Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T14:12:34.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legio VII and the Garrison of Augustan Galatia*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Stephen Mitchell
Stephen Mitchell
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Augustus inherited the kingdom of Amyntas in or about 25 B.C. and created the Roman province of Galatia, he also inherited a substantial military problem. Despite Amynatas' efforts in a decade of warfare the tribes of the Isaurian and Pisidian Taurus, above all the Homonadenses, were still not finally conquered and posed a serious threat both to lacal security and to the routes of communication across southern Asia Minor.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , December 1976 , pp. 298 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, essentially, Levick, Barbara, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967), chs. 2–3.Google Scholar

2 For Antioch, Lystra, Cremna, Olbasa, Comama, and Parlais see Levick, op. cit., passim; coins, identified and to be published shortly by H. von Aulock, show that Iconium was also an Augustan colony, as were Germa in Galatia and Ninica in Cilicia Tracheia (cf. JRS 64 (1974), 29); I have also argued that there were settlements of ‘non-colonial coloni’ at Attaleia, Isaura, Neapolis, and Apollonia from the Augustan period, see ‘Roman Residents and Roman Property in Southern Asia Minor’, Acta of the 10th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Ankara and Izmir 1973 (forthcoming).

3 Klio 27 (1934), 127–31;Google ScholarDanubian Papers (1971), p. 72;Google ScholarAkten des VI Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische and Lateinische Epigraphik, München 1972 (Vestigia vol. 17, 1973), pp. 595–7. In the first article cited, and in Klio 30 (1937), 227, n.1, Syme demonstrated that Pamphylia was jointly governed with Galatia under Augustus.Google Scholar

4 Klio 27 (1934), 131–8; Levick, op. cit., App. V. The ancient evidence does not specifically state that legions were used for this war but there is no doubt that they were.Google Scholar

5 Dio 55.28.2–3 and Vell. Pat. 2.113, elucidated by Syme, , Klio 27 (1934), 139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Ibid. 143–4; cf. JRS 23 (1933), 31,Google Scholar and Anatolian Studies presented to W.H. Buckler (1939), p.331.Google Scholar

7 Les Procurateurs équestres sous le haut-empire romain (1950), pp. 16–19.Google Scholar

8 Strabo 14.5.6, 671.

9 Kilo 27 (1934), 143Google Scholar with n.1; JRS (1933), 24, n.72.Google Scholar

10 Strabo 17.3.25, 840.

11 Millar, Fergus, ‘The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces’, JRS 56 (1966), 156–66.Google Scholar

12 Millar, Fergus, ‘Triumvirate and Principate’, JRS 63 (1973), 50–67, esp. 61 f.Google Scholar

13 For the date cf. Syme, , JRS 23 (1933), 19–21. Deiotarus' native troops had been organized as two legions long before they came under direct Roman command (see Cicero ad Att. 6.1.14; Bell. Alex. 34) and had presumably passed to Amyntas before they were formally incorporated into the Roman Army.Google Scholar

14 BGU iv. 1104.Google Scholar

15 Vell. Pat. 2.112.4.

16 Dio 55.28.2–3. See n.5 above.

17 Klio 27 (1934), 127–8Google Scholar following Anderson, J.G.C. in JRS 7 (1917), 235, n.2.Google Scholar

18 Klio 27 (1934), 137; Levick, op. cit., p. 213, citing Josephus, AJ 17.10.9, However, Josephus does not seem to think it unusual that there were only three Syrian legions at this date. Was this the normal garrison under Augustus? If so, Legio XII Fulminata or one of the other legions usually ascribed to Syria could have been the third Egyptian legion (cf. Strabo 17.1.2, 797; 2.30, 807).Google Scholar

19 Klio 27 (1934), 144–5; cf. Levick, op.cit., p. 214, who notes that the commander during the Homonadensian war, P. Sulpicius Quirinius, earned the ornamenta triumphalia by his victory, an honour only awarded for major campaigns.Google Scholar

20 Lesquier, J., L' Armée romaine d' Egypte d' Auguste à Dioclétien (1918), p. 49.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., pp. 41 f.

22 AE (1910), no. 207.

23 CIL III.6627 = ILS 2483.

24 C.Sossius of Pompeiopolis who belonged to the legion whose members are listed in the first column of the inscription is separately attested as a member of legio III (CIL 111.6591).

25 Sanders, H.A., ‘The Origins of the Third Cyrenaic Legion’, AJPhil. 112 (1941), 84–7, remarks on this fact.Google Scholar

26 CIL III. 6826.

27 CIL III. 6827.

28 Bean, G.E., Anatolian Studies 9 (1959), 93.Google Scholar

29 IGR III, no. 1476.

30 Historia 13 (1964), 108, n.12.Google Scholar

31 Levick, op. cit., p. 201.

32 CIL X. 1711, 4723, 8241; III. 7386; AE (1938), no. 141.

33 Wilkes, J., Dalmatia (1969), pp. 95 f. There is no evidence for the precise date of the legion's arrival in Dalmatia, but a large number of soldiers and veterans (listed in the Table below) are known from early in the reign of Tiberius, and there is no doubt that the legion had been stationed there since the end of the Pannonian revolt.Google Scholar

34 Wilkes, loc. cit.

35 Ibid., p. 93. He suggests that the eastern legions were IV Scytbica and V Macedonica.

36 RE xii. 1615–6, cf. 1250 s.v. legio; CIL 111.7386; cf. Alföldy, G., Historia 13 (1964), 174.Google Scholar

37 AE (1938), no. 141.

38 So Syme, , JRS 23 (1933), 23, n.67.Google Scholar

39 For this war see Dio 54.34.6 f.; Vell. Pat. 2.98; Livy, Periocha 140; Seneca, Ep. 83.14; discussed by Syme, , JRS 23 (1933), 24 and 27; Kiio 27 (1934), 122 f.; Danubian Papers (1971), pp. 44 and 65; and Akten…Müncben (1973), pp. 595–7, where he argues that the so-called ‘titulus Tiburtinus’ commemorates Piso's career, with a truncated reference to this war. E.W. Gray has pointed out to me that Piso's approach frightened off the hostile Bessi at once, implying that he brought an army with him.Google Scholar

40 Ritterling, E., ZfN 38 (1928), 56–8;Google ScholarGrant, M., From lmperium to Auctoritas (1946), p. 250; Levick, op. cit., pp. 58 and 200.Google Scholar

41 Levick, op. cit., p. 78.

42 Cf. the native soldiers of legio VII occurring in Dalmatia and listed in the Table below who all conform to this pattern.

