScholarDobson, B., Die Primipilares (Bonn, 1978), no. 94, 216–7; cf. the discussion under IGLS, VI, 2796, 113–7.Google Scholar

4 Domaszewski, A. von, Philologus, lxvi (1907), 164–7;Google ScholarMcElderry, R. K., JRS, x (1920), 68–78, esp. 74–8;Google ScholarHanslik, R., R.-E., VIII.A. Sup. (1955), 629–31;Google ScholarSaxer, R., Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (Köln, 1967), 22–3;Google ScholarVisy, Z., Acta Archaeologia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, xxx (1978), 37–60.Google Scholar

5 IGLS, VI, pi. viii. The text given here is that presented by Dobson, op. cit. (note 3), 216.

6 Visy, op. cit. (note 4), 50–4.

7 McElderry, op. cit. (note 4), 75 ; Salway, P., Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 38 ff. significantly perhaps makes no mention of withdrawals, cf. Hanslik, op. cit. (note 4), 630 and Saxer, op. cit. (note 4), 23.Google Scholar

8 See e.g., Frere, S. S., Britannia (London, 1978), 128;Google ScholarBreeze, D., The Northern Frontiers of Britain (London, 1982), 49;Google ScholarHolder, P. A., The Roman Army in Britain (London, 1982), 16;Google ScholarTodd, M., Roman Britain (Glasgow, 1981), 108.Google Scholar

9 ILS 1025; 2719 records a tribune of II Adiutrix in bello Suebico it[em Sa]rmatico which must be the war of 89 (below).

10 Since there is no need to assume that Velius Rufus' primipilate was in the same legion as his earlier career, it is possible that he and the dedicant had served together in XV Apollinaris.

11 Bosworth, A., Antichthon, x (1976), 66 and n. 24.Google Scholar

12 Head, B. V., Historia Numorum, 2 (Oxford, 1911), 776.Google Scholar

13 Paetus' messenger travelled swiftly enough for Vespasian to have Antiochus intercepted and diverted to Sparta.

14 For several months of every year journeys of any kind would be unwise on land, and at sea neither messengers nor passengers would travel in the hazardous winter months.

15 e.g. IGLS, VI, 2796 (p. 115); Pflaum, op. cit. (note 3), I, no. 50 (p. 115).

16 Pflaum, op. cit. (note 3), 1, no. 50 (p. 996), citing Dobson and correcting his own earlier interpretation in vol. I.

17 Tacitus, Annals II. 65.

18 Tacitus, Histories II. 58.

19 ibid., IV, 37. It was a centurion too who conducted Antiochus to Sparta.

20 Tacitus, Annals XV.5.

21 ibid., XIII.9; Histories III.6, IV.2, IV.4, IV.39, IV.68. Arrius Varus = Dobson, op. cit. (note 3), no. 74; Devijver, H., Prosopographia Militiarium Equestrium, ab Augusto ad Gallienum (Leuven, 1976–1980), A164.Google Scholar

22 Tacitus, Annals XIII.39; Dobson, op. cit. (note 3), no. 63.

23 Dobson, B., ANRW, II. 1 (Berlin-New York, 1974), 412 f.Google Scholar

24 Josephus, BJ V.46. Epiphanes had already been wounded earlier in Roman service, at the First Battle of Bedriacum cheering on the forces of Otho.

25 Dobson, B. and Breeze, D., Epigraphische Studien, viii (1969), 102.Google Scholar

26 Domaszewski, A. von, (Dobson, B.), Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres (Koln-Graz, 1967), 116; cf. Saxer, op. cit. (note 4), 23 and Dobson, op. cit. (note 23).Google Scholar

27 Ritterling, op. cit. (note 3), 25 f.

28 Mommsen, op. cit. (note 2), 437–41.

29 Domaszewski, op. cit. (note 4), 166; cf. McElderry, op. cit. (note 4), 74 f. and Hanslik, op. cit. (note 4), 629.

30 Syme, op. cit. (note 3), 42. Hanslik seems not to know of Syme's article and still prefers to see the vexillations at Mirebeau for use against the Bructeri.

31 Tacitus, Agricola 26.

32 ILS 1025.

33 Syme, op. cit. (note 3), 41 f.

34 cf. Q. Vilanius Nepos (ILS 2127) decorated in succession in a Dacian War, a German War and a Dacian War again.

35 Whether or not troops had been removed from Britain there was no need for Agricola to have had his army in equal divisions, legionaries and auxiliaries together. Cf. the implications for size of Corbulo's 3 columns in Tacitus, Annals XIII.39.

36 McElderry, op. cit. (note 4), 74 f. points out that it is doubtful if a senatorial tribune would be expected to serve under an eques.

