Praetorians Relief from the Arch of Claudius
A few years ago I explored the idea that the 1500 British spearmen who went to Rome to kill the Praetorian Prefect Perennis were the three legionary detachments Lucius Artorius Castus led against ARM[...]S. Several blog posts came out of this effort. See, for example, the following articles:
I had also dispensed with the idea that it was not LAC who commanded these spearmen, but the Priscus who was offered the Imperial title by troops in Britain:
The point is that no one who had removed Priscus from Britain because of an attempt to make him Emperor would have afterwards put Britons under his command on the Continent. Tomlin himself declared:
"What you say about the other Priscus is fair enough. He had demonstrated his loyalty as far as British troops were concerned, and since usurpers were expected any way to show initial hesitation ('le réfus de pouvoir'), I can well imagine the authorities would have removed him, just to be on the safe side."
The fragmentary evidence of the relevant inscriptions and what we know of the involvement of Germany and Gaul in the Deserters' War points instead to Priscus having led German troops. [1] If this is so, it frees us up to once more consider LAC as the officer who led the 1500 spearmen to Rome.
The problem facing us now, as ever, is the ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription. Linda Malcor et all, in their essay MISSING PIECES, have proposed ARMATOS as the correct reading for the broken word. However, they attempt to apply the term to an undesignated group of rebellious soldiers and/or tribesmen in Britain. This effort has failed in a number of ways (which I do not plan to go into yet again).
But could ARMATOS refer, as I once very tentatively proposed, to the Praetorians of Rome? At the time, this did not seem a very attractive notion.
"The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly. 4 He accordingly delivered up the prefect to the very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Pretorians."
Only the other day I decided to delve into the matter a bit deeper, to see if I could find any literary evidence that the Praetorians could be referred to as armatos. To my genuine surprise, I found exactly that. The reference occurs in Suetonius' 'LIFE OF CLAUDIUS'. See https://roman-emperors.sites.luc.edu/claudius.htm. As for the actual source itself, here it is:
10 [Legamen ad paginam Latinam] 1 Having spent the greater part of his life under these and like circumstances, he became emperor in his fiftieth year by a remarkable freak of fortune. When the assassins of Gaius shut out the crowd under pretence that the emperor wished to be alone, Claudius was ousted with the rest and withdrew to an apartment called the Hermaeum; and a little later, in great terror at the news of the murder, he stole away to a balcony hard by and hid among the curtains which hung before the door. 2 As he cowered there, a common soldier, who was prowling about at random, saw his feet, intending to ask who he was, pulled him out and recognized him; and when Claudius fell at his feet in terror, he hailed him as emperor. Then he took him to the rest of p21 his comrades, who were as yet in a condition of uncertainty and purposeless rage. These placed him in a litter, took turns in carrying it, since his own bearers had made off, and bore him to the Camp in a state of despair and terror, while the throng that met him pitied him, as an innocent man who was being hurried off to execution. 3 Received within the rampart, he spent the night among the sentries with much less hope than confidence;30 for the consuls with the senate and the city cohorts had taken possession of the Forum and the Capitol, resolved on maintaining the public liberty.31 When he too was summoned to the House by the tribunes of the commons, to give his advice on the situation, he sent word that "he was detained by force and compulsion." 4 But the next day, since the senate was dilatory in putting through its plans because of the tiresome bickering of those who held divergent views, while the populace, who stood about the hall, called for one ruler and expressly named Claudius, he allowed the armed assembly of the soldiers to swear allegiance to him, and promised each man fifteen thousand sesterces; being the first of the Caesars who resorted to bribery to secure the fidelity of the troops.
