Caracalla in Thrace and the Beginning of His Parthian War

EMPEROR, ARMY, AND SOCIETY  ANTIQUITAS Reihe 1 ABHANDLUNGEN ZUR ALTEN GESCHICHTE begründet von Andreas Alföldi herausgegeben von Géza Alföldy (†), Frank Kolb und Winfried Schmitz Band 77 DR. RUDOLF HABELT GMBH · BONN 2022  EMPEROR, ARMY, AND SOCIETY Studies in Roman Imperial History for Anthony R. Birley edited by WERNER ECK, FEDERICO SANTANGELO, AND KONRAD VÖSSING DR. RUDOLF HABELT GMBH · BONN 2022  ISBN 978-3-7749-4360-5 Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über ‹http://dnb.dnb.de› abrufbar. Copyright 2022 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn Anthony R. BiRley (1937 - 2020)  TABLE OF CONTENTS A Book for Tony Birley IX Roman Britain Andrew Birley, Boxing for the Roman Empire, the Gloves are Off 3 John Wilkes, The Britannia of Claudius: ‘Iusti Triumphi Decus’ or ‘ Pretium Victoriae’? Personal Glory or Taxes and Army Pay: the Motivation for Conquest? 17 Tiziana Carboni, Ufficiali equestri in Britannia 31 David Breeze, The Status of the Commanding Officer at Maryport 43 Oliver Stoll, “A Band of Brothers”. Bierdurst und Heimathunger. Essen und Trinken und die Frage nach der Regimentsidentität römischer Truppeneinheiten in den Grenzzonen des Imperiums 57 Marie-Thérèse Raepsaet-Charlier, Quelques réflexions à propos de l’onomastique des soldats bataves de Vindolanda 75 Roger Tomlin, Latin Dressed Up as Greek: Deciphering a Curse against Theft in Roman Britain 95 Emperors and Empresses Mary Boatwright, The Missing familia of Agrippina the Younger 107 Gian Luca Gregori – Antonio Romano, Domiziano: memoria “dannata” o rispettata? Una riflessione sulla documentazione epigrafica di Roma 117 Konrad Vössing, Tunc… haec feci (Plin. Epist 3,11) – noch einmal zur Datierung von Plinius’ Prätur 131 Everett L. Wheeler, Verus’ Parthian War: Some Notes on Recent Work 147 Michael Speidel, Caracalla in Thrace and the Beginning of His Parthian War 161 José Remesal Rodríguez, Septimius Severus and the Supply of Rome. A Debated Issue 173 Administrative and Military History of the Roman Empire Lawrence Keppie, Consular Legions in the Late Republic 187 John Rich, The Fasti of Amiternum and the End of the Civil Wars 199 Edward Dabrowa, The Diplomatic Activity of the Governors of Syria 211 Werner Eck, Iudaea/Syria Palaestina und seine militärische Besatzung:ein Beispiel für römische Realpolitik? 223  Giuseppe Camodeca, La carriera di [- - - Cicat]ricula Sent][ius - - -] console sotto Domiziano in una iscrizione inedita reimpiegata a Salerno 237 J. C. N. Coulston, The Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius: a Tale of Two Monuments 249 Antonio F. Caballos Rufino, The Municipal Promotion of Carmo and Its Early Élite 263 Paul Holder, Some Roman Military Diploma Fragments Found in Ukraine 275 Lukas de Blois, The Emperor Gallienus and the Senate. Administrative and Military Reform in the Roman Empire of the Mid-Third Century AD 289 Benet Salway, Roman Governors and Government of Asia Minor in the Third Century AD: Recent Developments 297 Péter Kovács, Amissio Illyrici. The ‘Loss of Illyricum’ in the Fifth Century 313 Ioan Piso – Anja Ragolič, Harietto und Dagalaifus in Emona. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des spätrömischen Heeres 327 Elizabeth Meyer, Practice, Emperors, and the Mechanics of Testaments 337 Ancient and Modern Historiography A. J. Woodman, Problems in Tacitus, Annals 16 351 Federico Santangelo, Hadrian’s Libri Vitae Suae: Two Problems 363 Bruno Bleckmann, Die Geschichte der Antonine in der Chronik des Eusebios: quellenkritische Beobachtungen 371 Silvia Orlandi, “Scavando nelle carte”. Un provvedimento imperiale relativo agli spettacoli noto da un documento d’archivio della fine dell’800 385 Gustavo García Vivas, El consejero imperial en Syme. Tres textos significativos 399 Péter Prohászka, Sir Ronald Syme und András Alföldi – Aus der Korrespondenz von zwei Alterthumsforschern vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg 413 K. R. Bradley, Five Exquisite Lines 429 J. R. Lendon, A. R. Birley and His Emperors 441 Anthony R. Birley, Bibliography 1961–2020 453 Index Locorum 479 Index Personarum 491  A BOOK FOR TONY BIRLEY Anthony R. Birley died in Newcastle upon Tyne on 19 December 2020. His bond with the history of Rome and its provinces went back to his childhood. He was born on 8 October 1937 in Chesterholm, Northumberland, the ancient auxiliary fort of Vindolanda, just 34 miles to the west. His father Eric had bought the house where the Vindolanda Museum now is. Tony grew up there together with his older brother Robin. That ancient place was to shape both their lives. At Clifton College in Bristol, where his father had been educated decades earlier, Tony’s interest in, and talent for the classical languages soon became apparent, and he absorbed them with an energy and depth almost unimaginable today. Anyone who came into contact with him later could feel the self-evident familiarity with which he approached the lived historical experience of the Greek and Roman world. He then went up to Oxford, where he studied Classics from 1956 onwards, in the years 1960- 1962 as a Craven Fellow; during that time, he not only completed his MA, but also had the chance to study for several months in Paris with Hans-Georg Pflaum at the École des Hautes Études. Pflaum had been in close contact with Tony’s father Eric since the end of the Second World War, just like Sir Ronald Syme. Those three great scholars were bound by many common interests, including their efforts to revive the Prosopographia Imperii Romani at the Berlin Academy in 1952. In light of that family and intellectual background, the topic Tony worked on in his dissertation (begun in 1963) was not such a surprise: ‘The Roman High Command from the Death of Hadrian to the Death of Caracalla, with Particular Attention to the Danubian Wars of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus’. His supervisor was Ronald Syme, with whom he retained a very close connection throughout his life; his last major publication was an edition of Syme’s select correspondence. After holding positions at Birmingham and Leeds and a visiting professorship at Duke University in North Carolina, he was appointed Professor of Ancient History at Manchester University (1974-1990). He was later elected to the Ancient History Chair at the Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, succeeding Dietmar Kienast (1990- 2002). After his retirement he was Visiting Professor at Newcastle and Durham. His integration into the German academic world was considerably facilitated by his longstanding and close connection with several colleagues, such as the archaeologist and director of the Rheinisches Landesmuseum in Bonn, Harald von Petrikovits, an old friend of his father’s, Géza Alföldy, who worked first in Bonn and Bochum and later in Heidelberg, and Johannes Straub, the Bonn ancient historian, in whose Historia Augusta Colloquia Tony took part early on. His second wife, Heide Birley (1938-2022), was a Roman archaeologist, with a strong expertise in the material X culture of the Rhine limes, and is mentioned in the acknowledgments of many of his publications; she also took care of the German translation of Hadrian. The centre of Tony Birley’s scholarly life, however, always remained Britain, not least because of his early involvement in the excavations at Vindolanda, which were led by his brother Robin. When a large number of wooden tablets began to be discovered in the Roman auxiliary fort, shedding light on the lives of its military and civilian inhabitants, he took an early interest in the task of deciphering and interpreting them, and in what they could reveal about Roman life in Britain. Birley had dealt with the Roman province of Britannia in its many aspects at an early stage of his career, not least in a book intended for the general public, first published as early as 1964: Life in Roman Britain, a subject that he later developed – with partly different aims – in The People of Roman Britain (1979) and Garrison Life at Vindolanda. A Band of Brothers (2002). In his DPhil dissertation Britain had only played a minor role. However, the topic of the Roman High Command from the death of Hadrian to the death of Caracalla gave rise to several monograph projects, which soon made him known beyond the narrow circle of his peers. That was especially the case with the biography of the Roman emperor who had played a central role in his doctoral work: Marcus Aurelius. First published in 1966 (second edition in 1987), the work was translated into German as early as in 1968, and later into Italian and Spanish. The most fascinating aspect of his portrayal was the choice to place the emperor within a wide-ranging account of Roman ruling class: he was not shown as a lonely ruler, but as part of the elite with whom and through whom the empire was governed. Birley achieved this through his profound knowledge of imperial prosopography, expertly putting to fruition what his father Eric, Syme, and Pflaum, among others, had worked out. By carefully combining a large body of epigraphic and numismatic evidence with the relatively many literary sources of the period, an in-depth picture of a time of transition emerged, with an emperor who could appear so different from many of his predecessors and his successors. This first impressive imperial biography was followed by Septimius Severus in 1971 and finally by Hadrian. The Restless Emperor in 1997. In a unique synthesis of the evidence, a vivid picture of such a distinctive and complicated ruler emerged, along with a fascinating portrait of the ruling class of the empire since Trajan’s reign, including the intellectuals who came into contact with Hadrian. It is especially remarkable to see how Birley includes the Vita of Hadrian from the Historia Augusta in his account of Hadrian's life: a feat that was made possible by decades of engagement with that important and problematic work. In all these studies, the province of Britannia was represented in one form or another, especially since the island had the largest army contingent in the whole empire since the time of Hadrian, and its governor had a weight commensurate to the  XI importance of that brief. However, the province of Britannia only became the focus of Birley’s scholarly work through the detailed analysis of the governors, their careers and their actions, as well as the other high officials who worked there. That seemed an urgent and indeed necessary task, because the senatorial and equestrian officeholders of this province, despite their extraordinary importance in the fabric of the empire, had not yet received a full-scale discussion, unlike those of other regions, whose importance was not fully comparable to that of Britannia. Birley had already presented a first very brief attempt in 1967 in the fourth volume of Epigraphische Studien: The Roman Governors of Britain. But the extensive, masterly treatment of the topic followed only in 1981 under the title The Fasti of Roman Britain. In contrast to all other discussions of the governors (and other officials) of a province, he did not confine himself to the first three centuries (pp. 37- 309), but included all those who were active there after Diocletian’s reform (pp. 309- 353). Nevertheless, the period from AD 43 to the first Tetrarchy dominated the study: the choice was dictated by the nature of the evidence base. That was also evident in the special examination and description of the senatorial career which precedes the actual prosopographical analysis. In just under 32 pages, building on the body of work on the senatorial cursus honorum that had appeared in German in the previous years, he succeeds in presenting a solid and balanced description of the many aspects that no one else had worked out so expertly and so comprehensively. But Birley turned again to the officeholders of the province after almost a quarter of a century, this time under the title The Roman Government of Britain (2005). Although he refrained from producing a new analysis of the cursus honorum, he included the same group of people as in the 1981 work; wherever possible, he gave considerably greater weight to individual trajectories. In many respects the prosopographical discussions almost give rise to something approaching a new account of the history of the province as a whole, which goes far beyond the individual histories of the various officeholders. One of these governors, Cn. Iulius Agricola, who took up a great deal of space in both books, separately received his fair share of interest, not surprisingly, in a series of articles, but above all in a translation of and extensive commentary on the biography by Tacitus, together with the Germania (1999). This steady stream of volumes effectively gives the measure of Tony Birley’s scholarship. Yet he also