Who Were the 'Viri Militares'?

Author(s): Brian Campbell

Source: The Journal of Roman Studies , 1975, Vol. 65 (1975), pp. 11-31
Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/370060

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of Roman Studies

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE 'VIRI MILITARES '? *

By BRIAN CAMPBELL

It has become the accepted view that a certain group of ' viri militares ' can be identified
among the legates who governed the consular military provinces in the Roman empire.,
The question of these ' specialist soldiers ' is relevant to the understanding of how appoint-
ments to military commands were made, and, more generally, to the political history of the
empire. For it can be argued that ' viri militares ' were important not only because they
were responsible for the defence of the empire and could raise revolts with their armies,
but also because, as a group, they were particularly influential with the emperor. And so
Professor Sir Ronald Syme, to whose work we owe most for the concept of ' viri militares ',
speaks of a ' paramount oligarchy ' that was ' drawn in the main from the men who govern
the armed provinces of Caesar '*2 Now, Syme recognized a wide variety of factors that
might influence the selection of consular legates. However, his theory of ' viri militares '
tends to be repeated without qualification as accepted doctrine, and in the hands of those
who do not mark his caution lends itself to a rather schematic approach and mechanical
solutions.3 This incurs the danger to which Syme himself has adverted: 'Historians in
all ages become liable through their profession to certain maladies or constraints. They
cannot help making persons and events more logical than reality '4
In this context there is room for further enquiry, and this paper seeks to investigate
the category of the ' viri militares ' from Vespasian to Severus Alexander, and their place in
Roman society, through an examination of the consular legates, their likely military experience
and the criteria for their appointment. It will be evident that this study pursues themes
and methods suggested by Professor Syme's own work. If it is necessary to disagree with
some of his conclusions, this will be done only with awareness of how much is owed to
the stimulation of his original ideas and meticulous scholarship.
For the sake of clarity we may begin with Syme's succinct and categorical definition
of ' virn militares 'There is an especially favoured class of " viri militares "-men who
pass straight to the consulate after only two posts, viz. a legionary command and a prae-
torian province'. 'The successful " vir militaris" .. can reach the consulate a dozen
years from the quaestorship, seven or eight years from the praetorship. That is to say he
is consul at 37 or 38 '.5
Now, in several places Tacitus uses the words vir militaris and similar phrases. What
did he understand by this? In some of the passages he is clearly referring to ordinary
soldiers or junior officers.6 There are four passages relevant to senatorial commanders.
(i) H 2. 75. I: ' versabatur ante oculos Germanici exercitus robur, notum viro militari '.
Tacitus means only that Vespasian had the limited experience and knowledge available to
one who had commanded armies. (ii) A I 5. 26. 3: Corbulo spoke ' multa auctoritate, quae
viro militari pro facundia erat'. Tacitus is saying simply that Corbulo's prestige and
reputation as a good general served instead of eloquence to convince his audience. And the
statement is hardly a generalization (erat not est is used); he means 'this individual' with
military experience. (iii) Ag. 9. :z: ' credunt plerique militaribus ingeniis subtilitatem
deesse ...' This is surely a commonplace not derived from contemporary Roman ex-
perience, and reflects the common belief that men of some military talent lack finesse.7
(iv) Ag. 40. 4: ' ceterum uti militare nomen, grave inter otiosos . . .'. The idea that
energetic military commanders are envied and disliked by civilians is surely another common-
place. Tacitus quite clearly uses the phrase vir militaris to refer to anyone who had some

* I am under heavy obligation to Professor P. A. 3The cautious views of Syrme have become
Brunt, Dr. F. G. B. Millar and Mr. M. W. doctrine for W. Eck, 'Zu den prokonsularen Le-
Frederiksen, who read this paper and made many gationen in der Kaiserzeit', Epig. Stud. 9 (i972), 24.
helpful comments. None of them is responsible for For a schematic solution to the problem, see J. Fitz,
the views expressed. Acta Antiqua 9 (I 96 i), I 93; i i ( I963), 306.
"E. B. Birley, PBA 39 (1953), 197; YRS 40 Tacitus, 435.
(I95o), 6o; R. Syme, YRS 43 (I953), I5z; 47 'JRS 47, OP. cit., 1134-5.
(I957), I33; 48 (1958), z; Hist. I4 (I965), 342; H3. 73. 2; A4. 42. 2; 15- O. I.; I5. 67. 3.
Dantubian Papers (r971); G. Alf6ldy, BJ i69 (i969), 7cf. Cornelii Taciti De Vita Agricolae, ed. R. M.
233. Ogilvie and I. A. Richmlond (i967), 159.
2 Tacituts (5958), 50.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 BRIAN CAMPBELL

experience of military life or had chanced to make a reputation in warfare. There is no

real sign that such men were regarded as a homogeneous group with special characteristics.
In fact the accepted view of ' viri militares ' owes much to prosopographical studies-
the investigation of the careers of consular legates in the empire. As this paper makes
extensive use of career inscriptions, it is requisite to sound a note of caution about this
type of source material. A list of offices carved on stone can tell us only that a man held
these posts; it cannot tell us why he held them, if their tenure is indicative of excellence
or merit, if he acquitted himself well in them, how he was appointed to them. The limita-
tions of the evidence must be recognized. In what follows, section I deals with the view
that ' viri militares ' held only a legionary legateship and the governorship of a praetorian
province before the consulate, and examines the significance of these posts. Section II
discusses the idea of an early consulate for the ' vir militaris '. Section III considers the
general military experience of legati Augusti, section IV the reasons for the importance of
the consular commands and section V the general attitude of the Romans to service of the
State.

The Appendix lists 73 men, between the Flavians and Severus Alexander, who held
one or more consular legateships, and whose pre-consular career is known in detail. The
amount of evidence increases all the time with the discovery of new inscriptions, and this
list is not necessarily complete. However, the number of complete careers of consular
legates that may come to light is not likely to be large enough to distort the figures used
in this study.8 The proposed criteria for identifying 'viri militares' are rigorous-they
must hold only a legionary legateship and a praetorian province before the consulate. But
only 9 (iz%) out of the 73 show this pattern.9 Of these indeed, 2, Iulius Quadratus Bassus
and Lollius Urbicus, had found time to be legate of a proconsul in their pre-praetorian
career. In addition, Urbicus, instead of holding a praetorian province, was legate of
Hadrian in the Jewish war. Again, Memmius Macrinus was sent by Hadrian on a re-
cruiting mission in Italy after his praetorship, and before he had held any other posts.
The definitions cited above give the impression that ' viri militares' were a large group,
comprising at least a substantial proportion of senators in important commands.'0 But
if only Iz% of consular commanders can be identified as 'yvri militares' on the criterion
of praetorian posts held, surely the tenure of a legatus legionis post followed only by the
governorship of a praetorian province cannot be the typical approach to a consular com-
mand. In fact 43 out of the 73 hold 3 or more regular praetorian posts; several hold as
many as 6.1" Furthermore 54 (c. 73 %) out of the 73 hold some praetorian civil post
their career.12 This does not suggest the existence of a military caste, but ordinary senators
who served the state in whatever capacity it demanded.
It is necessary now to examine the significance of the legionary legateship and the
praetorian provinces in the careers of consular legates. Undoubtedly a high proportion

8 The 73 men listed form a sample of about 12/15 pattern of praetorian career was norrnal for most
per cent of the presumed consular legates in the consular legates.
period under review. There were about Io consular 11 Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, II, I3, I4, I5, i6, i8, 19, 20,
provinces from 70-98, giving C. 300 posts, and iIx/I2 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 4!, 42, 44,
provinces from 98-235, giving over I,6oo posts. 45, 49, 52, 53, 56t 59, 6o, 6i, 62, 63, 64, 6
Therefore a total of c. 2,000 posts at an average tenure
73. Those holding 6 posts or more: nos. 7 (8 posts),
of c. 243 years (see below, n. I49) means that there 9 (7), I8 (6), 32 (6), 33 (8), 73 (7?). Cf. Birley,
were about 650-800 posts to be filled. 26 of the 73 o.c. (n. I), 204: ' . . . men who had to serve in three
men in the list held two legateships; 7 held three. or more posts at that stage in their careers were
Hence we know the careers of c. Io6 legates in 70- plainly not strong candidates for consular appoint-
235. ments'.
9Nos. I, 8, 30, 31, 36, 40, 43, 50, 71. The numbers 12 Those not holding any civil posts in their prae-
correspond to the number given to each senator in torian career are: nos. I, 8, io (no posts at all), 14,
the Appendix. 15, 17 (?), 28, 3I, 36, 40, 43, 46 (no posts at all), 48,
10 e.g. Professor Birley's attempt, o.c. (n. I), 204 f., 50, 5I (?), 54 (?), 56, 65, 68. (?) indicates that the
to explain away all examples that do not fit his career is perhaps not complete. For no. 54 see
definition that consular legates must hold only twoliterature cited in Appendix.
praetorian posts, presupposes a belief that this

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE 'VIRI MILITARES'? I3

of consular commanders served as legatus legionis (58 out of the 73).13 However, if we may
assume an average tenure of 2-3 years in this post, about 8-Io legionary legates would
be required every year.'4 Not many senators held two such posts, and not all praetors, of
whom there were I8 annually, would wish to continue in the career. It stands to reason
therefore that most praetorian senators who wished to continue in the cursus would be
legionary legate at some time. Thus, the tenure of this post need not imply anything about
the direction of a man's future career, and its presence in the career of a consular legate
does not necessarily mean that it was thought an essential prerequisite for the performance
of his duties in a consular province.
Particular importance is attached to the imperial praetorian provinces. ' Consular
legates are drawn in the main from the governors of the imperial praetorian province
To this group should be added the prefects of the public treasury. This post is commonly
seen as equipollent to a praetorian province, and plays the same part in a man's career.16
For generally it immediately precedes the consulate. Out of the T5 examples in my lis
73, I2 hold the post just before the consulate, i does not do so, and 2 are doubtful.'7 But
it is hard to see how three years spent keeping the books would prepare a man for a consular
command. It seems that c. i6% of the legates in the list were conveyed to the consulate
by a post that could contribute little to their ability to govern a military province. In fact
of the 73 legates in the list, only 38 or 39 (c. 53%) can be identified in an imperial praetorian
province before the consulate."8 Now, a praetorian legateship, or the command of a legion,
or the prefecture of the public treasury are the posts that most regularly convey senators
to the consulate. In the second century these occupied 13, 23 and 2 men respectively each
year. In that case one might expect c. 35% of those proceeding to the consulate to be men
who had held a praetorian governorship. And so the fact that over 50% of the men in the
list had held a praetorian province has some significance. But it merely indicates the
prominent place at the apex of the praetorian career which the tenure of such a post, with
its wide responsibilities, was bound to occupy.
It is true that senators who held an armed praetorian province comprise c. 63% of
those who governed praetorian provinces,19 although up to the second half of the second
century there were 8 civil and only 4 or 5 military praetorian provinces-Arabia, Numidia,20
Pannonia Inferior, Dacia and Iudaea. (Iudaea became consular perhaps as early as I23; 21
in Marcus' reign Raetia and Noricum acquired a legion and a praetorian legate). But this
perhaps indicates only that a province containing troops was naturally more important in
imperial deliberations and would most often be given to men with the emperor's out-
standing favour who would subsequently tend to obtain more of the important posts in his
gift. In general it should be emphasized that the evidence for the legates of praetorian
military provinces in subsequent consular legateships is surprisingly slight. Only 33%
of the senators in the list had actually served in an armed praetorian province, and it is
legitimate to ask how far a civil governorship e.g. that of Agricola in Aquitania, could
prepare a future consular legate for his duties in that post. Moreover, to take Numidia and