[10] Per haec ac talia maxima aetatis parte transacta quinquagesimo anno imperium cepit quantumvis mirabili casu. Exclusus inter ceteros ab insidiatoribus Gai, cum quasi secretum eo desiderante turbam submoverent, in diaetam, cui nomen est Hermaeum, recesserat; neque multo post rumore caedis exterritus prorepsit ad solarium proximum interque praetenta foribus vela se abdidit. Latentem discurrens forte gregarius miles, animadversis pedibus, studio sciscitandi quisnam esset, agnovit extractumque et prae metu ad genua sibi accidentem imperatorem salutavit. Hinc ad alios commilitones fluctuantes nec quicquam adhuc quam frementes perduxit. Ab his lecticae impositus et, quia sui diffugerant vicissim succollantibus in castra delatus est tristis ac trepidus, miserante obvia turba quasi ad poenam raperetur insons. Receptus intra vallum inter excubias militum pernoctavit, aliquanto minore spe quam fiducia. Nam consules cum senatu et cohortibus urbanis forum Capitoliumque occupaverant asserturi communem libertatem; accitusque et ipse per tr. pl. in curiam ad suadenda quae viderentur, vi se et necessitate teneri respondit. Verum postero die et senatu segniore in exequendis conatibus per taedium ac dissensionem diversa censentium et multitudine, quae circumstabat, unum rectorem iam et nominatim exposcente, armatos pro contione iurare in nomen suum passus est promisitque singulis quina dena sestertia, primus Caesarum fidem militis etiam praemio pigneratus.
Thus far, this is the only instance I can find of armatos being used in isolation for the praetorians. [2] We do find 'praetorianus miles', and milites used of praetorians.
Note that the Greek words Cassius Dio actually uses for Praetorians in his account of the killing of Perennis is that of δορύφορος 'spear-bearers.' But they are also called simply 'soldiers.'
The British soldiers are called ἀκοντιστὰς, a term which has as its root Greek κοντός, a punting-pole like lance. κοντός is used of the Sarmatian cavalry lance.
When I wrote to Roger Tomlin about this, he responded thusly:
"Armatus is very frequent, and simply means 'armed'. Cicero, for example, contrasts it with togatus ('in a toga', i.e. civilian). In the passage from Suetonius, there is a rhetorical contrast between the Senate and its magistrates, which is arguing over what to do next, the 'multitude' which wants someone to be named as sole ruler, and the 'armed men' who actually proclaim him.
Subsequent usurpers, Vitellius and Vespasian for example, are simply proclaimed by their legions, who are likewise 'armed men'. The term is not specific to the Praetorians, although in the context of Rome (the city) they would be the only 'armed men' available [emphasis mine], if one ignores the equites singulares Augusti and the urban cohorts. The Praetorian Guard did include a few hundred horsemen, just like a legion, but the equites singulares Augusti, although stationed in Rome near the Praetorians, were differently recruited: not from Italy, but seconded from provincial cavalry units.
Classical Greek uses the term 'spear-bearer' for (royal) bodyguard, e.g. in Herodotus, and that writers like Plutarch and Dio then apply it to the Praetorians. But Dio also speaks of 'the soldiers' when it is clear from the context that they are Praetorians, and in 53.25 he refers indifferently to 'the soldiers' and 'the Praetorians' (πραιτωπιανων). 'Spear-bearer' describes the role of the Praetorians, that of carrying weapons and protecting the monarch."
Now, as I discussed before, had LAC taken British troops against Perennis, we would expect either Perennis' name to have appeared in the inscription or something like hostis publicus. And, indeed, Tomlin himself said -
"No one would boast on their tombstone of having fought 'Praetorians', but Perennis might have slipped into the record as an hostis publicus."
To quote from one of my other essays on the subject:
"Praetorians were soldiers. Although LAC could have referred to them by name, he may have been hesitant to do so, as these were the personal guards of the Emperor (see https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Praetoriani.html). They could have been referred to simply as milites or armatos, an intentionally diplomatic term whose generic nature was designed to avoid undesirable connotations. In addition, these were fellow Roman soldiers. They were not REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES, DEFECTORES, DESERTORES. As Tomlin told me, "If it were a matter of internal security [i.e. an action within Britain], I would have expected a term such as this." Going to Rome was not such an action."