published a large number of articles in journals, edited collections, and Festschriften, which further reveal the extent of his learning: studies on new documents from Vindolanda, on individual emperors, especially Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius, on the problems of the Roman external borders, especially in the north of the island, on the Historia Augusta and Marius Maximus, and on deities of the Roman world, often embedded in daily life in Britain. They are a treasure trove for any student of the Roman Empire, and cannot be fairly summarised in a few lines; XII yet they are especially significant to the appreciation of his trajectory as a scholar of the imperial period. Along with his great work as an historian who could produce authoritative accounts and insightful analysis, a further achievement is worth mentioning, both because of its distinctive importance and for the spirit with which Birley took it upon himself: his work as editor of many contributions of his most influential teacher, Sir Ronald Syme. The first two volumes of the Roman Papers were published in 1979, but the wealth of those complex, mostly prosopographical articles was difficult to access and make proper use of without an index. Things changed radically when Birley took over the editing of the subsequent volumes, from Roman Papers III in 1984 to Roman Papers VI-VII in 1991, two years after Syme’s death. Volume III contained the index to the first three volumes, and the following ones were equipped with their own sets. Those who had often dealt with Syme’s immense oeuvre readily appreciated what a gift Birley had made to the scholarly world. It was a comprehensive and time-consuming work, which he carried out to the point of self- denial. But other tasks were to follow. Fergus Millar, Syme’s literary executor, asked Birley to take care of almost all the manuscripts that Syme had partially written in the 1930s and during the Second World War, but had never published. He took on that task too: Anatolica. Studies in Strabo (1995) and The Provincial at Rome and Rome and the Balkans 80 BC-AD 14 (1999) were the results. In the process, Birley added literature where possible, and supplemented both works with later shorter manuscripts by Syme that had not yet been published. In the course of this time-consuming work, he also came across numerous letters written to Syme by other scholars, including Münzer, Groag, and Stein, whom Syme held in high esteem as masters of prosopographical research, as well as many other colleagues with whom he had corresponded. Birley transcribed those manuscripts and published them in April 2020 as his final tribute to this outstanding figure: Select Correspondence of Ronald Syme, 1927-1939. Its introduction offers characteristically rich insights into Syme’s personality and work, and is a powerful testimony to the place that the history of scholarship had to Birley’s approach to his subject and his craft. His deeply generous work on the towering figure that Syme was, however, reveals a characteristic trait that distinguished Tony’s personality: his openness to others, young and old alike, and his willingness to share what he knew and mastered, in conversation and in correspondence. Many have benefited from his helpfulness; both his stature as an historian of imperial Rome, and his open and unfailingly friendly personality left a deep impression on those with whom he came into contact. Birley had a very distinguished standing in the field. He was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London, and an Ordinary Member of the Deutsches  XIII Archäologisches Institut and of the Nordrhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Künste. He had also served as a member of the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik in Munich, had been a Member of the School of Historical Studies at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton, and sat on the advisory boards of L’Antiquité Classique and Ancient Society, as well as of the Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien (Steiner Verlag). He remained closely connected with Vindolanda since the early 1970s, serving as Chair of the Vindolanda Trust for two decades (1996-2016), and lately as its Patron. This volume gathers thirty-four contributions from a number of friends and colleagues of Tony Birley. They are devoted to topics that we think he would have found of interest, and often engage directly with aspects of his work. The four sections into which they are organised – Roman Britain, Emperors and Empresses, Administrative and Military History of the Roman Empire, and Ancient and Modern Historiography – may fairly be seen as the key headings around which Tony’s own work focused: readers are warmly invited to pursue their own itineraries through the collection. These studies are intended to serve, first and foremost, as a sign of the breadth of Tony Birley’s interests and of the range and quality of his intellectual and scholarly impact on the field. They are also testimony to the range of connections that he built, across countries, specialisms, and generations. They revolve around the discussion of specific pieces of evidence, old and new, and on the interplay between the elucidation of matters of detail and the exploration of big-picture problems. They are offered to the memory of a great scholar, mentor, and friend, in gratitude and admiration. Werner Eck Federico Santangelo Konrad Vössing We are very grateful to the editors of the Antiquitas series, Frank Kolb and Winfried Schmitz, for giving this project favourable consideration. We should like to warmly thank Julius Schwarz for the invaluable work he has been doing on the typesetting of the volume. Manfredi Zanin has offered crucial assistance in compiling Tony Birley's bibliography, and Susanne Biegert at Habelt-Verlag has given helpful advice on various editorial matters.  CARACALLA IN THRACE AND THE BEGINNING OF HIS PARTHIAN WAR MICHAEL A. SPEIDEL It is generally held that Caracalla’s obsession with Alexander the Great was responsible for his need to achieve military success and glory on par with his Macedonian model. 