13 Those who reasonably certainly were not legatus (C. lulius Severus (no. 35) is excluded since he was
legionis: nos. 4, 10, 12, 13, 21, 34, 46, 47, 48, 55, 58, legatus Augusti of the usually proconsular Bithynia,
70, 73. It is legitimate to include equites here since
and this crisis move cannot be seen as typical of
most held the usual praetorian posts after their appointments to imperial praetorian provinces). In
adlection. Note that nos. 24 and 54 are doubtful and
these figures the tenure of the legateship of the III
that no. 57 was legatus legionis when he was of Augusta is taken as equivalent to a praetorian pro-
quaestorian rank. vince. Those in this category are: 8, I6, 29, 43,
14 See below, n. 8o, for length of tenure. There 45, 68. In this I follow Professor Syme and other
were C. 23 posts for legionary legates in the second scholars, who classify the post in this way. It is not
century. until Severan times that it can properly be termed the
15 Syme, Tacitus, 649. legateship of Numidia.
8 Syme, Hist. 14 (1965), 358. 19 See n. x8.
17 Immediately preceding the consulate: nos. 7, 20 This term is used throughout for convenience.
II, 21, 25, 35, 37, 47, 55, 58, 62, 67, 72. Doubtful: 21 See H. G. Pflaum, Israel Exploration Yournal I9
4, 63. Not immediately preceding: 33. (I969), 225; E. Schurer, History of the Jewish
18 In what follows those in an armed province are People in the age of Jesus Christ I, ed. Vermes and
italicized: i, 2, 6, 8, 9, I4 (?), I6, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, Millar ('973), 5x4, 5i8; L. J. F. Keppie, LatomUs 32
29, 30, 3I, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 42, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, (I973), 859. Cf. p. I84 below.
52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 6o, 6s, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71,

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I4 BRIAN CAMPBELL

Dacia as specific illustrations,22 from A.D. 98-235 there are 47 attested legates of the III
Augusta, and subsequently of Numidia; these include 4 incerti and there are four or five
gaps.23 Of the 47, only IO (C. 2I%) are attested in consular provinces.24 From Trajan to
Antoninus Pius, indeed, only 4 consular legates are known who had previously served in
Numidia, as Professor Syme points out.25 Finally, of the 73 legates in the list, only 6 had
been legate of the III Augusta (see Appendix). For Dacia, from I20 to i6i there are Io
attested legates, with possibly 4 gaps. Of these, 5 are attested in subsequent consul
provinces.26

By themselves these figures offer little support for the contention that consular lega
were drawn in the main from the imperial praetorian provinces. They suggest that these
provinces, and in particular the military provinces, cannot have played a major role in the
careers of the so-called ' viri militares ', or consular legates in general. It might, however,
be argued that an emperor like Trajan, who had himself commanded armies, would show
especial appreciation of military talent and experience. Hence it is worth while to examine
the careers of consular legates in this reign.27 The most striking impression is that many of
the identifiable legates were men of culture and learning. lavolenus Priscus was a dis-
tinguished jurist, and was possibly appointed to Syria by Trajan.28 This is parallelled
by the case of Salvius Iulianus, honoured ' propter insignem doctrinam ' by Hadrian and
sent to govern Lower Germany by Pius.29 It is a significant paradox that jurists should be
found in military commands, for the legal profession required long and diligent study.
Such men cannot be seen as professional soldiers. Presumably they accepted a command
if an outstanding need arose or because of their own ambitions. Licinius Sura, who was
undoubtedly the most important man in the reign, and accompanied Trajan on his cam-
paigns, was praised by Martial as an orator.30 In the same category, perhaps, is L. Fabius
Iustus to whom Tacitus dedicated the Dialogus.31 Pompeius Falco, man of letters and
friend of Pliny, was consular legate of Lower Moesia under Trajan, who may also have
appointed him to Britain.32 Avidius Quietus and Sosius Senecio, both consular legates,
and Vibius Maximus (Prefect of Egypt), were renowned for their literary interests.33
Hadrian himself, despite his attested interest in military affairs, was not a specialized
soldier. He was involved in literary pursuits and even composed some verse.34 Indeed,
where evidence exists, Trajan's legates do not display the characteristics of a group of
dedicated soldiers. They have variegated backgrounds and, as Syme points out, ' seem
to form a heterogeneous company '.35 This evidence also helps to show the conventional,
commonplace nature of the literary references noted above, that men who commanded
armies lacked finesse and found oratory hard going.38
What is known of the praetorian careers of Trajan's legates? Between 92 and io6,
37 consular legates are attested in office-a reasonable sample for the period.37 But the

22 The evidence for Noricum and Raetia is very 28 PIR2 I 114.

poor; see G. Winkler, Die Reichsbeamten von 29 R IA, 2023. 14.
Noricum (I969); E. Ritterling, Fasti des rom. 30 6. 64. 13. C. Plin., Ep. 4. 30. I I; 7. 27. 15.
Deutschland (I932). There is little evidence for 31 I. I.
Arabia before the Severi; see H. G. Pflaum, Syria 32 Plin., Ep. 4. 27; 7. 22; 9. I 5; ILS 1035-6.
34 (1957), 130. 3 Avidius Quietus-Tacitus, 52; Sosius Senecio-
23Evidence in B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter Tacitus, 5o5; Vibius Maximus-Statius, Silvae 4.
der rom. Prov. Nordafrikas (I960), i6i f. And see 7. 52 f.
now RE Supp. 13, 318 f. 34 See H. Bardon, Les Empereurs et les lettres
24 L. Minicius Natalis, P. Metilius Secundus, Sex. latines d'Auguste a Hadrien (1940), 415 f.
Iulius Maior, T. Memmius Macrinus, C. Prastina 35 Tacitus, 52. Cf. G. Alfoldy, o.c. (n. I), 234 and
Pacatus Messallinus, Vespronius Candidus, Q. 239 f. He appears to believe in a ' halbdilettantische
Anicius Faustus, Claudius Gallus, M. Valerius HeeresfUhrung '. But he accepts the usual views on
Senecio, Ti. Iulius Pollienus Auspex (?). deliberate patterns of promotion for consular legates
25 Hist. 24 (I965), 357, n. 67. (240 f.).
26 Evidence in A. Stein, Die Reichsbeamten von
36 See above, p. i I f.
Dazien (I944), i9 f. And see the review by Syme, 3t Tacitus, 645 f. From the 37 it is reasonable to
Danubian Papers, i6o f. Those attested in further remove the 3 incerti, who may be identical with
commands after the consulate: Iulius Severus, named legates in the list. 5 of the remaining 34 held
Papirius Aelianus, Curtius Iustus, Sedatius Severi- at least two consular posts. Therefore c. 39 named
anus, M. Statius Priscus. legates are known in 92-I06, when (assuming a
a7 The evidence is conveniently assembled in tenure of c. z2 years) there should be about 6o, i.e. a
Tacitus, App. I4-6. sample of about 66 per cent.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES' ? I5

evidence offers little support for the idea that consular commanders should hold a praetorian
governorship and a legatus legionis post. Only I I of 37 are recorded in any praetorian posts.
7 or possibly 8 of these held a praetorian legateship; 3 certainly did not.38 Although the
evidence is slight, these figures have some significance. But it must also be emphasized
that there is little sign of any specialized soldiers among this group. Only 3 had served in
an armed praetorian province (Syme: nos. I6, I9, 30). 2 served as iuridici in their praetorian
career, and indeed Priscus was a distinguished jurist (nos. I I, I6). Antius Iulius Quadratus
(no. i8) had no military experience, but had held 5 civil posts including a praetorian
proconsulate, and was rather elderly.39 4 out of the 8 are not clearly attested in command
of a legion (nos. I5, i8, 30, 32).4? Only Quadratus Bassus (no. I9) and Licinius Sura (no.
I4-and he only if it be assumed that he is the subject of ILS I022) 41 in any way fit the
usual view of the military man.
Furthermore, the careers of those who can be defined as the 'younger Trajanic mar-
shals ' 42 give little impression that they were specialized ' viri militares '. Of the 7 whose
careers are fully known, only 4 are attested in consular provinces. Quadratus Bassus (see
above) emerges as the only example of a well-tried soldier. L. Catilius Severus was prefect
of both treasuries in turn, praef. frum. dand., curator of a road and legate of a legion before
becoming consul. This is hardly the rapid advance of the proven military man. Despite his
many civil posts, he was appointed to the new province of Cappadocia and the two Armenias
at a crucial time in the Parthian war. Although Minicius Natalis and Pompeius Falco held
a preponderance of military posts in their praetorian careers, both were unemployed after
their consulates (io6 and io8 respectively) until about ii6, when they received consular
posts.43 This is very strange if they were specially-promoted military men. Of the 3 not
attested in consular commands, the careers of 2 (Priscus and Maximus) are a complete
mystery, while Proculus is attested in two consular civil posts. In fact several of Trajan's
legates (with their careers fully known) had little or no military experience. Calvisius
Ruso became a consular legate after being proconsul of Asia and holding no praetorian
posts at all. Neratius Priscus became legate of Pannonia, although his only praetorian post
was prefect of the public treasury.44 The predominantly civil careers of Antius Iulius
Quadratus and L. Catilius Severus have been discussed above.
In view of the contention that the tenure of posts in senatorial provinces did not
indicate the likelihood of future military commands,45 it is interesting to note that, although
only 2 of Trajan's legates are known to have served as praetorian proconsul or legate of a
praetorian proconsul (nos. i8, i9), one of these is Quadratus Bassus, possibly the most
distinguished commander of the reign. Moreover, as the imperial praetorian provinces
were naturally more prestigious than those of the Senate, it is reasonable that, normally,
men whom the emperor favoured (not necessarily for military ability) were reserved for the
former, and did not let their names go forward for sortition. After this an emperor would
prefer to employ in the higher posts men whom he knew, rather than those advanced by
sortition.
The examination of the consular legates of Trajan's reign has thus tended to confirm
the evidence of the list of 73 senators. Although most consular legates certainly held some
military praetorian post, either an armed province, or (more often) the legateship of a legion,
only about one quarter of them held both.46 And, as will be suggested below, the military
experience to be gained in these posts may often not have been great.47 Furthermore, it
is demonstrable that the number of consular legates who reached their commands after

38 Tacitus, 649. Syme's no. 1S is uncertain, since 42 TacitUs, App. i6. Those attested in consular
the inscription is very fragmentary and a legateship provinces: lulius Quadratus Bassus, L. Minicius
cannot be restored with confidence. In the following Natalis, Pompeius Falco, Catilius Severus.
section the numbers in brackets are those used by 43 Tacitus, 243.
Syme in App. 14. 44 Ruso-PIR2 C 350; Neratius Priscus-ILS
39 PIR 2 I 507. And see Tacitus, 53. Despite IGR 2034, and see Syme, HIermes 85 (1957), 480.
4. 336 (Syme, no. 3), it is only an assumption from 45 See Tacitus, 67, n. 5; E. Birley, o.c. (n. i), I98-
Quadratus' career that he was a friend of Trajan. 9; W. Eck Epig. Stud. 9 (1972), 24 f. See below p. 24.
40 Only Antius Iulius Quadratus (see n. 39) is 46 See below, n. 6i.
known definitely not to have commanded a legion. 47 pp. 19f.
41 C. P. Jones, YRS 6o (I970), 98 argues for Sosius
Senecio

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRIAN CAMPBELL

holding only two praetorian posts, viz. a legionary legateship and the command of a province
(armed or unarmed), was strikingly small. In general, neither of these posts was a necessary
condition of advancement to the great commands. It is of course reasonable that the tenure
of a praetorian province was seen as an indication of imperial favour that would also confer
the consulate. Thus Agricola held Aquitania with ' spes consulatus '.48 The governorship
of such provinces was after all one of the most prestigious posts which a man could hold
in the praetorian career. It is quite another matter to say that it was a necessary or even
regular part of the career of ' predestined viri militares '.49 Hence, while it may be a plausi-
ble hypothesis that individuals on occasion placed emphasis on the military aspects of the
praetorian career, and, with the emperor's approval, brought special expertise to the tenure
of a consular command, it is not possible to speak of a systematic attempt to promote such
men, or of a class of military men with a distinctive career.