37 Syme, op. cit. (note 3), 43; cf. McElderry, op. cit. (note 4), 75 f. observing that the restoring of the names of II Adiutrix and IX Hispana was ‘arbitrary’.

38 cf. Syme, op. cit. (note 3), 47 f. making a similar point with regard to ILS 2719.

39 McElderry, op. cit. (note 4), 75.

40 Syme, op. cit. (note 3), 43 n. 3 recalls that Tacitus, Histories I.59 places 8 cohorts of Batavians amongst the Lingones in 69.

41 Saxer, op. cit. (note 4), 23 makes the same point but cites a second example; his no. 47 (p. 27) = ILS 2726, which enables him to reject Domaszewski's belief that these were ‘march commands’ only.

42 e.g. Frere, op. cit. (note 8), 140, n. 20.

43 Syme, op. cit. (note 3), 45 disputes the reduction to two proposed by Parker, H. M. D., The Roman Legions (Oxford, 1928), 115.Google Scholar

44 Dio 67.4.6; cf. Rachet, M., Rome et les Berbéres (Brussels, 1970), 156.Google Scholar

45 Cos. des. in 75 (AE (1941) 79; cf. Pflaum, op. cit. (note 3), 116 n. 7).

46 Dobson, op. cit. (note 3), 217.

47 ILS 2127.

48 Visy believes the cohort to have still been in Italy until Domitian sent it to the Danube as attested on ILS 2127 for part or all of 3 wars, before, in the 90's, it was moved to Carthage where Velius Rufus was its tribune.

49 Roxan, M., Roman Military Diplomas (London, 1978), 19–23.Google Scholar

50 CIL, XVI, 159; 161; 162; Ljubenova, V., Arheologija, 21. 4 (1979), 41–4; CIL, XVI, 165.Google Scholar

51 The p.f. attributed to the ala III Asturum cannot, as Holder, P. (The Auxilia from Augustus to Trajan (Oxford, 1980), 39) has suggested, be anything to do with the revolt of Saturninus. In any case p.f. is a loyalty award not a battle decoration. (I am grateful to Margaret Roxan for this point.)Google Scholar

52 Roxan, M., Latomus, xxxii (1973), 845, n. 16; cf. n. 60 and n. 76.Google Scholar

53 Holder, op. cit. (note 51), 32, 36 and 39.

54 The ala I Hamiorum may have been sent to Tingitana from Syria between 83/4 and 88. Birley, E. in Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata (Graz, 1966), 56 n. 4 and Holder, op. cit. (note 51), 15 have proposed to see the ala and cohors Nervianae, in Caesariensis on the diploma of 107 (CIL, XVI, 56) as the ala I Flavia milliaria and the cohors I Augusta, both previously known in Syria. The similar names they bear in Mauretania suggest that they may have arrived simultaneously. The terminus post quern for one of them is AE (1925) 121 for 76.Google Scholar

55 We may note too the cohors Musulamiorum in Syria in 88 (CIL, XVI, 35) and a cohors I Flavia Musula-miorum in Caesariensis in 107 (CIL, XVI, 56, cf. CIL, VIII, 4878 from Numidia naming the prefect of cohor. I Musulamior. and dated early second century; also AE (1913) 157 has it nearby in 119 – Devijver C235 and M. Jarrett, Epigraphische Studien, (1972), 174, no. 49). Holder, op. cit. (note 51), 233 differentiates between them, but they could easily be the same regiment.

56 Kennedy, op. cit. (note 1), 155–8.

57 Dio, 67.7.1; Mocsy, A., Pannonia and Upper Moesia (London, 1976), 83 f.Google Scholar

58 Hanslik, op. cit. (note 4), 630 suggests it was the nucleus of his force.

59 Dio 67.7.2 makes it clear that although Decebalus was unable to continue the war after Tapae in 88 the formal peace only came after the outbreak of war with the German tribes of the upper Danube.

60 Maxfield, V., Roman Military Decorations (London, 1981).Google Scholar

61 Martial, Epigramata, IX.31; cf. Hanslik, op. cit. (note 4), 631; Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford), 641 suggests that Velius Paulus and Velius Rufus may be the same man;Google ScholarJones, B. W., Domitian and the Senate, (Philadelphia, 1979), 120; IGLS, VI, p. 116.Google Scholar

62 The victory at Tapae in 88 is usually regarded as having freed Domitian to deal with the Marcomanni, Quadi and Sarmatae (Mócsy, op. cit. (note 57), 1976, 87 f.).

63 cf. Syme, , JRS lxx (1980), 65.Google Scholar