1 Yet, do Alexandermania and the limitless thirst for military glory hold up as Caracalla’s true motivations for his Parthian War in the light of new and revised evidence? Any attempt to investigate the beginnings of Caracalla’s poorly documented Parthian War requires a plausible reconstruction of his itinerary and his actions after he left Rome for his expeditio Germanica. After the profectio from the capital (probably before the end of August 212) he spent the rest of his reign travelling through provincial territory until he was murdered in 217 in the course of the war itself. 2 Unfortunately, as far as the literary evidence for Caracalla’s journey to the East is concerned, Syme’s verdict still holds true. “Everything from 213 to the emperor’s death in 217 gets reported in a scrappy fashion.” It is “barely intelligible” and, one might add, hostile throughout. 3 However, despite their poor state of conservation and their hostility towards Caracalla, the few surviving passages from Cassius Dio’s Roman History remain our most detailed source on Caracalla’s Parthian War and are particularly valuable as they reflect the views of a high-ranking eyewitness to some of the events connected to it. 4 This is of course particularly true for Dio’s account of the events he witnessed during the winter of 214 / 215 when he was present at the imperial court. 5 There is of course also a “plethora of testimony accruing from coins and inscriptions”. 6 Yet many uncertainties remain as the evidence for Caracalla’s whereabouts, his actions and his military plans in the months after the expeditio 1 Cf. e.g. Millar 1993, 142-143; Buraselis 2007, 33; Hekster / Kaizer 2012; Patterson 2013, 193; Syvänne 2017, 154; Imrie 2021, 273. 2 See RIC Caracalla 225 and 226: profectio Aug(usti). Caracalla’s portrait dates these coins to between some time in 212 and the end of 213. Thus Pangerl 2013, 105-6 and 112. For the itinerary see esp. Halfmann 1986, 223. Kolb 2003, 21. The exact date of the profectio is uncertain (for Caracalla leaving Rome in 213 see e.g. Birley 1997, 185-191; Królczyk 2011, 210). Yet, if he used the title proconsul in the traditional way (i.e. only when not in Rome), he must have left the capital before 30 August 212: compare RMD 455 (7. Jan. 212, without procos) with RMD 74 (30. Aug. 212, with procos). On the subject in general see Eck 2019. All of Caracalla’s later diplomas show procos in the emperor’s titulature (as Werner Eck kindly reminds me). Other inscriptions from 212 with procos in Caracalla’s titulature are e.g.: CIL II2 5, 492 (Dec. 212); CIL III 15203 (Dec. 212); CIL III 11093 = ILS 2382 (Dec. 212); AE 1900, 82 (Dec. 212). 3 Syme 1968, 34. Cf. Davenport 2012 on Dio’s relationship with Caracalla. 4 Millar 1964, 18-22. 5 See Dio 78,17,2-3; 78,18,1-4; 79,8,4-5. Cf. e.g. Davenport 2012, 802; 6 Syme 1988, 159. 162 Germanica remains scanty, lacunose and difficult to interpret. 7 General consensus has not been reached. Progress has been made, though, and inscriptions, in particular, have been taken to show that Caracalla, after leaving Rome, travelled via the Rhône valley to Upper Germany and to the confines of Raetia, from where he proceeded on 11. August 213 to root out the enemies (per limitem Raetiae ad hostes exstirpandos). 8 News of the German victory reached Rome on 6. October 213. 9 According to Herodian, “Antoninus, after completing his business with the garrison on the Danube, marched south to Thrace”. 10 Cassius Dio adds that when “Antoninus came to Thrace he paid no further attention to Dacia but crossed the Hellespont, not without danger”. 11 Dio reports that it was the emperor’s intention to proceed to Ilion to stage celebrations in honour of Achilles. 12 Caracalla’s next securely recorded stop is in Bithynian Nicomedia, his chosen winter quarters, which he must have reached at the beginning of December 213, as his arrival there was recorded in Rome before the 17th of that month. 13 This last date was recovered by John Scheid in 1998, and is based on his improved and convincing reconstruction of the relevant section of the Acts of the Arval Brethren in Rome. 14 Based on Scheid’s new reading, Michel Christol concluded that Caracalla and the imperial court must have taken the shortest route from the Raetian frontier via Sirmium (AE 1971, 455 = SEG 17, 505 = IvEph 802) and Thrace to Nicomedia, as in Christol’s view there would have been no time for detours or prolonged stops. 15 However, if Caracalla and his entourage chose to travel on horseback at speeds over 30 km per day, as they did on other known occasions, they would indeed have had sufficient time for a detour to Ilion at the end of 213. 16 Dio’s account is therefore likely to be accurate. 7 Cf. e.g. Boteva 1999, 181-188; Rutten 2011; Andreeva 2014. 8 CIL VI 2086, l. 17. For Caracalla’s itinerary in 213 and his expeditio Germanica cf. esp. Halfmann 1986, 223 and 225; Nollé 1996, 29-30; Scheid 1998, 284; Kolb 2003, 21-2; Królczyk 2011, 210; Kovács 2012, 381–394; Opreanu 2015, 18-19. Piso / Deac 2018, 756-762. 9 CIL VI 2086, l. 23-24. Cf. Scheid 1998, 284. For Caracalla’s visit of the temple of Apollo Grannus in Raetian Phoebianae see Dio 77,15,6; IvEph 802. Cf. Kolb 2003. On Caracalla’s illness see Dio 78,15,2-7. HA Carac. 5,3. Cf. e.g. Nollé 1996; Hekster/Kaizer 2012. 10 Hdn. 4,8,1. 11 Dio 78,16,7. See Christol 2012, 156-160. 12 Herodian’s account (4,8,3-5) seems slightly confused as he appears to date the emperor’s visit to Ilium to 214, claiming that Caracalla imitated Achilles “once again” on that occasion. Perhaps the emperor visited Ilium twice, once in 213 and again in 214? 13 AE 1998, 113. 14 Scheid 1998, 285-86, 288-89; Scheid 1998a, 439-451. 15 Christol 2012, 160. 16 For Caracalla and his entourage riding on horseback see Dio 79,5,1-5 with Speidel 2020, 421. (Compare Septimius Severus: Dio 74,15,3 and 75,1,3. Speidel 2020, 430). For calculations of speed and time see The  163 Yet several inscriptions from Dacia Porolissensis, dating to 213 (before October), seem to contradict Dio’s remark that the emperor crossed Thrace in 213 without paying attention to Dacia, for the epigraphic evidence implies that an imperial visit to Dacia was planned in that year. 17 These inscriptions have been at the core of a debate (mainly among Romanian scholars) whether Caracalla visited Dacia in 213 or in 214. 18 However, without further support from other evidence, the inscriptions at best testify to the emperor's intention to go to Dacia in 213, which, if true, he no doubt communicated before his final victory in the expeditio Germanica. By themselves, the inscriptions do not provide evidence for an imperial journey to Dacia in 213. The distance and the time available make such a major detour in 213 seem rather unlikely. In fact, as we shall see, there is good reason to date Caracalla’s presence there to 214. 