So, what to do with a possible ARMATOS as a vague, non-politically charged term applied to the Praetorians of Perennis? Should we allow this as a possible reading on the LAC stone?
While the ARMENIOS argument for ARM[...]S works extremely well (see my recent posting https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/10/an-argument-by-argument-refutation-of.html), it remains an unavoidable truism that the only extant literary (versus epigraphic) instance of detachments from three British legions being led anywhere during the time period we are considering is that of the 1500 spearmen who go to Rome to kill Perennis. [We have, of course, references to Statius Priscus, goveror of Britain, being sent to Armenia. But those accounts do not mention his taking troops and this has to be assumed.]
Perhaps the final word on the subject comes from Professor Sandra Bingham of Edinburgh, the world's leading expert on the Praetorian Guard. Via private communication, she suggested the following:
"I would not say that armatos is commonly used of the guard. Far more frequent is milites; I would expect anyone living in Rome at the time to associate that generic term with the praetorians since they would be so ubiquitous.
I do like your idea very much but would suggest that by designating the praetorians as armatos, there perhaps is an intended slight to the unit -- that they are simply 'armed men' rather than the elite bodyguard."
Another expert on the Praetorians, Professor Cicilia Ricci, Storia romana, Epigrafia latina, Università degli Studi del Molise, tells me that
"Armati for the praetorians also recurs in Tacitus and there is a similar Greek expression in Cassius Dio."
When I asked her about the presence of Praetorians in Tacitus: History Book 3 [70], which has a band of armed men (armatum agmen) issue from the palace where Vitellius is ensconced, she responded:
"If we exclude the corporis custodes, which could hardly be defined as such, we could think of other soldiers: eg. the statores or the speculatores. All the clues make us think of the praetorians (personally I'm inclined to think so), especially in this era (the equites singulares who then escorted the emperor do not yet exist)."
Professor Boris Rankov chimes in with:
"These are Vitellius’ Praetorians, drawn from his legions in Germany to replace those of Otho whom he had dismissed after Otho’s defeat earlier in the year. Thus some of them had probably mounted guard at the Palace, but as a force they would have been more or less indistinguishable from the legionaries they had recently been.
Suetonius also uses armatos for troops in Rome in the Life of Nero 13.1, but it just means ‘armed men’ and is used for all types of troops (Tacitus frequently uses it like that, for instance). Really, it’s just a synomym for milites, which can include the Praetorians. As with many aspects of Latin, the meanings of words are often coloured by their context."
I think this is real possibility, and that it lends support to the notion that it was LAC who led the 1500 British spearmen to Rome.
[1]
The following examples are known of GERMANICARUM and BRITANNICARUM in the inscriptions:
https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_ergebnis.php
https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/detail.php?id=33110
5 confirmed instances of Germanicarum
https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_ergebnis.php
https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/detail.php?id=11178
1 possible instance of Britannicarum (the Priscus stone, ironically!)
And here is the reconstruction of Priscus' career as prepared by Professor Roger Tomlin:
"Our basic problem, as you know, is whether we can pull all these inscriptions together and refer them to the same man – (1) Titus Caunius Priscus, legate of III Augusta who is about to become consul (but we don't know when); (2) the legate of III Augusta called ]CO LEG[, who is in post under Commodus; (3) the consul of Commodus in c.191 who is called ]VNIO ... [...]CO. Identifying (3) with (2) depends on seeing his latest command as III Augusta, not II Italica (as in Birley p. 261, following Gregori and Alföldy). From what I can see of the stone, this is possible, and better suits his titulature.
If you do identify the three, you get a long and interesting senatorial career crowned by the consulship at the end of Commodus' reign. In ascending order:
legate of VI Victrix (but bear in mind that this is a restoration – we only know for sure that it was a legion with P F in its titulature)
legate of V Macedonica
field-commander of vexillations drawn from a provincial army ending in –NNICARVM , which may be reconstructed as the 'British' legions. However, the first N is doubtful and this could be 'Germanicarum' instead.
legate of III Augusta (which depends on a re-reading of the Rome inscription)
consul, c. 191
If this is seen as the career of Caunius Priscus, which I think is reasonable (but not certain), then you get a tight chronology if you try to fit it to the second-rate literary record.