II

The second part of the accepted definition requires that ' vyri militares ' were hurried
on to an early consulate so that they could hold the important commands as quickly as
possible. They should receive the consulate at 37 or 38, the norm being about 42. The
evidence for an investigation of this question is disappointingly slight. J. Morris has argued
that the ages of about io% (i8o names) of all known consuls can be established.50 Even
this may be too generous, since the ages of several of these men can be ascertained only
on the hypothesis that the offices of quaestor or tribunus plebis were held ' suo anno ', i.e. in
the first year in which a senator was entitled to hold them. It is by no means certain that
this assumption is valid in every case. What is more, even if a man did reach the consulate
quickly, it is often difficult to prove why he did so. It need not be due to his reputed merits
in war.
Professor Syme names six senators to exemplify the tendency for ' viri militares ' to
receive an early consulate:- Agricola, Larcius Priscus, Iulius Proculus, Pompeius Falco,
Quadratus Bassus, L. Minicius Natalis.5' Agricola was consul at 36. But this can be
explained in terms other than the rapid advancement of a ' vir militaris '. Agricola was
well trusted by the new regime. Mucianus gave him a special assignment in 69, and Tacitus
says that he was quick to go over to Vespasian's side.52 It is possible that Agricola was an
early partisan of the emperor, and therefore in line for speedy promotion. Furthermore,
as Morris points out, Agricola was adlected 'inter patricios ' in 73 (at the age of 32) and
was rewarded with the consulate (normally at 32 for patricians) at 36. This can be seen
rather as a delayed patrician consulate, because he was not yet of patrician rank when it
would have befallen him.53
Iulius Proculus and Pompeius Falco were consul at 38. But both these ages are
calculated on the assumption noted above, and cannot therefore be regarded as certain.
Proculus, in any case, is not attested in a consular province; he held two civil posts after
his consulate and on no definition can be called a 'vir militaris'. Falco, if he became
consul at 38, did not necessarily owe this to his reputed military ability. It may be explained
on the hypothesis that ' annus coeptus ' and the ' ius trium liberorum ' have reduced the
normal age.54 Of the other three men, Larcius Priscus is not recorded in any consular
post, and there is no certain evidence for the consular age of Bassus and Natalis.
The other evidence for consular legates in general indicates that most were over 40
when they became consul. It appears that few held offices in the cursus before they were
legally eligible. This means that if, for example, the dates of a man's consulate and
quaestorship are known, one can determine his minimum possible age at the consulate;
and that is sufficient for the present enquiry. On this basis the age of 2I consular legates
can be calculated securely enough to make investigation worth while. I4 held the consulate

48 Tac., Ag. 9. I. fied by Syme as 'yiri militares . To which add

49 For the phrase, cf. Syme, J7RS 48 (1958), 2. Agricola (p. 656).
5"Listy Filologicke 87 (I964), 3I6. There are 52 1g. 7. 5 and 7. 3.
about I,8oo known consuls. 5o Onc. (n. 5o), 322.
51 Tacitus, 65o-the first five in this list are classi- 64On these privileges see Morris, o.c. (n. so), 317.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES '? 17

at about the normal age; some were much older.55 Ummidius Quadratus was c. 50,
Verginius Rufus was 48, Statius Priscus, who began his career as an eques, was probably
over 50; P. Mummius Sisenna was about 48. Calvisius Ruso and Antius Iulius Quadratus
were fairly elderly before their consular commands under Trajan. Most of the seven 56
who had an early consulate can be satisfactorily explained in terms other than the deliberate
advancement of the military man. Vitellius had illustrious ancestry and Galba was
patrician-sufficient reason for their early consulates. Trajan too was patrician; the
exceptionally early tenure of the consulate by Hadrian can be accounted for by his family
connection with Trajan. Q. Veranius received his consulate as a reward, but not necessarily
for military activity.57 The conclusion is clear. Where evidence offers, neither the so-
called ' viri militares ' nor consular legates in general received early consulates. In fact it
was normally the men of high birth who held the consulship at an early age, and they tended
not to command armies.58
It has been shown that the two central tenets of the ' viri militares ' doctrine, viz. the
tenure of only two praetorian posts, and an early consulate, are not really supported by the
available evidence. The examination of the careers of consular legates (70-235) suggests
very different conclusions. Indeed the accepted doctrine has an element of paradox. The
object (it is claimed) was to produce quickly men of experience and ability for consular
commands. But the more quickly a man is promoted, the fewer posts he will hold and the
less experience he will have. If a man were being specially groomed for the duties of com-
manding an army in a consular province, one might expect that he should serve in two or
three legionary legateships or armed praetorian provinces. In fact, iterated legionary
commands are very rare,59 and there are only three examples of the tenure of two praetorian
provinces.60 It is remarkably difficult to find a purely military emphasis in the praetorian
career of most consular legates. Indeed, it is precisely those men who held several military
and civil praetorian posts who would be best suited for the duties of a consular legate.
For the legate must be capable of dealing with the army in his province and fulfilling the
normal civil duties which pertained to his office.

III

If one assumes that proved military ability was a major criterion in the appointinent
of a consular legate, it is necessary to presuppose that the legates had acquired good military
experience in previous posts. But the military tribunate, a legionary command and the
command of an armed praetorian province were the only military posts in the cursus.
About 75% of senators would arrive in a consular province with service in only two militar
posts, the tribunate and one of the other two available. For only zo out of the 73 hold both
a legionary command and an armed praetorian province.6' Only 3 held two legionary
commands and a military province.62 This being so, what military experience would be
obtained by a senator who served as tribunus militum, and in one or both of the two regular
praetorian military posts open to him? Was there any systematic attempt to prepare men in
these posts for higher commands?

66 Some of the men in this list are not recorded in 5 had been consules ordinarii: Trajan (9i) ;
any praetorian posts and are not contained in the Cornelius Palma and Sosius Senecio (99); P.
sample of 73. A few of them date from before 70. Mummius Sisenna (I33); Calpurnius Artilianus
The 14 are: Ummidius Quadratus (over 50); (135). Only i is known to have been of consular
Vespasian (4I), Verginius Rufus (48); Corellius family-Trajan. Evidence in W. Eck, Senatoren von
Rufus (c. 42); L. Julius Ursus Servianus (c. 42); Vespasian bis Iladrian (1970).
Rutilius Gallicus (c. 42); Glitius Agricola (42); 69 Nos. 14, 15, 33, 56, 65, 67.
P. Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus (c. 41); Claudius 60 Possibly Pompeius Falco (ILS 1035-6); CIL 3.
Maximus (over 43); M. Statius Priscus (over 50); 254; Iunius Faustinus Postumianus-PIR 2 I 75I
Didius lulianus (4I); P. Helvius Pertinax (48); 61 Nos. i(?), 2, 8, i6, 24, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 42, 43,
L. Septimius Severus (43); P. Mummius Sisenna 45, 49, 50, 53, 56, 59, 64, 65. It should be noted that
(c. 48). Hadrian (no. i) had an unusual career, being comes
56 Those cited in the text and Plautius Silvanus of Trajan in Dacia when he was still quaestor, and
Aelianus (PIR 1 P 363), Iulius Frontinus (PIR 2 I legate of a legion when still holding the office of
322). praetor. His appointments may owe more to the
67 A. E. Gordon, Quintus Veranius, ConIsul A.D. 49 desirability of placing a kinsman and friend in
(I952), 246-54. militarily important posts, than to the needs of the
58 For example, between 96/7 and I38/9, of the 6o administration. Nos. 14 and 54 are doubtful.
men who held datable consular legateships, only 62 Nos. 33, 56, 65.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I8 BRIAN CAMPBELL

(i) Professor E. Birley claimed that 'the strongest candidate for military commands'
started his career in certain posts of the XXvirate.63 But it is surely impossible to suppose
that at an age when they had never seen an army or performed any public service, young
men were marked out as great generals of the future. Tenure of a certain XXvirate office
may indicate imperial favour towards a young man's family; it cannot indicate that he was
expected to become a consular legate.
(ii) The fundamental problem about the military tribunate is the length of tenure.
If it lasted for only one year it could not provide much training for the nascent general.
Professor Birley argued for a tenure of more than one year on the grounds that there were
about 27 posts available for a laticlavius and only 20 candidates every year in the XX-
virate.64 But, (a) it is not necessary to believe that every legion had a laticlavius in service
all the time; (b) it is possible to argue that any tribune of senatorial birth was a laticlavius,
not that each legion had to have one and only one laticlavius. Now, Pliny speaks of a six-
months equestrian tribunate (semestris), as being in the governor's power to bestow.65 The
term semestris suggests that the normal tenure was one year,66 and the senatorial tribunate
can probably be taken as comparable to the equestrian in this respect. Very few tribunes
are known to have served as tribune in more than one legion, as e.g. Hadrian served in
three.67 However it might be argued that some men served a second term in the same legion,
and it must be admitted that no certain solution to the problem is attainable. And so it
is unsafe to use the length of tenure as an argument for or against the amount of military
experience the tribunate imparted. Other evidence must be examined.
Now, the tribunate was no doubt intended to give young men some military experience.
Augustus believed that they should not be ' expers castrorum '.68 Pliny says that in the
tribunate the young learnt 'imperare parendo, duces agere dum sequuntur '.69 But all
this may mean no more than that a gentleman should at least have seen an army before
entering the Senate. Dio says of one Iulius Calvester, KEXAtaPX7)KL0 E5g f3ovAEaSa e'ATia.70
Thus the military tribunate could be seen merely as a means of preparing a young man for
membership of the Senate. Statius, writing about the tribunate of Crispinus, the son of
Vettius Bolanus, says, 'He who opens the way for you to the eagles and the camp, will
also grant that you hold all the ranks of office, be surrounded by the proud fasces and sit
upon your father's curule chair '.71 Crispinus, who is only i6 years old, is expected to become
a great soldier, but his tribunate is seen as the first step to future honours in the whole
sphere of Roman civil life, not as a specifically military training: ' En ! ingens reserat tibi
limen honorum Caesar et Ausonii committit munia ferri '. When Statius concludes, ' Vade
alacer maioraque disce mereri', he means a distinguished career in all the offices of the
Roman state. Furthermore, it is known from Pliny that a good performance in the tri-
bunate could help a man when he sought higher civil offices.72
There is no sign of formal training in the post. It depended on the individual what
he made of it. Pliny spent some of his time auditing the accounts of the auxilia in Syria.73
Trajan, on the other hand, was alleged to have spent ten years as tribune.74 Pliny's Pane-
gyric is not the most reliable of sources for the details of Trajan's career, and we may
reasonably doubt that the young Trajan was quite as enthusiastic as this.75 That is not to
deny that some men who were attracted to the military arts, would seek to benefit as much
as possible from their tribunate. Agricola, when tribune in Britain, got to know the army
and the province. But Tacitus thought this worth mentioning-for many young men

63 o.c. (n. I), 204 f. OSSuet., Aug. 38. 2.