19 Dio’s remark that crossing the Hellespont was not without danger may be an allusion to a near shipwreck, recorded by the Historia Augusta, which put the emperor and his escort (protectores) in great danger during their passage across the Hellespont. 20 Possible allusions to this event in the acts of the Arval Brethren and on a series of denarii seem to confirm the date of the episode late in 213 and, if true, further strengthen the arguments for the sequence of events as proposed here.21 At any rate, in 2012 Michel Christol pointed out that all the imperial visits and activities in the Balkans and Asia Minor recorded by Dio, Herodian and the Historia Augusta for the period before Caracalla left Nicomedia on his way south to Syrian Antioch cannot have taken place in the short two months between the emperor’s victoria Germanica at the end of September in 213 and his arrival in Nicomedia in the first days of December of the same year. 22 Christol therefore convincingly argued that the surviving evidence best fits an itinerary that has Caracalla passing the winter twice in Nicomedia, first in 213/214 and again in 214/215. 23 On his reconstruction, Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World (http://orbis.stanford.edu). Christol 2012, 160 is surely right that a detour to and stay in Porolissum and other parts of Dacia in 213 (see below) overstretch the time available. 17 Dio 78,16,7. See also HA Carac. 5,4. For the inscriptions see Piso / Deac 2018. Their date is based on the lack of Caracalla's epithet Germanicus maximus. 18 See most recently Piso / Deac 2018 (arguing for 213, yet without taking account of Christol 2012). See also Opreanu 2015 (arguing for 214). Both with earlier respective bibliography. 19 See Christol 2012, 160-161 and below at n. 30. 20 HA Carac. 5,8: Per Thracias cum praef. praet. iter fecit: inde cum in Asiam traiceret, naufragii periculum adit antemna fracta… . Pace Letta 1994. Escort: Speidel 2020. 21 CIL VI 2103, pars b = Scheid 1998, 283, nr. 99: [... quod dominus noster (…) s]alvus servatus sit. RIC 319B (TR P XVII). These were Caracalla’s only coins to show Neptune. Unfortunately, the reference to the shipwreck episode must remain hypothetical in both cases. 22 Christol 2012. 23 Accepted by H. Halfmann, in his review of Hostein / Lalanne 2012 in HZ 299, 2014, 447-448. 164 Caracalla went back to Thrace in 214, after his first winter in the Bithynian capital and returned to Asia Minor and Bithynia in the second half of the year. 24 New documentary evidence has come to light that supports this reconstruction of Caracalla’s journey. 25 For two recently published discharge documents imply the emperor’s presence in Thrace on 28. February 214. 26 These documents attest the recruitment of Thracian soldiers (Trax / dilectarius ex provincia Thracia) into at least two different expeditionary units from Upper Germany on that day (miles factus in leg. VIII Augusta / leg. XXII P(rimigenia) p(ia) f(ideli) a divo Antonino Magno). 27 Both the wording miles factus … a divo Antonino Magno of these official texts and the procedure they record imply the emperor’s presence in Thrace during the dilectus. 28 A distinct group of inscriptions of Thracian and Illyrian legionary soldiers in Upper and Lower Germany refer to the same recruiting operation under Caracalla in 214. 29 Caracalla probably decided and arranged his stay at Nicomedia in the winter of 213 / 214 (rather than e.g. on the Lower Danube) months before his arrival in early December 213. When he returned to Thrace in February 214, he evidently had business to finish. A passage from the Historia Augusta appears to refer to this context: he “then made ready for a march to the Orient but interrupted his journey and stopped in Dacia” (dein ad orientem profectionem parans omisso itinere, in Dacia resedit). 30 The year 214, therefore, most likely was the year in which Caracalla visited Dacia. 31 If true, the same remark in the Historia Augusta also preserves an explicit reference to preparations for a profectio ad Orientem. Provided the term profectio was used here in its technical sense (which it most likely was), it means that Caracalla was preparing to officially launch his Parthian War in Thrace early in 214. 32 This may seem surprising, as it is usually held that the Parthian War only began in 216, when Caracalla launched the first offensives. 33 However, a closer look at the 24 Christol 2012, 162-63. Unfortunately, Christol’s reconstruction was not considered by all recent scholarship. It was missed e.g. by Imrie 2021; Piso / Deac 2018; Syvänne 2017; Opreanu 2015. 25 AE 2006, 1866 = AE 2018, 1978; AE 2018, 1977. 26 For what follows see esp. Weiss 2015, to which this contribution owes much. 27 Weiss 2015, 48-9. 28 Speidel 2009, 213-34, 329-30 and 332-33; Weiss 2015, 49-51. 29 Alföldy 1987, 368-370. See now also Weiss 2015, 50-52 with further evidence. 30 HA Carac. 5,4. 31 Christol 2012, 160-61; Forni 2021, 199. 32 See e.g. Halfmann 1986, 113-14; Rüpke 1990, 125-143. 242-43; Lehnen 2001, 18-33; Meister 2013, 33- 56. 33 Dio 79,1,1; Hdn. 4.10.5-11.9; HA Carac. 6,4-6. An abortive attack against Vologaeses (Dio 78,19,1 and 78,21,1) may date to 215. For 216 see e.g. Birley 1997, 190-91; Pattersen 2013, 183-187, 192; Kienast / Eck / Heil 2017, 156; and most recently Stoll 2022, 340 and 345. The question of when the Parthian War began is neither discussed by Syvänne 2017 nor by Imrie 2021.  165 surviving evidence indeed appears to favor the year 214 as the official beginning of the bellum Armeniacum Parthumque (HA Carac. 6,1) – or the expeditio felicissima orientalis, as was the war’s official name (CIL VIII 2564 = 18052 = ILS 470). 34 At any rate, evidence for concrete steps and measures in preparation of a Parthian War before 214 seems to be missing, just as there are no references in Dio, Herodian or in the Historia Augusta to Caracalla impersonating Alexander the Great before that year. 35 Moreover, the surviving documentary evidence for military and logistic preparations in 212/213 only concerns the expeditio Germanica (probably including an expedition to Dacia). 