Priscus is legate of VI Victrix in 184, when Commodus becomes Britannicus and the British army tries to proclaim the legate Priscus. He is promoted for his loyalty, and also to get him out of Britain – becoming legate of V Macedonica. As such, he is made acting-commander of a field force composed of British or Germanic troops.
He is successful in this command – i.e. he kills Maternus – and as a reward gets the plum post of III Augusta which is a provincial governorship as well and naturally leads to the consulship.
I think you can squeeze it all together, since his legionary command in Britain would have ended with his refusal to become a usurper, and he could have commanded the vexillations during his next post, the command of V Macedonica.
I leave it to you to decide whether the vexillations were 'British' or "German' or to be identified with the 1500 spearmen who killed Perennis, or whether LAC should be associated with the latter."
I would add that we have textual evidence that does not support British troops coming over to the Continent to fight in the Deserters' War:
[1.10.3] "When he was informed of these developments, Commodus, in a towering rage, sent threatening dispatches to the governors of the provinces involved, charging them with negligence and ordering them to raise an army to oppose the bandits."
As Britain was not part of this revolt, it is highly probable that British forces were not raised to fight against the deserters.
[2]
Since writing this piece, I have found 8 other examples of armatos used for the imperial bodyguard, or for bodyguards of foreign dignitaries. My search is not yet even close to exhaustive.
Liv. 1.49.2:
"conscius deinde male quaerendi regni ab se ipso adversus se exemplum capi posse, armatis corpus circumsaepsit" - Superbus surrounds himself with armed men (a bodyguard)
(Fam. 10.2.1=SB 341):
Meum studium honori tuo pro necessitudine nostra non defuisset, si aut tuto in
senatum aut honeste venire potuissem; sed nec sine periculo quisquam libere de re publica sentiens versari potest in summa impunitate gladiorum nec nostrae dignitatis videtur esse ibi sententiam de re publica dicere, ubi me et melius et proprius audiant armati quam senatores. On account of our friendship, my support for the decree in your honor would not have been lacking if I had been able either safely or honorably to enter the Senate. But neither can anyone who entertains free thoughts about the Republic be without danger amidst the free play of swords, nor does it seem to be worthy of my position to propose a course for the Republic in a place where armed men would hear me better, and stand nearer to me, than senators.
First Philippic (Phil. 2.6-7):
Sed sit beneficium, quandoquidem maius accipi a latrone nullum potuit; in quo
potes me dicere ingratum? An de interitu rei publicae queri non debui, ne in te
ingratus viderer? At in illa querella misera quidem et luctuosa, sed mihi pro hoc
gradu in quo me senatus populusque Romanus collocavit necessaria quid est
dictum a me cum contumelia, quid non moderate, quid non amice? Quod quidem cuius temperantiae fuit, de M. Antonio querentem abstinere maledictis!
praesertim cum tu reliquias rei publicae dissipavisses, cum domi tuae turpissimo
mercatu omnia essent venalia, cum leges eas, quae numquam promulgatae essent, et de te et a te latas confiterere, cum auspicia augur, intercessionem consul sustulisses, cum esses foedissime stipatus armatis, cum omnis impuritates pudica in domo cotidie susciperes vino lustrisque confectus. At ego, tamquam mihi cum M. Crasso contentio esset, quocum multae et magnae fuerunt, non cum uno gladiatore nequissimo, de re publica graviter querens de homine nihil dixi. Itaque hodie perficiam, ut intellegat, quantum a me beneficium tum acceperit. But let this count as a favor (beneficium), since none greater was able to be accepted from a bandit: in what way can you say that I was ungrateful? Or ought I not to have complained about the destruction of the Republic, so that I not seem ungrateful to you? But in that complaint, wretched indeed and sorrowful, but necessary for me on account of the position that the Senate and people of Rome granted me, what did I say that was insulting? What was not spoken with moderation? What was not spoken amicably? And that indeed was a mark of restraint— to refrain from abuse when complaining about Mark Antony! Especially after you had scattered the remnants of the Republic, when everything was up for sale in that most disgraceful marketplace in your home, when you were acknowledging those laws that were proposed concerning you and by you, which had never been promulgated, when as an augur you did away with the auspices, as a consul the right to veto, when you were most disgracefully surrounded by armed men, when in a virtuous house you were daily undergoing all manner of impurities, exhausted by wine and dens of vice. But I, as if I were engaged in a debate with Marcus Crassus—with whom I had many great struggles—and not with the most worthless gladiator, complained vehemently 324 about the fate of the Republic but said nothing about the man. And so, today I will bring it to pass that he understands how great a favor (beneficium) he received from me then.