84 o.c. (n. I), 200-I. 69Ep. 8. 14. 4 f
65Ep. 4. 4. 2. See A. N. Sherwin-White, The 70 67. II. 4.
Letters of Pliny (i966), 269. 71 Silv. 5. z. I64 f., 173, i8o. Note that lines 8-9
66The Thorigny inscription (H. G. Pflaum, Le refer only to the start of service in the first military
Marbre de Thorigny (1948), 26 ff.) records that post, i.e. the tribunate, not the ' opening of a soldier's
Sollemnis received a ' semestris ' post, apparently at career ' as Mozley translates (Loeb, p. 289).
half pay. His pay was 25,000 HS; if it can be 72 Ep. 3. 20. 5, ' testes et laudatores dabat, vel eum
assumed that the full equestrian tribunate brought sub quo militaverat '. This is for the praetorship.
50,000, this would fit in well with the lowest pro- 78 Ep. 7. 3 I. I. For the duties of the post in general
curatorial salary. see Dig. 49. i 6. I12. 2.
67 ILS 308; io6I (no. 44); L. Marius Maximus 711Plin., Pan. 115.3.
(no. 42). 751 Tacitu, 3

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES ?

turned their tribunate into a debauch.76 Perhaps the enthusiastic tribune was not very
common. Certainly, some legates preferred as tribune not dour soldiers, but learned and
elegant companions.77 Finally, if there were no formal training, it stands to reason that
the military experience to be gained in this post would depend on the incidence of wars.
Obviously that could not be predicted, and though the needs of frontier defence were
perhaps a frequent problem, in time of general peace the military experience gained would
perhaps be minimal.
(iii) The same consideration applies to the legionary commands and the armed
praetorian provinces. In time of peace, how could military experience be gained? Of prime
importance is the length of tenure of the legatus legionis post. G. Alfoldy, from a study of
the Rhine armies, suggested 2-3 years.78 But there are vast gaps in the Fasti, and four
of his five ' certain ' cases may have a tenure of only l-2 years.79 However, in the few cases
cited by Ritterling in RE, where definite evidence exists, tenure is certainly more than one
year, e.g. Titus, Aurelius Fulvus, Spicius Cerialis and T. lulius Maximus all hold a
legionary command for at least three years; Fulvus held it for about five.80 And as no
evidence suggests annual tenure as a rule, it may be plausibly suggested, but not proved,
that the norm was about two or three years. That may be long enough to learn the art of
soldiering, but it would depend on the individual and the circumstances. There are perhaps
three relevant considerations:
(a) Although it was probably normal from the mid-first century for the post of legatus
legionis to be filled by men of praetorian rank, as late as 97 it could still be held by a senator
of quaestorian status.81 Apparently it was not the sole preserve of ex-praetors until the
second century. Even then it was not regarded as essential for a consular commander.
Carus Pedo, appointed as legionary legate by Hadrian, declined the post (' a cuius cura se
excusavit '), but became legate of Upper Germany under Pius.82 The inscription of a third-
century consular legate has' iuridicus vice legionis ', implying that he had omitted the post. 83
The language of these examples may suggest that the omission was abnormal. But out of
the 73 men in the list, at least 13 did not hold the post, i.e. about i8%.84 Notable examples
are Salvius Julianus and Dasumius Tullius Tuscus, who each governed two consular
provinces without having been legate of a legion.85 It seems that this post cannot be an
essential part of any preparation of men for consular commands.
(b) The post had formal military responsibilities, and was potentially very important,
as can be seen from the vital role which fell to Cerialis in the rebellion of Boudicca.86
Agricola himself served in Britain in the long war against the Brigantes.87 Vettius Valens,
Arrian's legate in Cappadocia in the time of Hadrian, commanded the right wing in the
battle against the Alani.88 The war against the Jews in 66-70 provided great scope for the
legionary legates to acquire military experience.89 All these examples depended on the
situation and the willingness of the legate to extend responsibility.90 There is no sign of
any formal training or a regular test of the legionary commander's abilities. When Cerialis
placed Agricola in charge of small bodies of troops, and then larger, depending on the
outcome,91 it was essentially an informal exercise of his personal discretion. Presumably
governors sent reports to the emperor on the general competence of their officers. But if

76Ag. 5. 2. 82 ILS 1071.

77 Observe Pliny's recommendation of Voconius 813 AE I1957. I6I.
Romanus to a consular comrnander-Ep. 2. 13. 6 ff.; 84 See above, n. 13.
cf. 8. 23. 5. 85 ILS 8973; Io8I. This is not a phenomenon of
78 Epig. Stud. 3 (I967), 85. the reign of Pius. Cf. nos. io and 34 under Trajan.
"' Antistius Rusticus, 79-8I; L. Munatius Gallus, 86 Tac., A 14. 32-3. This was not a distinguished
98-9; Tullius Varro 122-3/4; M. Priscus Plarianus, performance.
122-3 or I23-4; Cn. lunior Iustus, 234-5. 87 Tac., Ag. 8. 2 f.
80 RE, S.V. 'legio', cols. I529, 1537, 1546 f. Titus 88 'EKTwrdIs KTa& 'A\avcov 5; 24.
served in Iudaea from 66-9. 89 e.g. Josephus, BJ 2. 5IQ; 3. 289; 6. 13I f.;
81 ILS 1O55-the son of Larcius Lepidus, who was 6. 237.
himself a legionary legate of quaestorian rank under
90 Tacitus thought it worth mentioning that Agri-
Vespasian (ILS 987). Corbulo's son-in-law was cola avoided all ' contentio ' with his colleagues (9. 5)
legate of quaestorian rank under Nero (Tac.,and A did
I5. not stand in the way of his subordinates'
28. 3). Nero indeed appointed to legionary com- glory (22. 4). Perhaps this was not very common,
mands men beaten in the elections for the praetorship
cf. 8. 2.
(A I4. 28). 91 See n. 87.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 20 BRIAN CAMPBELL

the legatus legionis had been called on to do little of note in warfare, such reports cannot
have included much about his military ability. Possibly, only if he had proved himself
manifestly unsuitable for higher posts, would his future be jeopardized. Even a disastrous
legionary legateship need not impair a man's career. Cerialis found his disgraceful conduct
in Britain no impediment to his subsequent advancement. He was a relative of Vespasian.92
(c) It should be stressed that the legionary legate had certain administrative duties,
which no doubt figured prominently in any assessment of his character and ability. For-
mally the legatus legionis was the governor's deputy, and assumed complete control of the
province in his absence. Hence C. Iulius Severus, legate of IV Scythica, conducted the
affairs of Syria in the absence of the legate to deal with the Jewish revolt in I35.93 C.
Vettius Sabinianus was designated 'Leg. XIIII Gem. cum iurisdicatu Pan. Sup.'.94 It
seems that he was given jurisdiction on the death of, or during the absence of the governor
on operations outside the province. These examples show that the legionary legate was
regarded as the natural choice to assume the jurisdiction of a governor who could no longer
exercise it. No doubt such appointments were unusual, but they indicate that the legionary
legateship was not considered in purely military terms. An interesting question arises.
Could legati Augusti delegate legal jurisdiction to their legati legionum? Now, it seems clear
that legates of proconsuls exercised only mandated jurisdiction.95 Hence, although they
have imperium (implied in the title ' pro praetore '), they appear to have no jurisdiction of
their own. In the same way, since it can be argued that the emperor was theoretically
proconsul of his provinces, it is plausible to suppose that legati Augusti pro praetore,
although, like the legati proconsulum, having imperium,96 would receive only mandated
jurisdiction, and could not therefore delegate it to their legati legionum, as Roman law held
that mandated jurisdiction could not in turn be mandated to another.97
However, this runs contrary to the accepted view that imperium, although it is not the
only source of jurisdiction, is by its own nature one such source.98 And it would be an
anomaly if consular legates could not delegate, since proconsuls and the Prefect of Egypt
had this right.99 Indeed it is hard to see how they could avoid it. It is true that iuridici
are known to have been appointed in Britain and Spain. But this does not mean that
legionary legates were thought unsuitable for judicial duties. In Britain, when iuridici
were first appointed, probably under the Flavians,100 the three or four legionary legates and
their legions were stationed in the North and West.101 The most civilized area, which
presumably gave rise to most litigation, was in the South and East. The governor himself
will have been busy with military matters during the policy of expansion followed between
70 and the recall of Agricola; even during the winter he would be occupied with the
building of forts and the provision of supplies. Perhaps he and his legionary legates had
little time for civil duties. Spain was a large and disparate province which perhaps imposed
too many burdens on the governor and single legionary legate. It is true that from the mid-
second century the iuridicus was styled ' per Asturiam et Gallaeciam ,102 which is precisely
where the legion was stationed. But this should not be taken to mean that the legate of the
legion was thought unsuitable for legal duties. For under Severus several iuridici combined
their jurisdiction with the command of the legion.103 Other consular legates must have
required assistance with their legal duties, especially in a civilized and presumably litigious
province like Syria, where apparently there was no iuridicus. In this province the legions
were evenly spaced throughout the interior and their legates cannot often have been fully
occupied with military duties. It is natural to suppose that on many occasions the governor

92pR i9. I I38, ' Petilius ' (8). And note the case I am particularly indebted to Professor Brunt for
of Funisulanus Vettonianus (PIR2 F 570), who was advice on the following section.
legate with Caesennius Paetus at Rhandeia, and went '9 Implied again in their title 'pro praetore'.
on to govern three consular provinces under the 97 D I. ax. 5. pr. (Paul) ; 2. I. 5 (Iulianus).
Flavians. 98 Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to the Study of
93 ILS 8826 = IGR 3. 174; cf. ILS I055 (see Roman Law3, ed. Nicholas (I97I), 47, n. 9.
Syme, Tacitus, 631); cf. Josephus, BJr 7. 58. 99 D i. I7 (Ulpian) for the Prefect of Egypt. For
94 AE 1920. 45. proconsuls, see n. 95.
95 D i. i6. 13 (Pomponius); i. i6. 4. 6 (Ulpian); '00cf. ILS ioII and IOI5.
i. i6. 5 (Ulpian); i6. 6. pr.-2. Interpolationis unlikely, 101 cf. Ogilvie and Richmond, o.c. (n. 7), 76 f.
since in the fifth and sixth centuries there were no 102 G. AlfUldy, Fasti Hispanienses (i969), 8i f.
proconsuls and the question had no practical 103 Alfldy, o.c. 90, 94, 97.
relevance.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE 'VIRI MILITARES ' ?