36 It is true that Cassius Dio implies that Caracalla closely monitored the internal politics of the Parthian Empire at a time when German tribes still posed a danger at the northern frontiers, particularly the growing discord between the brothers Vologaeses VI and Artabanus IV. 37 However, as much as this may point to the emperor’s long-term interest in intervening in Parthian affairs, it does not amount to concrete preparations for war. It has of course been suggested that Caracalla’s order to arrest king Abgar of Edessa in what was later referred to as year 1 “of the liberation” of Edessa (which was the year 524 of the Seleucid era and corresponds to October 212 – September 213) was an early element of the emperor’s Parthian plans. 38 This may or may not be true, but Dio’s account describes the king’s arrest as an entirely independent incident. According to the historian, Caracalla’s reason or pretext to depose Abgar was that the king had been cruelly misusing his powers over his subjects. 39 By itself, that is not a priori entirely incredible. Therefore, what has so far become known of this episode cannot be used to unequivocally prove that Caracalla’s designs for a Parthian War dated back to before he left Rome. Herodian and the Historia Augusta remain silent on the issue. Caracalla’s arrest of the king of Armenia and his sons on the other hand does seem to be closely linked to the emperor’s attack against Armenia, as, according to Dio, it caused the Armenians to take up arms. 40 The exact date of the arrest remains unknown, but it must have occurred before the winter of 214/5 when Dio witnessed the construction of two very large engines “both for the Armenian and the Parthian 34 For the official name of Caracalla’s Parthian War see Rosenberger 1992, 117 and Mrav 2007, 127, who also quote AE 1972, 598 (Ephesus), which, however, refers to Severus Alexander. 35 Cf. however Burnett 2016, 72-110 speculating on an expedition of Caracalla against Parthia in 206/7. Kühnen 2008, 176 discerns early forms of imitatio Alexandri with Caracalla during his first stay in the East with his father. See e.g. HA Carac. 2,1-2. But the evidence rather suggests that Caracalla, in his early years, merely admired Alexander. 36 Cf. Kolb 2003; Krolczyk 2011; Kovács 2012. 37 Dio 78,13,3. 38 Dio 78,12,1a-2. Cf. e.g. Millar 1993, 476-81; Pattersen 2013; Caillou / Brelaud 2016 ; Sartre 2022, 16. 39 Dio 78,12,1a-12. 40 Dio 78,12,2. Cf. Dio 78,21,1. 166 war”. 41 Evidently, by then concrete preparations for the Parthian War were well underway. Herodian’s comment that Caracalla “suddenly became Alexander” when he arrived in Thrace is therefore most significant. 42 Cassius Dio probably refers to the same event with his remark that the emperor informed the Senate by letter that Alexander had come to life again in the person of the Augustus. 43 The imperial itinerary and its chronology as presented above strongly advocate placing the emperor’s metamorphosis during his second visit to Thrace in 214. Among other things he now allegedly wore Macedonian clothes and weapons, levied and drilled a Macedonian phalanx, and even acquired several elephants. 44 According to Cassius Dio, the elephants were to imply that Caracalla “might seem to be imitating Alexander, or rather, perhaps, Dionysus”. 45 Dio thus appears to be suggesting that by imitating Alexander, Caracalla revealed his intention to subdue the Parthian Empire. The reference to Dionysos even suggested conquests as far as India. While some scholars have argued that the surviving accounts of Caracalla’s behaviour in the East are much exaggerated (not least because his imitatio Alexandri 46 locally produced imagery on coins and other objects from Thrace and elsewhere do appear to be inspired by the emperor’s new style and seem to express local attitudes and expectations. Thus, a unique bronze plaque from Philippopolis showing Hercules with the lion’s skin on the left and Caracalla with a miniature elephant’s skin around his shoulders on the right expresses the equality of Hercules and Caracalla as Alexander-Dionysus. 47 As suggested by Milena Raycheva, the occasion for the local creation of this image may well have been the Alexandreia Pythia games which the Thracian koinon held at Philippopolis in honour of Caracalla. 48 Again for chronological reasons, the most likely date of the games was in 214 during the emperor’s stay in the province. At any rate, local coinage from Philippopolis commemorating the games, prominently show Hercules with a lion’s skin. 49 41 Dio 78,18,1. 42 Hdn. 4,8,1. 43 Dio 78,7,2. 44 Dio 78,7,1-2. 78,18,1. Hdn. 4,8,1-2. 45 Dio 78,7,4. See already IGRR 4,468 (Pergamon): . 46 Cf. e.g. the recent discussions in Molina Martin 2015; Raycheva 2016, 281-82; Langford 2016; Imrie 2021, 225-229; Brandt 2021, 459-60. 47 See the excellent discussion by Raycheva 2016. 48 Hdn. 4,8. Cf. SEG 55, 757 and 55, 766. Cf. also SEG 55, 758; Raycheva 2016, 282-83. For a recent discussion see Andreeva 2014, suggesting, however, a date in 215. 49 Varbanov 1436, 1465; Moushmov 5365. Other coins minted in Philippopolis also show Caracalla and Hercules: Varbanov 1503, 1512; Moushmov 5369, 5428. etc. For Caracalla with lions see Dio 79,1,5. 79,4,5; 79,7,2-3; HA Carac. 5,5 and 9.  167 The emperor’s sudden transformation into Alexander implies that the imperial journey took on an entirely new and, as it seems, previously unannounced purpose in Thrace in 214. 50 On his way to the East, it therefore appears, Caracalla expressed his hostile intentions towards the Parthian empire by turning into the famous Macedonian king. Thus, although there is nothing to suggest that Caracalla started his Parthian war because he wanted to imitate Alexander, he was surely seen to threaten Parthia by publicly and prominently imitating the Macedonian king. 51 In fact, Caracalla’s various impersonations appear to have been meaningful and consciously chosen in order to address a particular audience. 52 Thus, for instance, he often wore German dress and a blond wig fashioned in German style, even during his attack on the Parthian Empire, to enravish the German soldiers of his bodyguard. 53 At any rate, any doubts concerning the Roman emperor’s intentions must have disappeared in view of the major recruiting campaigns and troop deployments in 214. For not only were young Thracians recruited into Roman expeditionary forces in that year (cf. above p. 164), but the surviving administrative records on papyrus of the cohors XX Palmyrenorum from Dura Europos record extraordinary drafts into that unit from Palmyra and the Near East in 214. 