43 For the governorship of Lollius see Sherk, R. K., The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian (1952), pp. 19–20; P1R2 V, 83: L. no.311. Cf. the M.Lollii M.f. from Ancyra in the list of legionaries from Coptos (n.23).Google Scholar

44 None of the veterans listed in the Table below had served less than twenty-five years, and some had done over thirty.

45 There is a bare possibility that M. Lollius and P.Mestrius Maecianus had spent most of their service outside Galatia and returned to their home town after they had been paid off. However, neither seems to have had a family to return to, and this is a very forced interpretation of the facts.

Another Augustan inscription from Asia Minor refers to the legion. This is a stone dated to A.D. 1, set up by a Lydian community in honour of C.Aemilius Geminus, centurion of legio VII, for his bravery and the favour he had shown to a member of the community, Marcus Antonius Keil, J. and Premerstein, A. V., Bericht über eine zweite Reise in Lydien, DAkWien 54 (1911), 98, no.192 = V. Ehrenberg and A.H.M.J ones, Documents illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius2 (1955), no.361.Google Scholar

46 It is tempting to interpret all the evidence relating to legio VII in Galatia as connected with the garrison and to argue that its veterans did not colonize Antioch. T. Cissonius Ser. f. Serg. would then be a member of one of the original colonial families (clearly linked with the veteran of legio V T.Cissonius Q.f., CIL III.6825) who had followed the example of native recruits and joined the local legion. The coin evidence can also be questioned. The photographs show no clear trace of the figure I after the V in the second legionary title, although this has always been printed as LEG VI [I] (Ritterling, E., ZfN 38 (1928), 56–8;Google ScholarKrzyzanowska, A., Monnaies coloniales d' Antioche de Pisidie (1970), pl.I). One could argue that this legend also simply read LEG V, or, accepting the reading VII, that the coin commemorated the Augustan garrison of Galatia (see p. 60 for the possibility that legio V acted as a second garrison legion) not the original colonial settlement. However, the more natural interpretation of the inscription and the coin should probably be retained and this temptation resisted. If so it is clear that legio VII was stationed in the province where the bulk of its veterans had settled. This may stimulate some reflection, see p. 307.Google Scholar

47 Seeck, O., Rh. Mus. 48 (1893), 602 f.;Google ScholarCuntz, O., JOAI 25 (1929), 70 f.;Google ScholarSyme, R., JRS 23 (1933), 30;Google ScholarBetz, A., Untersuchungen zur Militärgeschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien (1939), pp. 11–12;Google ScholarForni, G., Il recultamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocletiano (1953), pp. 61 f.;Google ScholarAlföldy, G., Historia 13 (1964), 167–79.Google Scholar

48 AE (1950), no.44, noted and explained by Alföldy, loc. cit., 172–5 and Wilkes, op. cit., pp. 112–13.

49 See Dessau, H., ZfN 16 (1906), 339;Google ScholarHead, B., Historia Numorum2 (1911), p. 449.Google Scholar

50 Not otherwise on record but the form of the name can be compared to places in Pisidia such as Cotenna and Etenna.

51 Possibly the city refounded by Pythodoris of Tralles at the old site of Cabeira/Diospolis (Strabo 12.3.31, 557), although this did not become provincial territory until the reign of Nero.

52 Perhaps Heraclea Lyncestis, but this is not absolutely certain. There were a few recuits from Bithynia/Pontus (e.g. C.Licinius C.f. Fab. from Sinope) and Heraclea Pontica is also possible.

53 Like Clistenna Dentum has not been located, but the name is typically Thracian, cf. Detschew, L., Die thrakischen Sprachreste (1957), pp.125–6 for several comparable forms.Google Scholar

54 JOAI 25 (1929), 70 f.

55 None of Antony's legates was called Ancharenus, Baebius, or Riccius.

56 Cf. Levick, op. cit., p. 66, n.8; Robert, L., Noms indigènes dans l' Asie Mineure gré'To-romaine (1963), p. 43.Google Scholar

57 Cf. Levick, op. cit., p. 201, n.2; Syme, , JRS 23 (1933), 18 and 29 f.; Danubian Papers, p. 72.Google Scholar

58 The main argument on which this assumption rests is that of the five legions which fought the battle at the Volcaean marshes, three constituted the garrison of Moesia, and two the troops brought from Isauria by M.Plautius Silvanus. However, the Isaurian uprising was not a major revolt, and one legion could have been stationed in Macedonia.

59 CIL III.14492; 1X.6159; cf. AE (1960), no.128.

60 See Levick, op. cit., pp. 200 f.

61 Cf. the remarks of Ritterling, RE XII. 1239 s.v. legio: ‘scheint meist der Grundsatz festgehalten zu sein, die Veteranen der in verscheidenen Provinzen stehenden Legionen in einer innerhalf oder in der Nähe der Garnisonsprovinz gelegenen Kolonien anzusiedeln.’

62 See n.13 above.