must have delegated jurisdiction to his legionary legates. In addition, the iuridici of prae-
torian status show that it was thought desirable, at least on some occasions, to use men of
high status to decide important cases.104 In that event the legionary legates would be
particularly suitable and readily available in time of peace. Indeed it may be that iuridici
were appointed in provinces where the legati legionis were least likely to be able to cope,
and where the level of judicial activity justified the appointment of a separate official.
Finally, the evidence for the legionary legate's officium does not exclude the possibility
that he exercised legal jurisdiction. Domaszewski held that the legatus legionis was accom-
panied by none of the officials normally appointed for capital jurisdiction.'05 But in the
first place, it is not necessary to suppose that the legionary legate exercised capital juris-
diction (legati proconsulum did not).106 Secondly, the evidence for the commentarienses of
provincial governors is very poor, and therefore it need not be significant if legati legionis
are found with none.'07 In fact several inscriptions seem to show commentarienses of a
legion, and it is merely an assumption of scholars that these officials really belonged to the
consular legate.'08 The one inscription that does mention a ' commentariensis consularis
leg. VII Cl. Prov. Moes. Sup.','09 may indicate only that a legionary could be seconded
to serve in the governor's officium. It is reasonable to conclude that the evidence does n
confute, and to some extent supports, a contention that legati legionis exercised delegated
legal jurisdiction as part of their duties. If this is so, it is a further indication that they were
not expected to be mere soldiers. Obviously the first duty of the legionary legate was to
command his legion and see to its needs. But he might also be required to fulfil important
civil responsibilities, which could perhaps form a significant part of his activities in time
of peace. Similarly, although the governor of an armed praetorian province must have
devoted much of his time to supervision of the frontiers, at least in time of peace he could
hardly avoid the routine civil duties of a provincial governor. In many cases both these
posts will have contributed little to the military experience of the prospective consular
legate.
(iv) It is necessary at this point to turn in more detail to the question of the praetorian
military provinces. Is it possible to trace any pattern of promotion or planned attempts to
give experience to consular legates? Prosopographers have argued for a close correlation
between the praetorian province of Pannonia Inferior and the consular province, and
similarly between Dacia Superior and Moesia."10 J. Fitz believed in a ' pannonisches
Karriereschema ' that saw the pattern-leg. leg. in Pannonia, leg. Aug. pr. pr. in Pannonia
Inf., consul, leg. Aug. pr. pr. in Pannonia Superior (perhaps preceded by another Danubian
province). He named only eight examples that could be taken to justify this elaborate
idea."' Of these Attius Macro is not attested in a consular province. No legionary legate-
ship is attested for lallius Bassus, and Neratius Priscus almost certainly did not hold this
post in his career. Claudius Claudianus held his legionary command in Dacia, Pontius
Laelianus Larcius Sabinus perhaps in Germany. Claudius Maximus held a legionary
legateship in Pannonia, and subsequently governed the praetorian and then the consular
province. But after his legionary command he was iuridicus pr. pr. utriusque Pannoniae
and was also curator of the Via Aurelia in his praetorian career. After his consulate he
was curator aed. sac."2 This hardly suggests the rapid advancement of the man specially
trained for military duties in Pannonia. Furthermore, C. Vettius Sabinianus, although
technically complying with Fitz's scheme, was seconded from his legionary command to
exercise purely judicial duties in Pannonia. And his long praetorian career contained six

104 In the republic men to whom jurisdiction was 109 Von Premerstein, RE s.v. a comment. (col.
delegated did not have to be high officials, cf. 762. 7).
Mommsen, Staatsrecht I, 23I, n. 3; 232, n. 3. 110 Birley, Carnuntum yahrb. 3 (I957), 7-8; Syme,
105 Die Rangordnuncg des rdmischen Ileeres (ed. B. Hist. I4 (I965), 357; J. Fitz, o.cc. (n. 3).
Dobson, I967), 73. il 0o.c. (I96I), I93-4; (i963), 308, 317. Fitz
106 D i. i6. 6 pr. Indeed there is no way of telling originally confined his scheme to time of war, but
if the suggested jurisdiction of the legatus legionis he later dropped this qualification (I963, 308).
was contentiosa or voluntaria. 112 ILS io6z. This acephalous inscription is
107 Domaszewski, o.c. (n. I05), 31 lists only Io usually associated with Statilius Maximus. But Syme,
cases where the commentarienses of a provincial o.c. (n. Io0), 352 f.) strongly supports Fitz's sug-
governor are known. gestion that it should be referred to Claudius
108 CIL 2. 4422; 3. 4452; ILS 2383. Maximus. The iuridicus post is exceptional, probably
being held under L. Aelius Caesar.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 22 BRIAN CAMPBELL

civilian posts.113 This leaves only Nonius Macrinus from Fitz's 8 examples. And so, out
of I5 legates of Pannonia Inferior up to 214 whose careers are known,114 only 3 even tech
cally comply with his ideas, and 2 of these in no way support his contentions. Fitz com-
ments on his evidence, ' deren kleine Anzahl durch ihre Einstimmigkeit gewissermassen
aufgewogen wird '.115 This is hardly accurate, or acceptable in method. Fitz's approach
may appear extreme, and Professor Syme has branded it as 'far too schematic '.116 There
is more support, however, among scholars for the view that legates of Pannonia Inferior
normally progressed to the consular province.'17 This cannot be maintained. Between
I03-235, there are 2I governors attested in Pannonia Superior.'18 The pre-consular
career of I4 of these is known in sufficient detail. 6 certainly, and possibly 7, had previously
served in Pannonia Inferior. 2 of the 6 certain cases had governed other consular provinces
before returning to Pannonia."19 In fact Iallius Bassus was legate of Pannonia Superior
about ii years after governing the lower province. After that interval, this cannot be
significant. 7, or possibly 8, men certainly did not hold Pannonia Inferior before their
legateship in the consular province.'20 Among these, L. Aelius Caesar, who governed both
provinces together, Dasumius Tullius Tuscus and Cassius Dio had no military experience
whatever before entering the province. Septimius Severus had held only one military
post, the legionary legateship-in Syria in time of peace. These figures suggest that it is
impossible to believe in any deliberate or consistent policy of preparing future legates of
Pannonia Superior through the tenure of the lower province.
In the case of Dacia Superior and its supposed correlation with the two Moesian
provinces, there is not enough evidence to allow any convincing conclusions. From I20-61
there are I0 legates known by name. Only 5 of these are recorded in any subsequent posts.
Of the 5, 3 proceeded to either Moesia Superior or Inferior, 2, so far as is known, never
entered these provinces.'2'
Both these illustrations demonstrate how weakly-based are the arguments for patterns
of promotion in the careers of consular legates. In fact the word ' career ' is itself misleading,
with its connotations of service in one post for a continuous span of years. This is not to
deny that sometimes for a particular post men were selected for known experience in
military affairs. For example, it seems that during the long wars in Marcus' reign men
who had held praetorian posts in the critical Northern provinces frequently returned there
after the consulate, and were moved round to various points of crisis, e.g. Postumius
Aquilinus, Claudius Fronto, C. Vettius Sabinianus, Servilius Fabianus Maximus, lallius
Bassus, Helvius Pertinax.'22 Such appointments were only common sense in time of
military crisis. But it is essential to note that most of these men tended to hold one or
more of the usual consular civil posts before proceeding to the great commands. Even
Claudius Fronto, in his busy military career spent in the East and on the Danube, had
time to be curator operum publicorum.'23 Many of the equites who were adlected into the
Senate on this period, and pursued notable military careers, still held either praetorian or
consular civil posts.'24 The outstanding example is C. Vettius Sabinianus, whose career
has been discussed above. It is worth noting in addition that he held several special assign-
ments in the Danube area, earning military decorations. But after his consulship in 175,
he became curator of Puteoli and curator operum publicorum before proceeding to Tres
Daciae c. i8o.125

113 See n. 94. provinces together. Those who held other posts
114 Evidence in Fitz, o.c., I963 (n. 3); cf. Syme, before returning to Pannonia: no. 33 and Iallius
Danubian Papers, 225; A. Dobo, Die Verwaltung der Bassus.
r6mischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Dio- '20 Nos. 21, 23, 45, 6i, Commodus Orfitianus, L.
cletianus (i968). Aelius Caesar, Cassius Dio. The doubtful case:
l16 op. cit., i96i, p. I95. Claudianus (no. 14).
116 Danubian Papers, p. x88, I90, referring in the 121 Evidence in A. Stein, o.c. (n. 26), I9 f. Those
first instance to his treatment of the legates of Lower who proceed to Moesia: nos. 20, 36, 65. Those who
Moesia. do not: 50, 59.
117 See n. I IO. 122 Nos. 56, I5, 33, 62, 28. For Bassus see P12W
118 Evidence in W. Reidinger, Die Statthalter des I 4.
ungeteilten Pannoniens und Oberpannoniens (i956). 123 ILS I097-98 record his remarkable career,
And see n. I38. 'ad postremum pro r.p. fortiter pugnans ceciderit.'
118 Six certain cases: nos. 33, 48, 49, 54, 64, and 124 Catonius Vindex (no. 12); C. Iulius Vettius
M. Iallius Bassus. Uncertain case: Claudius Sabinianus (no. 33); Statius Priscus (no. 65).
125 See n. 94.
Claudianus (no. i4) who perhaps governed both

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES ? 23

In conclusion a few general remarks on the nature of the praetorian career are re-
quisite. It can be said that those who sought the honour of holding praetorian posts also
accepted certain obligations-to serve the emperor in whatever capacity he demanded.
It seems clear that emperors expected senators of praetorian rank who had their favour,
to assume responsibility in any aspect of the administration. The progress of a man's
career would depend on a great variety of factors such as social status, patronage and the
number of posts to be filled. The great diversity of praetorian careers suggests strongly
that the Romans had little idea of specialized or carefully planned careers, designed to give
them specific experience in certain areas of public service. Of the senators in this study 44
held both civil and military posts in their praetorian career. Only 2a men devoted a career
entirely to civil or military duties, and even here there is little trace of a purely military
specialization-of the 2z examples, 9 held civil posts alone.'26 In addition 2 men reached
a consular province without holding any praetorian office.'27 This means that about x5%
of the consular legates in the list arrived in their commands without having held any
practorian military post.128 Furthermore, 30 senators held regular posts in Rome, Italy and
the provinces, while 36 spent their career entirely in Rome and Italy or the provinces.'29
There is little sign here of a deliberate attempt to give future consular legates either general
or specialist experience for the posts that they might hold in Rome and the provinces after
their consulate. Finally, a variety of posts could convey a senator to the consulate. The
prefecture of the public treasury, the prefecture of the corn dole, curatorships, legionary
legateships and praetorian provinces all served as a path to this honour. Their relative
importance has been discussed above.'30
In general, there are no clearly discernible patterns of promotion. Out of the 73
senators in the list, only a small group of five hold exactly the same combination of prae-
torian posts.'3' The conclusion should be that there was no systematic rule of promotion via
the tenure of certain posts, beyond that imposed by any hierarchical system of offices. This
is not as chaotic as it seems. The cursus ensured that only men of some standing and prestige
were available for these posts, and the emperor could be expected to know something about
them. Roman insistence on the rights of seniority and status would ensure that, unofficially
at least, certain types of office were normally held at a certain point in the praetorian career.
Hence there would be a degree of order and uniformity; and so, usually a man would not
be asked to serve as curator viae after he had been prefect of the public treasury, or as
praetorian proconsul after he had governed an imperial praetorian province.
Finally, there is a real difficulty in making an evaluation and comparison of the careers
of those senators who did not reach the consular provinces. For if it could be shown that
the praetorian careers of consular legates were completely different from those of all other
senators in public service, this might imply that prospective legates were somehow chosen
in advance. But the careers of senators who did not serve in consular provinces are hard to
identify. Few inscriptions which record a man's career as far as the consulate, or one
consular civil post, can be demonstrated to be complete. The subject may have set up
the inscription when or just after he was consul; he may have died or fallen from favour
before he could take up a consular command. Nevertheless, the following points should
be noted. (i) Consular legates occupy c. 55 % of the regular praetorian posts available in