54 No doubt there were other recruiting efforts going on elsewhere too. In two cases in 214, such drafts may have been of more symbolic nature. For Caracalla is said to have set up a traditional Macedonian phalanx of allegedly 16,000 hoplites, dressed and equipped in the ancient style. Although the size may have been inspired by Greek literature on military theory and was perhaps not met in reality, there is no reason to doubt the short-lived existence of Caracalla’s Macedonian phalanx altogether, as was recently done. 55 Cassius Dio maintains that he saw the emperor drill this unit at Nicomedia in the winter of 214/15. 56 Finally, Herodian also reports how Caracalla set up a traditional unit 50 According to Kühnen 2008, 176-183, however, Caracalla’s imitatio Alexandri was a gradual process of many years that reached its climax in 214, rather than a political decision in the context of the profectio ad Orientem. 51 Cf. Brandt 2021, 459. 52 Cf. also Plut. De Alex. fort. 330A; Langford 2016, 329-334; Imrie 2021, 226. 53 Hdn. 4,7,3. Dio 79,3,3. 54 P.Dura 100 and 101 = RMR 1 and 2. See Gilliam 1986, 290; Marichal 1977, 8-11. 55 Thus Wheeler 2004, 313; Imrie 2021, 231-32. 56 Dio 78,7,1-2. 78,18,1; Hdn. 4,8,2-3. 4,9,4. Imrie 2021, 229-236 argues that no new phalanx was set up, but that Dio’s reference was to men being enrolled into existing legions, which had developed towards “phalangite formations”. The discens phalangariorum of legio II Parthica known from his gravestone in Syrian Apamea (EDCS 00685) may have had nothing to do with Caracalla’s Macedonian phalanx. 168 (lochos) of Spartans. 57 This probably also happened in 214. The gravestones of some of its (?) soldiers have been found at Sparta. 58 Finally, imperial and provincial coinage suggest that a military event of major symbolic significance took place in Thrace in 214. For in that year, the imperial mint at Rome struck the only coins during Caracalla’s sole reign that show the emperor addressing his troops. 59 It therefore seems likely that this image referred to a particularly important adlocutio. Yet, the address cannot have taken place in Rome, as Caracalla never returned to the capital after he left it in 212. As we saw above, Caracalla returned to Thrace from Nicomedia early in 214, in order to prepare his profectio ad orientem (HA Carac. 5,4). It is no doubt significant, therefore, that Ulpia Serdica, as the only city in Thrace, also minted coins showing Caracalla addressing his soldiers. Moreover, the composition of the scene on the Serdican coins is virtually identical with the one used by the mint in Rome. If the image referred to a real event (as seems probable), it is very unlikely that the soldiers listening to Caracalla’s speech were those of the small auxiliary garrison of provincia Thracia, as there is no evidence that any of its units were stationed within or immediately adjacent to Serdica’s territory. Caracalla is therefore most likely shown addressing soldiers of his expeditionary army as they were passing through Serdica’s territory along the major route that modern historians often refer to as the via militaris or via diagonalis. What is more, Ulpia Serdica also struck coins showing Caracalla on horseback in a typical adventus-scene. 60 Remarkably, the obverse with the emperor’s portrait was produced by the same die that was used for the obverse of Serdica’s adlocutio coins. 61 In other words, Serdica’s adventus and adlocutio series were issued at the same time in 214. It is very likely, therefore, that the images on these coins refer to real events which took place on Serdica’s territory in 214. 62 It is, of course, tempting to assume that Caracalla’s adventus in Serdica and his important adlocutio were closely linked to his metamorphosis into Alexander the Great. If so, we could, perhaps, imagine Caracalla coming to Serdica in 214 to address expeditionary forces on their way to the East, thereby officially announcing his profectio ad orientem and the beginning of his expeditio felicissima orientalis. At any rate, there is ample epigraphic evidence to 57 Hdn. 4,8,2-3. 4,9,4. 58 Gravestones: SEG 45, 287. Whittaker 1969, 414, n. 4 suggested that an inscription from Cappadocian Caesarea Mazaka refers to Caracalla’s Spartian lochos: Grégoire 1909, 63-66, no. 44 = Merkelbach / Stauber 2001, 38-9, no. 13/6/1. But see Robert 1940, 126-128, esp. 128 n. 1 no. 74. 59 RIC Caracalla 525. 60 Varbanov 2294, 2295; Weiss 2015, 51. 61 Weiss 2015, 51. 62 Thus also Weiss 2015, 50-51.  169 show that the expeditionary forces for the Parthian War from the German and Pannonian armies crossed Thrace in 214 on their way to their winter quarters. 63 Yet, officially celebrating his profectio ad Orientem in the Thracian city of Ulpia Serdica, turning into Alexander the Great and launching the expeditio felicissima orientalis in 214 must have created an awkward situation in Roman-Parthian relations in the following two years before Caracalla finally initiated an attack, as a casus belli was lacking. An anecdote recorded by Dio may refer to this period: the emperor boasted, in a letter to the Senate, that his actions contributed to the quarrel between Vologases VI and Artabanus IV, and that they thereby harmed Parthia and benefitted Rome. 64 Date and context are not mentioned, but Dio’s reference to a letter seems to imply that the emperor was not in Rome. The anecdote therefore may have taken place in the period between 214 and 216 when Caracalla journeyed through the East in search for a pretext to begin a war he had, in practice, already declared. If true, even Caracalla appears to have felt a need to justify his actions in this period. If these considerations are correct, they shed welcome new light on some of the specifics of the early stages of the expeditio felicissima orientalis. As with most other aspects and periods of Caracalla’s biography (as far as they are transmitted), the evidence discussed here for the period he spent in Thrace following the expeditio Germanica characterizes him as an emperor who not only yearned for military glory but also for the love and recognition of his contemporaries. Yet, rather than madness or Alexandermania, unscrupulousness appears to have been his most characteristic trait. Universität Zürich mspeidel@sunrise.ch Bibliography Alföldy, G. 1987, Römische Heeresgeschichte, Beiträge 1962-1985. Amsterdam. Andreeva, P. 2014, Festivals in the Roman Province of Thrace (1st – 3rd c. AD), Sofia. Boteva, D. 1999, Following in Alexander’s Footsteps: The Case of Caracalla. In: Ancient Macedonia. Thessaloniki, vol. I, 181-188. 