[8] multitudini tamen gratior fuit quam patribus, longe ante alios acceptissimus militum animis; trecentosque armatos ad custodiam corporis quos Celeres appellauit non in bello solum sed etiam in pace habuit.
Livy 1 15.8
"three hundred armed men... as a bodyguard"
[See Livy: Reconstructing Early Rome by Gary B. Miles, Cornell University Press, 2018, p. 139]
At Philippic 5.17–20, Cicero gives an
extensive account of how the presence of Antony’s troops shaped events
in September 44 (the imaginary context of Philippic 2). The sections of
greatest relevance to our passage are 17–18:
An illa non gravissimis ignominiis monumentisque huius ordinis ad
posteritatis memoriam sunt notanda, quod unus M. Antonius in hac
urbe post conditam urbem palam secum habuerit armatos? quod neque
reges nostri fecerunt neque ii, qui regibus exactis regnum occupare
voluerunt. Cinnam memini, vidi Sullam, modo Caesarem; hi enim tres
post civitatem a L. Bruto liberatam plus potuerunt quam universa res
publica. non possum adfirmare nullis telis eos stipatos fuisse, hoc dico:
nec multis et occultis. at hanc pestem agmen armatorum sequebatur;
Cassius, Mustela, Tiro, gladios ostentantes sui similes greges ducebant
per forum; certum agminis locum tenebant barbari sagittarii. cum
autem erat ventum ad aedem Concordiae, gradus conplebantur, lecticae
conlocabantur, non quo ille scuta occulta esse vellet, sed ne familiares, si
scuta ipsi ferrent, laborarent. illud vero taeterrimum non modo aspectu,
sed etiam auditu, in cella Concordiae conlocari armatos, latrones, sicarios,
de templo carcerem fieri, opertis valvis Concordiae, cum inter subsellia
senatus versarentur latrones, patres conscriptos sententias dicere.
[As a record for posterity, must we not brand with a memorial of the most severe censure by this order that in this city, since its foundation, only Mark Antony has openly kept an armed guard at his side! Neither our kings nor those who after the expulsion of the kings tried to seize the kingship ever did this. I remember Cinna, I saw Sulla, recently Caesar. These three possessed more power than the entire commonwealth since Lucius Brutus liberated the community. I cannot affirm that they were surrounded by no weapons, but this I do affirm: not by many, and they were concealed. By contrast, an armed column attended this pest. Cassius, Mustela, Tiro, brandishing their swords, led gangs like themselves through the forum. Barbarian archers had their assigned place in the column. When they reached the Temple of Concord, the steps were packed, the litters were set down — not that he wanted the shields to be hidden, but to save his friends the effort of carrying them. The most loathsome thing of all, not only to see, but even to hear of is that armed men, bandits, cutthroats were stationed in the shrine of Concord. The temple became a prison. The doors of Concord were closed, and members of the senate expressed their views while bandits were moving about amid the benches.]