128 The Appendix sets out the praetorian careers of 129 Rome, Italy and the provinces: 2, 3, 6, 7, 9,
the legates in the list. It is not intended to give a II, 13, i8, 20, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 37, 41, 42, 44, 49,
comprehensive account of the order in which the 52, 59, 6o, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 72, 73, Rome, Italy or
posts were held. However, under their separate the provinces: I, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, i6, 19, 21, 22, 24
headings, the civil and military posts are listed in 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50,
order of tenure. Those who hold only civil posts are: 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 6i, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71. For nos. IO,
nos. 4, I3, 21, 34, 47, 55, 58, 70, 73. Those who hold 12, 17, 28, 46, 5I, 54, see n. Iz6.
only military posts : i, 8, 14, I5, 31, 36, 40, 43, 48, 130 pp. I3 f.
50, 56, 65, 68. Of the 7 senators not considered in 131 Nos. I, 31, 36, 43, 50, who all hold a legionary
this analysis, 2 held no posts at all (nos. I0, 46), the command and a praetorian military province, though
careers of 2 others are perhaps known incompletely, not the same province. Nos. 30 and 7I hold a
(nos. 17, 5i), i is doubtful (no. 54), and 2 are legionary command and a praetorian unarmed pro-
equestrians who held only one praetorian post, but vince. Nos. 37 and 72 were legatus legionis and prefect
both civil and military offices as equites (nos. 12, 28). of the public treasury. Such coincidences between
127Nos. io and 46. only 2 senators are not significant.
12" See n. I26.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 24 BRIAN CAMPBELL

70-235, yet comprise only c. 27% of all ex-praetors in the same period.132 This may
suggest that the careers of consular legates are not typical.133 But the argument is not
sound, for a variety of factors would ensure that a high proportion of praetors did not
seek further posts in the praetorian career.134 Hence, the ex-praetors who occupied c. 49%
of praetorian posts but did not reach the consular provinces, may have numbered no more
than those ex-praetorians who occupied the remaining 51% and did eventually become
consular legates. And so, individually, the former would be required to hold about the
same number of posts as the latter. (ii) The evidence examined above told strongly against
any idea that consular legates were selected early and prepared for their commands through
the tenure of certain praetorian posts. This is confirmed by the haphazard nature of their
praetorian careers and the lack of a strong military emphasis. It is reasonable to suppose
that many senators, when they entered on their praetorian career, had no immediate
ambition beyond the consulate. They would not know if they wanted to accept the
responsibility of a consular province, and a decision on their future would, at the very
earliest, be taken after their legionary command or praetorian governorship. As these posts
came at the end of a praetorian career, it follows that there must have been a considerable
similarity in the careers of those who eventually went on to a consular province and those
who did not. (iii) As noted above, scholars infer from the fact that consular legates rarely
hold a praetorian proconsulate that the holders of such posts were not normally destined
for military commands.'35 But the tenure of a praetorian proconsulate shows merely that
at the outset of a man's career he did not have the emperor's full favour, and, having served in
the less prestigious posts, found it difficult to catch his eye again. It does not indicate that
he had been appointed to such a post because he was thought unable or disinclined to
command an army. (iv) As the praetorian military provinces were few in number and very
prestigious, it can be surmised that an emperor would appoint to these posts men he was
reasonably sure would be willing to accept the responsibility of higher posts of any type.
In general, it may be concluded that there are no real grounds for supposing that potential
consular legates were deliberately given a distinctive praetorian career. It may be of course
that men of energy and ambition, who actively desired consular commands, would be more
inclined to accept the most demanding posts in their praetorian career.

IV

In the light of the preceding sections it is legitimate to ask what attitude emperors
and senators had to the great consular commands. As regards Britain, 34 legates from 47-
214 are known by name. 17 hold one or more consular provinces before Britain, 8 hold
Britain first, 6 possibly do so, 3 are completely uncertain.'36 Those who hold Britain first

182 In the second century there were perhaps about 134 Men of high birth would pass straight from
70 praetorian posts available every year: I praetorian praetorship to consulship. In the same category can
provinces, 8-9 proconsuls, 2 iuridici, C. 23 legati be placed men who gained conspicuous imperial
legionum, 2 praefecti aer. Sat., 3 praefecti aer. mil., favour; others perhaps fell from the emperor's
2 praefecti frum. dand., I0 (?) curatores viarum, 2 (?) favour after the praetorship, or were simply dis-
adiutores of consular curatores, an uncertain number inclined to accept more posts (cf. e.g. Pliny, Ep. IO.
of curatores civitatum. An average tenure of c. 2i 12. 2 and 5. 14. 2). Finally, the careers of some
years is assumed for these posts. This produces would be interrupted by death or illness.
c. 4,600-4,700 available posts in the period. There 13 See n. 45.
were perhaps c. 8oo consular legates in office in 1 Evidence in A. R. Birley, Epig. Stud. 4 (I967),
70-235 (see above, n. 8), and the 73 consulars on 63. With Britain as first consular post: App. no. 30,
the list on average each held 3 praetorian posts: and Ostorius Scapula, Q. Veranius, Petronius
hence a total of C. 2,400 posts. Between 70-235 there Turpilianus, Trebellius Maximus, Vettius Bolanus,
will have been 2,970 praetors (I8 x 165). The other Tulius Frontinus, P. Mummius Sisenna. With Britain
figures noted above are very approximate. possibly as first consular post: nos. 46, 50, Suetonius
133 If we deduct the 8oo presumed consular legates Paulinus, Avidius Quietus, Calpurnius Agricola,
from the total number of praetors and if we assume L. Ulpius Marcellus. Those holding Britain after
that most ex-praetors continued in the career, c. 2, 100 one or more consular posts: nos. 28, 36, 37, 40,
men (who never reached consular commands) will 51, 52, 53, 56, 65, Didius Gallus, Caerelius Priscus,
be responsible for holding c. 2,300 praetorian posts Valerius Pudens, Appius Bradua, Clodius Albinus,
(see above note). This would produce an average of Virius Lupus, Alfenus Senecio, Pollienus Auspex.
just over one post per man. The average for con- Uncertain: Sallustius Lucullus, Metilius Nepos,
sular legates is three. Ulpius Marcellus.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES ? 25

belong mainly to the first century. It seems that from the second century an informal
convention arose whereby the province was conceived to have a certain status in its own
right. More senior consulars would be sent there. But this was never a rule; in the second
century P. Mummius Sisenna governed Britain first after his consulate.137 It may be
significant that the time of the province's greater status does not coincide with that of its
greatest military responsibility, surely in the first 40 years after the invasion. By the second
century Britain will have reflected more of the influence of Roman civilization. Did the
status of a consular province depend more on its level of civilization and the administrative
burden it imposed, than on its presumed military responsibility and number of troops?
If the latter considerations predominated, it is hard to see how Upper Pannonia was
not the most prestigious of consular provinces. Its military responsibilities were immense;
it contained three legions and guarded the approaches to Italy. Furthermore, from the
point of an emperor's personal security it was vital, for the governor was best placed of all
for an advance on Italy. Surely then it should receive as governor well-tried men of proved
competence and loyalty. There are 2I known legates in I03-235; 7 hold the province
immediately after the consulate, 6 certainly hold at least one other province first, 8 are
doubtful.138 Professor Birley contended that the province was normally held first after th
consulate, and was of junior status.139 It can be seen that so definite a view is untenable.
But it is equally true that, if 7 out of 2I legates held Upper Pannonia as their first consular
post, it cannot normally have been regarded as the crown of the consular career. It seems
reasonable to look for the explanation in the relatively uncivilized nature of a province which
had few large urban or cultural centres.140 Dio, perhaps drawing on his own experiences
as legate, was highly critical of the culture of the Pannonians and called them KaKo,w'i-rarot
JvOp .7TOV141
It is precisely the most civilized of the consular provinces, Syria and Hispania Tarra-
conensis, which appear as the crown of the consular career. There are 22 legates of Hispania
Tarraconensis recorded in office from 7o-235.142 Of these only 2 are definitely attested in
further consular legateships after Spain-both in Syria. 8 reasonably certainly ended their
career as consular legates in Tarraconensis.43 On the other hand 9 men are attested as
having held at least one consular command before coming to Spain. 2 men had held two
commands, another, three.'44 While such statistics cannot be entirely conclusive, they at
least suggest that Spain was regarded as a very senior consular province. Yet, with its
solitary legion, it could hardly claim great military significance in the second century. But
as one of the oldest Roman provinces it was highly civilized and had many civil responsi-
bilities. It was eminently suitable for a Roman gentleman of considerable standing and
prestige.
Tacitus says that Syria was' maioribus reservata '.14 It appears that this distinguished
post required men at the height of their career. Career statistics offer some support (out of
37 known legates from 70-235, IO probably ended their career in Syria, 4 certainly did