63 Alföldy 1987, 368-370; AE 2006, 1866 = AE 2018, 1978; AE 2018, 1977; IK 58, 122 = AE 1976, 642; IK 58, 123 = AE 1976, 641; CIL III 7396; AE 1976, 640; AE 1947, 188 = IK 39, 173; IK 20, 55. Cf. Speidel 1984, 12-14; Speidel 1992, 181; Sayar 1998, 261-264. Alternatively, (some of) the inscription(s) might date to 218 (cf. Dio 80,4,5). 64 Dio 78,12,2a-3. 170 Birley, A. R. 1997, Caracalla, in: M. Clauss (ed.), Die römischen Kaiser. Munich: 185-191. Brandt, H. 2021, Die Kaiserzeit: Römische Geschichte von Octavian bis Diokletian. Munich. Buraselis, K. 2007, . Das göttlich-kaiserliche Geschenk. Studien zur Politik der Severer und zur Constitutio Antoniniana. Vienna. Burnett, A. 2016, Zela, Acclamations, Caracalla – and Parthia? BICS 59, 72-110. Caillou, J.-S. / Brelaud, S. 2016, L’ère de la libération d’Édesse, Syria 93, 321-338. Christol, M. 2012, Caracalla en 214: de Nicomédie à Nicomédie, in: Hostein / Lalanne 2012, 155-167. Davenport, C. 2012, Cassius Dio and Caracalla, CQ 62, 796-815. Eck, W. 2019, Hadrian mit dem Titel ›proconsul‹ als Bauherr in Rom. Zur Neuinterpretation von CIL VI 40518, einer stadtrömischen Bauinschrift, Archäologisches Korresp. Blatt 49, 195-205. Forni, P. 2021, Caracalla – Père de la citoyenneté universelle? Paris. Gilliam, G. J. 1986, Roman Army Papers. Grégoire, H. 1909, Rapport sur un voyage d'exploration dans le Pont et en Cappadoce, BCH 33, 3-169. Halfmann, H. 1986, Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im römischen Reich, Stuttgart. Hekster, O. / Kaizer, T. 2012, An accidental tourist? Caracalla's fatal trip to the temple of the Moon at Carrhae/Harran, AncSoc 42, 89-107, Hostein, A. / Lalanne, S. (eds.) 2012, Les voyages des empereurs dans l’Orient romain. Époques antonine et sévérienne. Arles. Imrie, A. 2021, Caracalla and ‘Alexander’s Phalanx’: Caught at a Crossroads of Evidence, Greece & Rome 68, 222-238. Kienast D. / Eck W. / Heil, M. 2017, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. 6th edition, Darmstadt. Kolb, A. 2003, Caracalla und Raetien, Tyche 18, 21-30. Kovács, P. 2012, Der Besuch von Caracalla in Pannonien, AArchHung 63, 381–394. Królczyk, K. 2011, Der Germanenfeldzug des Kaisers Caracalla im Lichte der amicis et discipulis dedicata -219. Kühnen, A. 2008, Die «imitatio Alexandri» in der römischen Politik (1. Jh. v. Chr. – 3. Jh. n. Chr.). Münster. Langford, J. 2016, Caracalla and Alexandri Imitatio: Self-Presentation and the Politics of Inclusion. In: J. Hawke (ed.), Hetairideia. Chicago: 305-38. Lehnen, J. 2001, Profectio Augusti. Zum kaiserlichen Zeremoniell des Abmarsches. Gymnasium 108, 18-33.  171 Letta, C. 1994, Il “naufragio” di Caracalla in Cassio Dione, nell’Historia Augusta e nei Commentari degli Arvali, ZPE 103, 188-190. Marichal, R. 1977, Introduction. In: Chartae Latinae Antiquiores, vol. IX. Olten. Meister, J. 2013, Adventus und Profectio: Aristokratisches Prestige, Bindungswesen und Raumkonzepte im republikanischen und frühkaiserzeitlichen Rom, MusHelv 70, 33-56. Merkelbach, R. / Stauber, J. 2001, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, vol. 3: Der "Ferne Osten" und das Landesinnere bis zum Taurus. Berlin. Millar, F. 1964, A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford. Millar, F. 1993, The Roman Near East. 31 B.C.-A.D. 337. London. Molina Martin, A. I. 2015, Desmontando un tirano perfecto: Caracalla y la imitatio Alexandri, SHAA 33, 223-250 Mrav, Z. 2007, Adversus Parthos. Neue Angaben zur Teilnahme der pannonischen Legionen an den Partherfeldzügen von Septimius Severus und Caracalla, Folia Archaeologica 53, 118-154. Nollé, J. 1996, Die Krankheit des Kaisers Caracalla, Münzenrevue 28, H. 5, 26-33. -262. Opreanu, C. H. 2015, Caracalla and Dacia. Imperial Visit, a Reality or only Rumour? Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 2/2, 16–23. Pangerl, A. 2013, Porträttypen des Caracalla und des Geta auf römischen Reichsprägungen – Definition eines neuen Caesartyps des Caracalla und eines neuen Augustustyps des Geta, AK 43, 99-116. Pattersen, L. E. 2013, Caracalla’s Armenia, Syllecta Classica 24, 173-199. Piso, I. / Deac, D. 2018, Eine neue kaiserliche Statuenbasis aus Buciumi und Caracallas Reise nach Dakien. Limes XXIII. Mainz: 756-762. Raycheva, M. 2016, On Caracalla, Elephants and the Alexandreia Games in Philippopolis. In: M. Slavova / N. Sharankov (eds.), Studia Classica Serdicensia V, Monuments and Texts in Antiquity and Beyond. Sofia: 276-289 Robert, L. 1940, Les gladiateurs dans l’Orient grec. Paris. Rosenberger, V. 1992. Bella et Expeditiones. Die antike Terminologie der Kriege Roms. Stuttgart. Rüpke, J. 1990, Domi Militiae. Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom. Stuttgart. Rutten, L. 2011, Caracallas Weg durch Thrakien: eine Rekonstruktion aufgrund der numismatischen Zeugnisse. Geldgeschichtliche Nachrichten 258, 293-295. Sartre, M. 2022, Historical Narrative, in: T. Kaizer (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East. Oxford: 9-21. 172 Sayar, M. H. 1998, Perinthos – Geschichte, Testimonien, griechische und lateinische Inschriften. Vienna. Scheid, J. 1998, Commentarii fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt, Rome. Scheid, J. 1998a, Le protocole arvale de l’année 213 et l’arrivée de Caracalla à Nicomédie, In: Epigrafia romana in area adriatica. Macerata: 439-451. Speidel, M. A. 2020, Protectors and Assassins - Caracalla’s guards on the day he died, In: C. Wolff / P. Faure (eds.), Corps du chef et gardes du corps dans l’armée romaine, Lyon: 421-431. Speidel, M. P. 1984, Roman Army Pay Scales I, Amsterdam. Speidel, M. P. 1992, Roman Army Studies II, Stuttgart. Stoll O. 2022, The Roman Armies in the Near East. In: T. Kaizer (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic and Roman Near East. Oxford: 337-349. Syme, R. 1968, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta. Oxford. Syme, R. 1988, Journeys of Hadrian, ZPE 73, 159-170. Syvänne, I. 2017, Caracalla. A Military Biography. Barnsley. Weiss, P. 2015, Eine honesta missio im Sonderformat: Neuartige Bronzeurkunden für Veteranen der Legionen in Germania superior unter Gordian III., Chiron 45, 23-75. Wheeler, E. 2004, The Legion as Phalanx in the Late Empire, Part I, in: Y. Le Bohec / C. Wolff (eds.), L’armée romaine de Dioclétian à Valentinien Ier. Paris: 309-58. Whittaker, C. R. 1969, Herodian, vol. I, Cambridge.