Livy 34 27.5 -
[5] Dromon ipsi vocant—positis armis ad contionem vocari iubet Lacedaemonios atque eorum contioni satellites armatos circumdedit;
Titi Livi ab urbe condita libri editionem priman curavit Guilelmus Weissenborn editio altera auam curavit Mauritius Mueller Pars III. Libri XXXI-XL. Editio Stereotypica. Titus Livius. W. Weissenborn. H. J. Müller. Leipzig. Teubner. 1911. 3.
Livy 24.5.4 -
“purpuram ac diadema ac
satellites armatos"
Tacitus has armed retinue for Vespasian:
3.69 Praevenerat rumor eiurari ab eo imperium, scripseratque Flavius Sabinus cohortium tribunis ut militem cohiberent. igitur tamquam omnis res publica in Vespasiani sinum cecidisset, primores senatus et plerique equestris ordinis omnisque miles urbanus et vigiles domum Flavii Sabini complevere. illuc de studiis vulgi et minis Germanicarum cohortium adfertur. longius iam progressus erat quam ut regredi posset; et suo quisque metu, ne disiectos eoque minus validos Vitelliani consectarentur, cunctantem in arma impellebant: sed quod in eius modi rebus accidit, consilium ab omnibus datum est, periculum pauci sumpsere. circa lacum Fundani descendentibus qui Sabinum comitabantur armatis occurrunt promptissimi Vitellianorum. modicum ibi proelium improviso tumultu, sed prosperum Vitellianis fuit. Sabinus re trepida, quod tutissimum e praesentibus, arcem Capitolii insedit mixto milite et quibusdam senatorum equi- tumque, quorum nomina tradere haud promptum est, quoniam victore Vespasiano multi id meritum erga partis simulavere. subierunt obsidium etiam feminae, inter quas maxime insignis Verulana Gratilla, neque liberos neque propinquos sed bellum secuta. Vitellianus miles socordi custodia clausos circumdedit; eoque concubia nocte suos liberos Sabinus et Domitianum fratris filium in Capitolium accivit, misso per neglecta ad Flavianos duces nuntio qui circumsideri ipsos et, ni subveniretur, artas res nuntiaret. noctem adeo quietam egit ut digredi sine noxa potuerit: quippe miles Vitellii adversus pericula ferox, laboribus et vigiliis parum intentus erat, et hibernus imber repente fusus oculos aurisque impediebat.
3.69 The rumour had already spread abroad that he was abdicating, and Flavius Sabinus had written to the tribunes of the cohorts to hold the troops in check. Therefore, as if the entire state had fallen into Vespasian's arms, the leading senators, a majority of the equestrian order, and all the city guards and watchmen crowded the house of Flavius Sabinus. Word was brought there concerning the temper of the people and the threats of the German cohorts; but by this time Sabinus had already gone too far to retreat; and everyone, fearing for himself lest the Vitellian troops should attack the Flavians when scattered and therefore weak, urged the hesitating prefect to armed action. But, as generally happens in such cases, while all gave advice, few faced danger. As Sabinus and his armed retinue were coming down by the reservoir of Fundanus, they were met by the most eager of the supporters of Vitellius. The conflict was of trifling importance, for the encounter was unforeseen, but it was favourable to the Vitellian forces. In his uncertainty Sabinus chose the easiest course under the circumstances and occupied the citadel on the Capitoline with a miscellaneous body of soldiers, and with some senators and knights, whose names it is not easy to report, since after Vespasian's victory many claimed to have rendered this service to his party. Some women even faced the siege; the most prominent among them was Verulana Gratilla, who was not following children or relatives but was attracted by the fascination of war. While the Vitellians besieged Sabinus and his companions they kept only a careless watch; therefore in the depth of night Sabinus called his own sons and his nephew Domitian into the Capitol. He succeeded also in sending a messenger through his opponents' slack pickets to the Flavian generals to report that they were besieged and in a difficult situation unless help came. In fact the night was so quiet that Sabinus could have escaped himself without danger; for the soldiers of Vitellius, while ready to face dangers, had little regard for hard work and picket duty; besides a sudden downpour of winter rain rendered seeing and hearing difficult.
From https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/h03070.htm:
70. At dawn of day, before either side commenced hostilities, Sabinus sent Cornelius Martialis, a centurion of the first rank, to Vitellius, with instructions to complain of the infraction of the stipulated terms. "There has evidently," he said, "been a mere show and pretence of abdicating the Empire, with the view of deceiving a number of distinguished men. If not, why, when leaving the Rostra, had he gone to the house of his brother, looking as it did over the Forum, and certain to provoke the gaze of the multitude, rather than to the Aventine, and the family house of his wife? This would have befitted a private individual anxious to shun all appearance of Imperial power. But on the contrary, Vitellius retraced his steps to the palace, the very stronghold of Empire; thence issued a band of armed men. One of the most frequented parts of the city was strewed with the corpses of innocent persons. The Capitol itself had not been spared. "I," said Sabinus, "was only a civilian and a member of the Senate, while the rivalry of Vitellius and Vespasian was being settled by conflicts between legions, by the capture of cities, by the capitulation of cohorts; with Spain, Germany, and Britain in revolt, the brother of Vespasian still remained firm to his allegiance, till actually invited to discuss terms of agreement. Peace and harmony bring advantage to the conquered, but only credit to the conqueror. If you repent of your compact, it is not against me, whom you treacherously deceived, that you must draw the sword, nor is it against the son of Vespasian, who is yet of tender age. What would be gained by the slaughter of one old man and one stripling? You should go and meet the legions, and fight there for Empire; everything else will follow the issue of that struggle." To these representations the embarrassed Vitellius answered a few words in his own exculpation, throwing all the blame upon the soldiers, with whose excessive zeal his moderation was, he said, unable to cope. He advised Martialis to depart unobserved through a concealed part of the palace, lest he should be killed by the soldiers, as the negotiator of this abhorred convention. Vitellius had not now the power either to command or to forbid. He was no longer Emperor, he was merely the cause of war.
70. Luce prima Sabinus, antequam in vicem hostilia coeptarent, Cornelium Martialem e primipilaribus ad Vitellium misit cum mandatis et questu quod pacta turbarentur: simulationem prorsus et imaginem deponendi imperii fuisse ad decipiendos tot inlustris viros. cur enim e rostris fratris domum, imminentem foro et inritandis hominum oculis, quam Aventinum et penatis uxoris petisset? ita privato et omnem principatus speciem vitanti convenisse. contra Vitellium in Palatium, in ipsam imperii arcem regressum; inde armatum agmen emissum, stratam innocentium caedibus celeberrimam urbis partem, ne Capitolio quidem abstineri. togatum nempe se et unum e senatoribus: dum inter Vespasianum ac Vitellium proeliis legionum, captivitatibus urbium, deditionibus cohortium iudicatur, iam Hispaniis Germaniisque et Britannia desciscentibus, fratrem Vespasiani mansisse in fide, donec ultro ad condiciones vocaretur. pacem et concordiam victis utilia, victoribus tantum pulchra esse. si conventionis paeniteat, non se, quem perfidia deceperit, ferro peteret, non filium Vespasiani vix puberem--quantum occisis uno sene et uno iuvene profici?--: iret obviam legionibus et de summa rerum illic certaret: cetera secundum eventum proelii cessura. trepidus ad haec Vitellius pauca purgandi sui causa respondit, culpam in militem conferens, cuius nimio ardori imparem esse modestiam suam; et monuit Martialem ut per secretam aedium partem occulte abiret, ne a militibus internuntius invisae pacis interficeretur: ipse neque iubendi neque vetandi potens non iam imperator sed tantum belli causa erat.
The emperor Septimius Severus posts armati or 'armed men' about him, although these are not the Praetorians. He disbands the Praetorians of Pertinax and forms a new guard with soldiers drawn from his legions:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Septimius_Severus*.html
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Septimius_Severus*.html
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/75*.html#74-1
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodian-s-roman-history/herodian-2.13#2.13.4
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.