137 Birley, o.c. (n. 136), 7I. esp. 344-5). If any case, Britain was hardly
138 Evidence in W. Reidinger, o.c. (n. i i8). Ile regarded as the crown of a legate's career. Out of
lists a2 legates, but Syme, Danubian Papers, I85, zo named legates in I OO-2I4, 6 ended their career in
rejects P. Alfius Maximus. Those holding the pro- Britain (z8, 40, 46, 53, Mummius Sisenna, Valerius
vince first after the consulate: nos. I4, 45, 48, 49, Pudens); 4, and perhaps 5 held another consular
54, 6I, L. Aelius Caesar. Those who hold Pannonia province (36, 37, 65, Calpurnius Agricola, and
after at least one other consular province: nos. 2i, perhaps Appius Bradua). Rest uncertain.
23, 33, lallius Bassus, Commodus Orfitianus, 142 Evidence in Alf6ldy, o.c. (n. Io2), I7 f., 202 f.,
Cassius Dio. zi6 f.
139 o.c. (n. iio), 9 f.; A. Mocsy, 'Pannonia', RE 143 Those attested in further posts: Cornelius
Supp. 9 (I962), 5I6-776. Palma; Aufidius Victorinus. Those ending their
140 M. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE2 (I957), 244 f career in Spain: Plautius Silvanus Aelianus, M.
141 49. 36. 2 f. On this passage, cf. F. Millar, A Arrecinus Clemens, Salvius lulianus, Vitrasius
Study of Cassius Dio (1964), 209. It may be argued Pollio, Flavius Titianus, Lollianus Gentianus,
that Britain was not much more civilized than Atrius Clonius, (Ti Julius?) Pollienus Auspex.
Pannonia in the second century. But there does seem 144 Plautius Silvanus Aelianus (I), Valerius Festus
to have been more urban development in Britain and (i), Salvius lulianus (i), Vitrasius Pollio (i),
the process of Romanization seems to have made Victorinus (I), Ignotus (i), lunius Postumianus (2),
good progress by the end of the second centurv. Atrius Clonius (z), Pollienus Auspex (3).
(See S. Frere, Britannia2 (0974), p. 134, 342 f. and 145 Ag. 40. I.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 26 BRIAN CAMPBELL

not),146 and this statement of Tacitus should be accepted. He had experience of Roman
government and ought to have known about such matters. Now, although Syria contained
four legions for part of the first century, and three up to the time of Severus, militarily
it was not the most important province of the empire. There were three Parthian wars
within ioo years in the second century, but two were due to Roman aggression. The mili-
tary hub of the empire was surely in the Danube lands, at least before the advent of the
Persians. There are possibly two reasons for Syria's prestigious position, beyond the number
of troops it entailed. (i) It was the most civilized of the armed provinces, and the legate
must be competent to deal with vast civil responsibilities. (ii) It was far distant from Rome;
the legate would need to make vital decisions without reference to the emperor. And on the
borders lay Parthia, virtually the only civilized power on the frontiers of the empire. And
so the legate must also be capable of intricate diplomacy with the intelligent envoys of a
sophisticated power. Therefore, unless considerations of an emperor's personal security
intervened,'47 the post would require men of outstanding seniority and prestige from public
service. At the same time, Syria's proximity to Rome's traditionally greatest enemy, and
its large army, would impart a true feeling of military grandeur and responsibility to the
legate, who could be seen to be fulfilling every aspect of the duties of a Roman senator.
It is surely significant for Roman ideas that such provinces as Spain and Syria were seen
as the peak of a consular legate's career. What made a province important in the eyes of its
governor and the man who appointed him, was not necessarily its troops and military duties,
but the whole complex of its administrative demands and obligations, and the prestige to
be obtained there.
If good military experience and ability were the main criteria for the appointment of
consular commanders, one might expect that men presumed to have these qualities would
have long military careers in the consular provinces. It would be desirable for the com-
manders of Rome's armies to acquire experience of the duties imposed by a major command
involving several legions. But only 7 legates out of the 73 are attested in more than two
consular provinces.'48 The average tenure of a consular province was c. 24-3 years,'49 and
so few consulars would spend more than six years in provinlcial commands. Men like
Funisulanus Vettonianus who governed Dalmatia, Pannonia and Moesia Superior in
succession, or Julius Quadratus Bassus, who was employed continuously in three consular
posts from IO to his death in II 7,150 were the exception rather than the rule. It is a further
reason for doubting that emperors systematically hurried certain men through the cursus
in order that they might hold the consular legateships, if the holders of such posts retired
after six years in office. In this context it is misleading to talk of ' military men', 'generals
or ' marshals '.
Why did consular legates rarely hold more than two posts? Two reasons can be
suggested. (i) After the consulate there were more consulars than posts of suitable status
for them to hold. If one assumes that senators still wanted to command armies, there will
have been pressure on emperors to find posts for men of general ability and energy.
Senators believed that the meritorious should be given scope to display their talent; and so
it was incumbent upon any emperor not to let a few men monoplize the most prestigious
posts. (ii) Some emperors at least would be concerned about personal security. It might

146 Evidence in G. A. Harrer, Studies in the History

held only z posts. The remaining 40 are registered in
of the Roman Province of Syria (x9i5); RE s.v. one post, but only about one-quarter of these careers
Syria' (I932); J. F. Gilliam, AJP 79 (I958), 225. is demonstrably complete. The balance of the evi-
Those who probably ended their career in Syria: dence seems to suggest that the tenure of z posts was
nos. 7, I I, 29, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 54, M. Ulpius usual.
Traianus (G. W. Bowersock, JRS 63 (1973), 133-5). 149 This is only a conjecture, but some examples
Those who did not end their career in Syria:-28, can support it. The legates of Britain are fully known
3I, Alfenus Senecio (for whom see A. R. Birley, from 43-84. I I legates in 41 years produces an average
o.c. (n. 136), 79-80); Atrius Clonius. No. 27 and of 3 * 7, or 3 4 if we deduct Agricola's unusually long
Atrius Clonius ended their career in Hispania tenure. Syme in Danubian Papers, 2I6, lists 26
Tarraconensis. legates of Lower Moesia, 92-I62, and notes one gap.
147 See below, pp. 26-7. This produces z * 5 years for the average tenure.
148 Those with more than two commands: nos.Thomasson lists 37 legates in Numidia c. II-2oo.
25, 28, 31, 36, 37, 65, 72. 26 senators are definitely His conjectural names might equal the number of
registered in 2 posts: nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, II, 12. 15, 21, gaps in the Fasti. This gives an average tenure of
22, 23, 29, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 51, 52, 53, 56, 58, 6o, 62, 2 7 years.
68, 69 (?), 70. Those italicized reasonably certainly 1'0 Nos. 25, 3 I.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES ?

not be advisable to let a senator occupy the same post for a number of years, or gain a close
rapport with the armies of the empire.'5' In certain reigns the personal trust of the emperor
must have been the main criterion in many appointments. Even Syria did not always
receive legates of outstanding prestige. An emperor might prefer a dull and unambitious
man. According to Dio, Commodus appointed Niger to Syria precisely because he was a
mediocrity.152 In addition one can surmise that some senators were not keen to spend more
than six years in the provinces. It was at the centre of power in Rome that influence could
could be exercised and real power gained.

It is reasonable to conclude with some evidence of how the Romans themselves viewed
the senatorial career. The tradition of the Republic expected a senator to serve the state in
whatever capacity it demanded, and be proficient in it.53 That tradition persisted in the
empire. Men made their reputation by performing both civil and military functions as
required. Hence Pliny's praise of Vestricius Spurinna-' quoad honestum fuit, obiit
officia, gessit magistratus, provincias rexit, multoque labore hoc otium meruit .154
Similarly Flavius Sabinus earns the praise of Tacitus-' quinque et triginta stipendia in
re publica fecerat domi militiaeque clarus '.155 Significantly, although Tacitus was well
aware that Agricola had made his name through the military arts, he stresses that he was
well-versed in all the qualities appropriate to a Roman gentleman. 1His conduct in his civil
duties in Aquitania and Britain forms a considerable part of his glory.156 In the context of
Roman society, ideas of specialization and professionalism are largely anachronistic. Of
course, as in any society, some men made a name for themselves in certain fields, e.g. the
younger Pliny in financial affairs, and Quadratus Bassus in the military arts. Even here it
is salutary to remember that Pliny at least went through the motions of holding a military
tribunate and that Bassus at one stage had held the unexciting post of legate of a proconsul.
In conclusion, there was no group of specialist ' viri militares ' with a distinctive
career and special promotion. The careers of consular legates in general show little marked
military emphasis, and there are few signs of any deliberate attempt to prepare them specifi-
cally for military commands. The military experience to be gained in the praetorian career
and its importance as a criterion in appointments to consular posts have probably been
exaggerated. The senatorial career was built around traditional Roman conceptions of
office-holding and service of the state. The men who governed the great consular provinces
were, in general, all-round amateurs who, although they had often been well tried in a
variety of civil and military posts, arrived in their command individually through the
operation of numerous variable factors in upper-class life, and the personal trust and favour
of the emperor, rather than through any regular plan of promotion. The conclusions are
important for showing how one aspect of Roman ' government' worked-in the appoint-
ments to military commands that were vital not only to the security of the empire, but also
to the personal survival of the emperor.
Finally, there was no military oligarchy or ' high command ', comprising men of
similar career, training, outlook and aspirations. Each post was an individuality and implied
no formal position in the emperor's counsels or in any military hierarchy. The legate
enjoyed power only as long as he stayed with his army in the province. He would not meet
with his colleagues in the consular commands to discuss common interests or concert
military policy. In fact the position of the consular legates was strangely paradoxical.
Although they were potentially among the most powerful men in the empire, since they could
raise revolts with their armies, the fact that they did not form a coherent group reduced the
ability of the individual to influence politics. Often the real power lay not in the tenure of a

I'l Cf. Tiberius' dilemma, Tac., A i. 8o. z. hints that the military responsibilities daunted him.
15274. 6. I. 154 Ep. 3. I. I2. He also wrote elegant verse-
113 Cic., De Off. I. 7'; ii6; 2. 45-9; Pro Sest. ibid. 7.
139; Tusc. 3. 2. 3. Sallust, Bell. Yug. 3. I. It is 1G5 H 3. 75. I-
noticeable that, although Cicero bad little military 1" Ag.9.2f.; 19; 40 4.
experience before his command in Cilicia, he never

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 28 BRIAN CAMPBELL

seemingly important post, but in the ability of those close to the emperor to secure his
attention and favour-the ' interior potentia 1 And, in the last analysis, as Tiberius
perceived, Rome was the ' caput rerum '.158

Worcester College, Oxford

APPENDIX

Consular Legates (70-235), and their Praetorian Posts: (a) Military posts (b) Civil posts.
Numbers in brackets indicate that a post was held on more than one occasion.

i. P. Aelius Hadrianus-Syme, Tacitus, 233 f. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
cos. suff. I08. (b) None.
2. L. Aemilius Carus-PIR2 A 338. cos.? (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Arabiae.
(b) Curator viae.
3. L. Annius Honoratus-PIR2A 659. cos.? (a) Leg. leg.
(b) Curator viae; iuridicus; praef. aer. mil.;
curator civitatis.
4. C. Arrius Antoninus-PIR2 A io88. cos. (a) None.
suff. I70. (b) Iuridicus; praef. aer. sat.; curator civ. (3).
5. T. Avidius Quietus-G. Alfoldy, Epig. (a) Leg. leg.
Stud. 3 (I967), no. 24. cos.? (b) Procos. Achaeae?
6. C. Bruttius Praesens-IRT 545. cos. II ord. (a) Leg. leg.
139. (b) Curator viae; leg. pr. pr. Ciliciae.
7. T. Burbuleius Optatus Ligarianus-PIR2 (a) Leg. leg.
B I74. cos.? (b) Curator viae; curator civ.(3); logistes
Syriae; procos. Siciliae; praef. aer. sat.
8. T. Caesernius Memmius Macrinus-PIR2 (a) Missus ad dilectum; leg. leg.; leg. III
C I83. COS. suff. I40. Aug.
(b) None.
9. C. Caesonius Rufinianus-PIR2 C 210. (a) Leg. leg.
cos. ? (b) Leg. Asiae; curator civ. (3); procos.
Achaeae; leg. pr. pr. Lusitaniae.
Io. P. Calvisius Ruso-PIR2 C 350. cOs. suff. (a) None.
79? (b) None.
ii. L. Catilius Severus-PIR2 C 558. cos. (a) Leg. leg.
suff. IIo; cos. II ord. I20. (b) Leg. Asiae; praef. frurn. dand.; curator
viae; praef. aer. mil.; praef. aer. sat.
I2. M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex- (a) Eques.
Pflaum, Carrieres, no. i88. cos.? (b) Curator civ.
I3. Tib. Claudius Candidus-PIR2 C 823. (a) None.
cos.? (b) Curator civ.; leg. Asiae; logistes.
14. Tib. Claudius Claudianus-PIR2 C 834. (a) Leg. leg. (2); praef. vex.; leg. pr. pr. Pann.
cos. suff. I99. Inf. (?).
(b) None.
I5. M. Claudius Fronto-PIR2 C 874. cos. (a) Leg. leg. (2); special command; missus ad
suff. I65 or I66. dilectum.
(b) None.
I6. Claudius Gallus-AE I957. I23 and PIR2 (a) Leg. leg.; praepos. vex.; leg. III Aug.
C 878. cos.? (b) Curator civ.
I7. Tib. Claudius Iulianus-PIR2 C 902. cos. (a) Leg. leg.
suff. I59. (b) None (?)
i8. P. Cluvius Maximus Paullinus-Smallwood (a) Leg. leg.
(I966), no. 200. COS.? (b) Praef. frum. dand.; leg. Asiae; leg.
Africae (?); procos. Siciliae; curator viae.
19. P. Cornelius Anullinus-PIR2 C I322. cos. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. ?
suff. I76. (b) Leg. of a proconsul; procos. Baeticae.
20. C. Curtius Iustus-PIR2 C I6I3. cos.? (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Daciae Sup.
(b) Praef. frum. dand.; curator viae; procos.?
2I. L. Dasumius Tullius Tuscus-PIR2 D i6. (a) None.
cos. suff. I52. (b) Praef. aer. sat.
158 A I. 47. I.
157 Tac., H I. 2. 3.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHO WERE THE VIRI MILITARES '? 29

22. M. Didius Severus lulianus-PIR2 D 77. (a) Leg. leg.

cos. suff. c. I75. (b) Leg. of a proconsul (2); leg. pr. pr.
Belgicae.
23. L. Fabius Cilo-PIR2 F 27. cOs. suff. 193; (a) Leg. leg.
cos. II ord. 204. (b) Procos; praef. aer. mil.; leg. pr. pr.
Galatiae.
24. Q. Fuficius Cornutus-PIR2 F 497. cos.? (a) Leg. leg. (?); leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
(b) Iuridicus.
25. L. Funisulanus Vettonianus-PIR2 F 570. (a) Leg. leg.
cos.? (b) Curator viae; curator aquarum; praef. aer.
sat.
26. Q. Glitius Agricola-PJR2 G i8i. cos. (a) Leg. leg.
suff. 97; cos. II ord. I03. (b) Juridicus; leg. pr. pr. Belgicae.
27. Q. Hedius Lollianus Gentianus-PIR2 (a) Leg. leg.
H 42. cos.? (b) Curator civ.
28. P. Helvius Pertinax-PIR2 H 73. cOs. suff. (a) Leg. leg. (eques).
I75? (b) None.
29. C. Octavius Javolenus Priscus-PiR2 I I4. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. III Aug.
cos. suff. 86. (b) Iuridicus.
30. Cn. Iulius Agricola-PIR2 I I26. COS. suff. (a) Leg. leg.
77. (b) Leg. pr. pr. Lugdunensis.
3I. C. Iulius Quadratus Bassus-PIR2 I 5o8. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Judaeae.
cos. suff. I05. (b) None.
32. C. Julius Castinus-PIR2 I 566. cos. ? (a) Leg. leg.; dux vex.; leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
(b) Curator civ.; curator viae; iuridicus;
procos. Cretae.
33. C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes-AE (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.; praepos.
1920. 45. RE s.v. ' Vettius ' (43). cos. suff. vex.
C. I75. (b) Leg. Asiae; leg. ad ordinandos status
Cycladum; iuridicus; leg. rationibus putan-
dis trium Galliarum; leg. leg. cum iuris-
dicatu; praef. aer. sat.
34. C. Antius Julius Quadratus-PJR2 I 507. (a) None.
cos. stiff. 94. cos. II ord. I05. (b) Leg. procos. Bithyniae; leg. Asiae (2);
leg. Cappadociae etc.; procos. Cretae; leg.
pr. pr. Lyciae.
35. C. Julius Severus-PIR2 I 573. COS. sUff. (a) Leg. leg.
C. I39. (b) Leg. Asiae; procos. Achaeae; leg. pr. pr.
Bithyniae; praef. aer. sat.
36. Sex. Iulius Severus-PIR2 I 576. cos. suff. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Daciae..
I27. (b) None.
37. Cn. Iulius Verus-PIR2 I 6i8. cos. suiff. (a) Leg. leg.
154. (b) Praef. aer. sat.
38. C. Iunius Faustinus Postumianus-PIR2 (a) Leg. leg.
I 75I. cos.? (b) Iuridicus; leg. pr. pr. Lusitaniae; leg. pr.
pr. Belgicae.
39. A. Bucius Lappius Maximus-PIR2 L 84. (a) Leg. leg.
cos. suff. 86. (b) Procos. Bithyniae.
40. Q. Lollius Urbicus-PIR2 L 327. COS. suff. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. exped. Iudaic.
by 138. (b) None.
41. L. Marius Maximus-RE 14. 1828 (48). (a) Leg. leg.; dux.
cos. suff. I98 or I99; cos. II ord. 223. (b) Curator viae; curator civ.
42. L. Marius Perpetuus-A. Stein, Die (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Arabiae.
Legaten von Moesien, p. 54. ILS ii65. cos. ? (b) Curator civ. (2).
43. P. Metilius Secundus-RE I5. 1402 (20). (a) Leg. leg.; leg. III Aug.
cos. suff. c. 123. (b) None.
44. L. Minicius Natalis Quadronius Verus-RE (a) Leg. leg.
I5. I836 (I9). cos.? (b) Praef. alim.; curator viae.
45. L. Minicius Natalis-RE i5. I828 (i8). (a) Leg. leg.; leg. III Aug.
cos. suff. io6. (b) Leg. Africae.
46. L. Neratius Marcellus-A. R. Birley, Epig. (a) None.
Stud. 4 (i967), 68. cos. suff. 95; cos. II ord. (b) None.
I29.

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 BRIAN CAMPBELL

47. L. Neratius Priscus-R. Syme, Hermes 85 (a) None.

(I957),480 cos. suff. 97. (b) Praef. aer. sat.
48. L. Neratius Priscus-Syme, o.c., 492-3. (a) Leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
cos. ? (b) None.
49. M. Nonius Macrinus-Reidinger, o.c. (n. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
II8), 79 f. cos. suff. I54. (b) Curator alvei Tiberis.
50. Papirius Aelianus Aem. Tuscillus-Epig. (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Dac. Apul.
Stud. 4 (i967), 72. cos.? (b) None.
5I. Petillius Cerialis-RE I9. II38 (8); G. (a) Leg. leg.; dux in civil war.
Townend,jRS 5I (i96i), 58. cos. suff. 70. (b) None (?)
52. A. Platorius Nepos-RE 20. 2. 2545 (2). (a) Leg. leg.
cos. suff. II9. (b) Curator viae; leg. pr. pr. Thraciae.
53. Q. Roscius Coelius Pompeius Falco-ILS (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Iudaeae.
I035-36. RE 2I.2. 2270 (76). cos. suff. Io8. (b) Leg. leg. pr. Lyciae.
54. M. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus- (a) Leg. leg. (?); leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
Reidinger, p. 76 ff; A. Dob6, Die Verwal- (b) Curator civ. (?).
tung der rom. Prov. Pannonien, 54-5; ILS
I094. COs. suff. I44.
55. C. Popilius Carus Pedo-RE 22. I. 65 (37)4 (a) None.
cos. suff. c. I47. (b) Curator viae; praef. aer. sat.
56. Q. Postumius Aquilinus-PIR2 A 754. (a) Leg. leg (2); leg. pr. pr. Arabiae.
cos.? (b) None.
57. Q. Iulius Cordinus Rutilius Gallicus-RE (a) Leg. leg. (of quaestorian rank).
IA. I255; AE I920. 5 cos.? (b) Leg. pr. pr. Galatiae.
58. L. Salvius Iulianus-RE IA. 2023 (I4). (a) None.
cos. ord. I48. (b) Praef. aer. sat.; praef. aer. mil.
59. M. Sedatius Severianus-RE 2A. ioo6 (i). (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Daciae.
cos. ? (b) curator viae.
6o. P. Septimius Geta-G. Alf6ldy, BJ i68 (a) Leg. leg.
(i968), I5I. cos. II ord. 203. (b) Procos. Siciliae; leg. pr. pr. Lusitaniae;
curator ( ?).
6i. L. Septimius Severus-RE 2A. I940 (I3). (a) Leg. leg.
T. D. Barnes, Hist. i6 (i967), 87. cos. suff. (b) Leg. iuridicus in Hispania; leg. pr. pr.
I90. Lugdunensis; procos. Siciliae.
62. M. Servilius Fabianus Maximus-PIR I S (a) Leg. leg.
4I5. COS. suff. I58. (b) Leg. Asiae; curator viae; praef. aer. sat.
63. P. Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus-RE i6. (a) Leg. leg.
529 (25). cos. suff. I46. (b) Praef. aer. sat.; praef. alim.
64. Claudius (?) Maximus-RE 3A. 2I93 (24); (a) Leg. leg.; leg. pr. pr. Pan. Inf.
R. Syme. Hist. I4 (I965), 352 f.; cos. suff. (b) Curator viae; iuridicus.
I43 or I44.
65. M. Statius Priscus-Epig. Stud. 4 (I967), (a) Leg. leg. (2); leg. pr. pr. Daciae.
73. cos. ord. I59. (b None.
66. C. Octavius Suetrius Sabinus-Barbieri, (a) Leg. leg.; comes of the emperor; praepos.
L'Albo, no. 387. cos. ord. 2I4. vex. (His very brief tenure of Raetia was
perhaps consular, cf. Caerellius Priscus-
CIL I3. 68o6).
(b) Legatus Africae; curator civ.; curator
viae ; iuridicus.
67. P. Tullius Varro-ILS I047. cos.? (a) Leg. leg. (2).
(b) Procos. Baeticae; praef. aer. sat.
68. C. Calpetanus Rantius Valerius Festus- (a) Leg. III Aug
G. Alfoldy, Fasti Hispanienses (I969), 2I f. (b) None.
cos. suff. 7I.
69. Q. Venidius Marius Maximus Calvinianus (a) Leg. leg.
-PJR' V 245. cos.? (b) Leg. pr. pr. Ciliciae; leg. pr. pr. Syriae
Phoenices (?P).
70. T. Pomponius Proculus Vitrasius Polio- (a) None.
PIR' P 558; R. Syme, JRS 43 (I953), I59- (b) Praef. alim.
cos. II ord. I59.
7I. Incertus-ILS I022. This probably refers (a) Leg. leg.
to Licinius Sura or Sosius Senecio. See (b) Leg. pr. pr. Belgicae.
n- 4I1

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WI-IO WERE THIE VIRI MILITARES ? 3I

72. Izicertus-ILS 1057. (a) Leg. leg.

(b) Praef. aer. sat.
73. Incertus-AE I957. i6i. Possibly from the (a) None.
time of Severus Alexander. (b) Curator (?); curator viae; iuridicus (z);
curator viae; curator civ. (2).

This content downloaded from

130.251.172.10 on Mon, 18 Jan 2021 01:51:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms