The History of Pannonia between 54 and 166 A.D. in the Light of the Sources

Peter Kovacs

Whenever the introduction of civil administration took place in Pannonia - we suggested the date of the reign of Tiberius in the commentaries of FPA 1 - it is certain that it happened before 50 A.D (when the province is mentioned again in our sources in connection with Vannius' defeat). The province was directed by a legatus Augusti pro praetore (a consularis) who received the lex provinciae that is vital at such times in which the borders of the province were finally estabilished among other things; its towns were as follows: coloniae: Emona, Savaria, municipium: Scarbantia (?). The financial matters of Pannonia were directed by a provincial procurator with rank ducenarius, his seat was in Poetovio. His official title was procurator provinciae Pannoniae et Delmatiae in the first century (Cf.: ILS 9200, as for the name: Dio LV 29, 1, FPA I 283.J.1 The organisation of the civitates peregrinae took place eatlier; at that time they were certainly under military control (Cf.: CIL IX 5363-5364, III 14387.). Among the early relics of the civitates the military diploma from 70 published recently is outstanding. It was issued for the Eraviscus Velagenus Covionis f., who was serving in the classis in Ravenna as a centurio (RMD 205). Though he was given his privileges as ante emerita since he was centurio (he must have been towards the end of his career), the conscription among the Eravisci could have begun already during Claudius' era. The witnesses' names ate also of vital importance: there were two principes Boiorum, a pr. Iasio(rum) (sic!) and Antizit(um) (J)and another princeps without name among them. T. Flavius Serenus princ. lasio. already had the Roman citizenship.

It is also doubtless that the Roman domination had already been established by this time since there is no data for the insurgence of the Pannon and the Celtic tribes. In an indirect way, this is proved by the fact when the legio Villi Hispana was first transferred temporarily (for the conquest of Britannia) from Pannonia and later permanently, altogether two legions were stationed in the province between 43 and 85 (i.e. until Domitian's Danubian wars) namely the legio XV ApolUnaris in Camuntum (a building inscription [dated to 53] is known from here; cf. CIL III 4591=FPA I 242-243.) and after 45 the legio XIII gemina that followed the VIII Augusta. Even Tacit mentioned that it was stationed in Poetovio: Hist. Ill 1, 1. Beside the two legiones, other auxiliary units of small number of soldiers were staying there on the basis of the datas of epitaphs and military diplomas issued since the reign of Claudius. The earliest diploma concerning Pannonia is dated already to Nero's reign: CIL XVI 4. (61 A.D.): 4 alae, 7 cohortes. Among the early military forts, the earth-timber period ones of Camuntum, Brigetio, Annamatia, Lussonium are known, but on the basis of well-datable imported finds we have to suppose that there were other forts along the limes on the territory of Vindobona-Wien, Brige-tio-Szony (?), Solva-Esztergom, Aquincum-Vfzivaros, Lugio-Dunaszekcso, Teuto-burgium-Dalya/Dalj. This fact may warn us that we should calculate with an entirely built defence line along the river even before the Flavian period. It is also not by accident that the existence of the fleet from Pannonia before the Flavians was mentioned (Tac. Ann. XII29-30). The successor of this will be the classis Flavia Pannonica with the base Taurunum-Zimony/Zemun.7 The Romanization of the inhabitant tribes and the pacification of the area were enhanced by the significantly many auxiliary units conscripted from them (it is notable that in the

beginning, only Pannons were enrolled (not Pannonians): 8 cohortes Breucorum, 2 ake and 4 cohortes Pannoniorum, 1 cohors Varcianorum, 1 cohorsVarcianorumet Latobicorum, 1 cohors Pannoniorum et Dalmatantm (their inscriptions: Dobo Nos. 287^88) .8 At the same time, the fleets from Italy (esp. from Ravenna) consisted of Pannonian units to a significant extent as it is proved by Tacit (Hist. Ill 12.) and the military diplomas.

The point of my reasoning above is that after Claudius' death a well-organized province was left to the new emperor, Nero, which was on the way of development and Romanization. Beside a smaller army stationed here, the normal course of life is proven by the fact that our sources are silent about the province until the civil wars of 68-69 A.D, but really significant event did not happen that time, either; it is just the Pannonian units participated in the Italian battles. Tiridates heading for Rome could cross lllyricum without any problem (Dio LXIII 7, 1.). A single data can demonstrate that the sources were silent: in the first books (X1H-XVI) of Tacit's Annales on the reign of Nero nothing came up in connection with Pannonia except for the participation of the units of the province (legio XVApolUnaris) in the Parthian war after 62 which is mentioned several times (Ann. XV 10, 25-26.). From these latter ones, the fact seems the most important one that the Illyrican legions were filled through new conscriptions in 65 A.D. (16.), that is the reason why several Orientals served in the legio XV Apollinaris being stationed in the East. These people (together with their relatives) formed the first, basic layer of the Greek-speaking population of Pannonia. First the legio X gemina (62-68), then the VII gemina (68-69), and finally the XXII Primigenia (69-71) succeeded the latter legio.

In respect of the events in 68-69, the province got into key position again. The reason for this is the same as during the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion and so many times later, namely, the immediate proximity to Italy which made it possible for the troops to intervene in the Italian events quickly and easily. Our chief source for this is the first books of Tacit's Historiae; it seems unnecessary to repeat the detailed review of the events. The chronology of the events is as follows: Galba was acknowledged by the Pannonian troops after the fall of Nero (June in 68), the new legio VII gemina from Hispania followed the legio X gemina in Camuntum in 68; and finally, on the evidence of Hist. I 9, quiet (quies) was dwelling in the province.12 The most important Pannonian find of the reign of Galba is a small fragmentary bronze plate from Vindobona; it is obviously an imperial constitutio from the second half of 68 or from the beginning of 69 (Galba was murdered on the 15th of January!) in which he secured immunitas to several people, most probably within the local auxiliary unit. The emperor's stamped tile (IMPGALB PANS) provides evidence for the building works within the legionary fort of Vindobona. The Pannonian units supported Otho during the Otho-Vitellius battles (Hist. I 76, II 11. 32.), though they arrived late for the battle at Bedriacum, they could certainly have saved the reign of Otho who committed suicide (16r of April in 69) in despair (Hist. II32.46.). Later they joined Vespasian for the call of the legiones from Moesia (Hist. II74.85-86.), and these latter troops this time decided the battle also at Bedriacum (24-25th of October in 69) (Hist. Ill 1-35.), and then they marched in Rome (20th of December) (Hist. Ill 78-85.).17 The leaders of the movement and the troops were the agile provincial procurator, Cornelius Fuscus and the legatus of the legio VII gemina, Antonius Primus who was deprived of his fortune after the victory.18

The careful Tampius Flavianus, the Pannonian governor was hesitating for long (Hist. Ill 4.), which the legiones did not forgive him (Hist. Ill 10.). By the way, he is the first known governor who was called

legatus Aug. prov. Pannoniae already on inscriptions (CIL X 6225=ILS 985=AEp 1966, 68). During the war, they took their German allies under the command of the already known Sido and Italicus, whereas they entered into an alliance with the leaders of the unreliable Sarmatians and held back them as hostages.

In a unique way, this fact was recorded not only by Tacit (Hist. Ill 5.), but the previously mentioned, unfortunately fragmentary inscription: J opsidibus a Tran/sdanuvianis] itibus omnibus ex[ jalia praestanda [---] , on which the tribes living beyond the Danube are identical with the Sarmatians mentioned by Tacit. However, it is controversial exactly for what the governor deserved the ornamenta triumphalia.19 There are two known restorations of the inscription: 1. Mommsen-Alfoldi's, 2. A. Mocsy's. The first one follows Plautius Silvanus' inscription (CILXIV3608=ILS 986.), and presumes settlements, and the second one tries to reconstruct the text on the basis of Hist. Ill 5. Mocsy's observations are undoubtedly correct in terms of the length of text (the length of the 4r line is more or less calculable due to that certain restoration - [curatori aqujarum). It is also doubtless that the wording of the 6th and the last, 9th lines could be similar to other elogia, especially to Plautius Silvanus' inscription: obres in Pannonia prospere gestas… ,and pacem provinciae confirmavit. However, in case of both restoration-variants, too many uncertain factors are to be taken into consideration. It is not known since when Flavianus held his office as governor but it is certain from the wording of the elogium that he was given the ornamenta triumphalia for three feats known only in details (the fourth is missing) (four lines): according to the first interpretation: 1. taking hostages 2. ensuring the protection of the province 3. resettlement of the new tribes to the area of the empire and obliging them to pay tax 4. ?• According to the second interpretation: 1. taking hostages 2. sent of the lazyges 3. call and use of the Suebian allies 4. ensuring the order of the province.

It is common in both restoration-variants that neither of them supposes war event as a reason. The events could hardly happen separately, since the ablativi absoluti explain the reasons for giving the ornamenta triumphalia, the events may follow each other chronologically in this order (as on Plautius Silvanus' famous inscription from Tibur to be mentioned below). That is why dating the possible resettlement to Nero's period is ungrounded.2 Flavianus could hardly have been the governor of the province under the reign of Nero since Galba placed one of the legiones of the province here together with the other known provincial leading officers: the new legio VII gemina. Cornelius Fuscus (Tac. Hist. II 86.), Antonius Primus (Hist. II 86, Dio LXIV 9.). According to the other less probable option, Vitellius appointed him being his relative (Tac. Hist. Ill 4. 10.). Flavianus and Galba were of similar age, and came from the same glace (Fundi), their practical experiences and judgement were also in agreement. Because of all these, it would not be daring to state that Flavianus came to the fore in Pannonia as Galba's man. The inscription found in Fundi is just a fragment, its restoration is rather uncertain at several places, but the inscription of the governor of Moesia, Plautius Silvanus on which a 100 000-strong-settlement is recorded, can serve as parallel locus (CIL XIV 3608=ILS 986.). Not only the similar age of the inscription but the similar wording is evidence for this: the words ad vectig]alia praestanda, obsides, Tran[sdanuviani appear in the text of both inscriptions.24 The great problem of both restorations is that neither of them agrees entirely with Tac. Hist. Ill 5. where the order of the events is as follows: 1. enter into alliance with the Sarmatians, (in commilitium adsciti) 2. those offet their help stemming from the alliance (munus) 3. the refusal of that 4. winning the Suebian Sido and Italicus and

their entry into war. Taking hostages does not appear at Tacitus anywhere (the expression in commilitium adsciti 25 is not the same!), so it is impossible to restore the text of the elogium solely on the basis of Tacit's locus. Taking hostages is undoubtedly probable due to the character of the events (conluding an alliance with the Romans was a frequent condition on other occasions as well) but I'd rather regard the reference to the Sarmatian foedus as important at III 5: remissum id munus, ne inter discordias externa molirentur aut maiore ex diverso mercede ius fasque exuerent. The unanswered question is the following: why did the leaders of the lazyges become in commilitium adsciti? The cause is obvious on the ground of Tacit's text: ne inermes provinciae barbaris nationibus exponerentur.

It is also controversial question whether the person not fancied by the legiones (cf. Ill 4.: at the beginning of the insurgence he already left his post once and according to III 10.^ he could hardly escape from the rage of the soldiers) returned to his province, since the neighbouring Moesia was given a new legatus, true to say, because of the Dacian break-in (Hist. Ill 46).28 In J. Fitz's opinion, the ornamenta triumphalia can be linked to an earlier stage of his career. 9 It could hardly be anything else than his proconsulship in Africa that he could only perform obviously under the reign of Nero owing to the wording of the cursus. However, Tacit mentions no military events from this period and Pliny the Elder's data concerning it does not indicate that, either (Nat. Hist. IX 26.). The only certain stage of his later career is that he served as curator in 73. (Front. De aq. 102,15.), and consul in 75 for the second time (CIL IV 2560). Theoretically, he could hold the office of the legatus even after 69. The fact might indicate this that Tacit does not appear in Hist.

IV 4. when the senatus distributes rewards for the chief men of the Flavius-party: Mucianus gets ornamenta triumphalia, Fuscus is appointed praetor, and finally Primus became consul. Mocsy is right also in that the events in Pannonia were attributed to him, theconsularisnot to his subordinates (Hist. V 26. Cf. Ill 4.).30The diplomatic efforts were fruitful, the Sarmatians did not attack Pannonia in 69 as opposed to Moesia (Dacian attack) (Hist. Ill 46.). At Tacit, we can find a rumour about attacks that effected Pannonia as well in the 70's A.D. (Hist. IV 54-), but in reality only Moesia suffered from it as it turns out from Josephus Flavius' writing (VII 4, 3.: he mentions only the Sarmatians). According to our present position, we have to accept both restoration-variants of the fragmentary inscription as possibility, we cannot exclude either of them on the grounds of our written sources. Inasmuch the first traditional interpretation is the correct one, we would have to take a Satmatian settlement in the 69-70's into consideration. We do not know what the contract concluded with the Sarmatians by Flavianus exactly included. A settlement might as well be a point of it. However, neither archeological data nor written sources are in our possession.

After the period of the civil war, a new almost quarter-century-long peace greeted the province this time. It is not accidental that the province disappears from our sources again; there is no word about in either Suetonius' biographies of Vespasian and Titus or Cassius Dio's LXV-LXVI books. This fact obviusly refers to the lack of significant external events or break-ins. However, the changes within the botders of the province are all the more significant. The defence system, the network of the military cascra along the Danube was entirely and finally built, and the foundation of several towns took place in this period. Siscia (Plin. Nat. Hist. Ill 148.) and Sirmium (CIL XVI18., 73 A.D.) are bound to have been raised to the rank of colonia during the reign of Vespasian. Our only source on this period is Ioannes Malalas from

Byzantine according whom (Chronogr. 261.) Vespasian £KTIG£ Si teat sic, Tlavvoviav Kai sic, Koppayeviav tag knapxiac, TtoXkd. Commagene certainly became part of province Syria again during the reign of Vespasian after Antiochos IV's death (72 A.D.) It can hardly be true in case of Pannonia. Malalas' locus cannot be a reliable data for the introduction of the civilian administration, either, since already Tampius Flavianus directed the province as legatus Augusti pro praetore for sure. The next question to arise is what the emperor founded: obviously towns (the TtoXXd plural neutrum can refer solely to this). Since the foundation of new towns comes up, we have to take the coloniae into consideration first and foremost. In this case, the controversial date of the foundation of Sirmium is estabilished. From Pliny's town-list (III 148.) Sirmium was missing only due to the author's specific editing technique, he mentioned it in the passages on hydrography (true to say, still as oppidum), that is why he left it out from the town-list (FPA I 55. n. 10.). We may not make serius mistake if we date Malalas' data i.e. the foundation of the towns similarly to of Commagene to around 71—72; the data of the military diploma from 73 may refer to this as well. Discharged, mainly fleet-soldiers from Pannonia (the majority of the ranks of the fleet in Ravenna were Pannonians: cf.Tac. Hist. Ill 12.) were settled down in the new towns (cf. CIL XVI 14-, 18., M. Roxan, In. Limes XVIII. BAR IS 1084. Oxford 2002.945-948=RMD 205., CIL III 3791.): suntdeducti tnPannoniam (!). Unfortunately, the precise date of the foundation of the Flavian municipia in not known, but on the basis of their known Flavian adjective names, the following towns were raised to urban rank in this period: Neviodunum-Muni-cipium Latobicorum (CIL III 3919, VI 32671), Scarbantia (re-founded?: RIU 134, 174, ILS 8507), and probably Andautonia (CIL III 3679) on the grounds of its belonging to tribus Quirina. Beside the city foundations by the Flavian emperors, we have to commemorate the fact that donating the Roman citizenship became large-scale in the province as it is proved by the frequent occurence of the gentilicium Flavius (228; 21).

As we have already mentioned, the Flavian emperors devoted great attention to the final extension of the defensive system. First of all, this is Vespasian's merit as it turns out from the building inscriptions of several forts and their interior buildings: CIL III 11194-11196. (Camuntum, 73 A.D.), AEp 1969-1970, 477=1986, 590. (Aquincum-buda, A.D. 73 A.D.), RIU 826- (Cirpi, 80 A.D.). On the basis of the excavated eatth-timber forts and their find-material, we have to reckon with the building of several other new miltary forts in the territory of Cannabiaca-Kloster-neuburg, Cirpi-Dunabogdany, Albertfalva, Ulcisia Castra—Szentendre, Campona-Nagyteteny, Intercisa-Dunaujvaros, Ad militare-Kiskoszeg/Batina, Cornacum-Sotin, Malata-Banmonostor/Banostor, Acumincum-Szalankemen/SIankamen, Rittium-Szurduk/Surduk, Burgenae-Ujbanovce/Novi Banovci, Taurunum-Zimony/Zemun (the final form of the defensive system formed only during the reign of Traian; the southern limes section is only known mainly on the ground of stray finds).36 Auxiliary units of proper number were necessary for the new castTa; we have data on the presence of 7 alxxe and 18 cohortes beside the 2 legiones primarily on the basis of the unit-lists of the miltary diplomas (CIL XVI 26., RMD 138.).37

Only during the reign of Domitian did Pannonia become again the locality of such events that were important for the historiographers, namely when the emperor launched his dragging Danubian war. Unfortunately, the books of Historiae that covered the events after 69 have been lost (cf. Hist. I 2.), and only the excerptum of Cassius Dio's LXVIII1'1 book is known, that is why the chronology of the wars is rather controversial. Beside these writings, we are restricted to rely solely on the unit-lists of the military

diplomas and the inscriptions commemorating military decorations (and the place where they were earned). Much to our luck, the contemporary silver age Latin poets' works (Martialis' epigrams, Statius' Silvae and Silius Italicus' Punka) provide lots of datas on the wars in progress and where the emperor praised by them achieved success. Apart from them, we can deduce the military events from the number of Domitian's acclamationes as an imperator, The problem lies in the fact that at least three events affected the province from Domitian's Danubian wars between 85 and 97; these events are quite well-datable to around 89,92, and 96-97- However, it is arguable exactly which campaigns the events mentioned in the sources can be linked to (see below).

However it happened, it is certain that by the beginning of Domitian's Dacian wars, by 85 we have to reckon with a strengthened frontier defence: instead of the earlier units, we have datas that 11 alae and 23 cohones were stationed in Pannonia (CIL XVI 30-31.)!40 It is presumable on the evidence of the concentration of the troops before 85 that the Pannonian limes section became dangerous too, it may have been attacked as well which, however, cannot be linked to Domitian's any acclamationes in 85 as an imperator (VIII—XI: turn of 84-85 - Oct/Nov. in 85), since we have data only on the outbreak of the Dacian war.41 We could see from the garrison list above that Domitian strengthened primarily the section of the Pannonian limes at Szeremseg/Srem. Obviously, it was necessary because of the Dacian threat, since the Dacian-Sarmatian border was extended along the Tisza (Ptol. Ill 7, 1=FPA I 80-81.), and as earlier (Dio LIV 36, 2-3, Orosius VI 22, 3, MonAnc. 30. Cf. the reverse situation, namely the Roman attack against the Dacians from or through Pannonia: App. 111. 22, 65, 23, 67, Strab. IV 6,10, VII 3,13, ILS 8965), the Dacians could endanger Pannonia, or more precisely, the section between Acumincum-Taurunum. Ones suppose that during 85-86 A.D. (first Dacian war), two (maybe one) new legiones were sent to the border-section at Szeremseg/Srem. These were the legio I and the II adiutrix which were so important later in the future of the province.4 Unfortunately, their forting sites are not known, and cannot be excluded due to the lack of datas that one of them (iegio II adiutrix) was stationed in Moesia.43 The suggestions so far to determine the locations of the garrisons are hardly satisfiable (e.g. Burnum, Poetovio, Sirmium, this latter one since it was already colonia, the others were located too far from the frontier, especially Burnum in Dalmatia), they ate by all means to be searched only at the border-sections.44 The only certain relic of their short (86-89) residence here is the altar-stone of a soldier of the legio I adiutrix in Sirmium (1LJ 3017). On the basis of this, one garrison was in the proximity of Sirmium. In that area, Malata which is the nearest to Sirmium is the most possile option,46 since from this latter town, the limes road to Cusum47 was measured by mileposts (CIL III 3700-3703, one of them is from Nerva's era!); there is data for that only in cases of legionary forts along the limes in Pannonia.48 It is necessary to mention the mistaken view that during this period (86-106) the part of Pannonia at Szeremseg was attached to Moesia Superior due to the Dacian war.49 This possibility is excluded by such inscriptions (CIL V 6985-6986) that were erected by the civitas Comacatium (which can surely be found in Pannonia) in 102 for a Pannonian governor serving in the relevant period.50

As I have mentioned, we have problems in connection with Domitian's Panno¬nian wars due to the lack and one-sidedness of the sources. The greatest problem is caused by the fact that our written sources men tioning the war in 89 make a mention only of the Germans (Dio LXVII 7, 1-2, Aur. Vic. 11, 2.), and of the Sarmatians in case of the war in 92 (Suet. Dom. 6, 1, Mart. VII 2, 6, 8, 80, VIII 11, Eutr. VII 23, 4.). Our

epigraphic sources mention the following wars: 1SI group (mention only of the Germans, war in 89) bellum Germanicum (CIL VIII 1026=ILS 2127, III 7397.) orMarcomannicum (IRT545. es AEp 1950,66.) or expeditioGermanica (RIU S 113.), donor: Domitian; 2nd group (Suebian-Sarmatian war in 92): helium Mar-comannorum Sueborum Sarmatarum (ILS 9200.), or Suebicum item Sarmaticum (CIL XI 35=ILS 2719.), or Germanicum et Sarmaticum (CIL XI 5992.), expeditio Suebica et Sarmatica (CIL III 6818=ILS 1017.);51 3rtJ group (mention only of the Germans, war between 96 and 97): bellum Suebicum (CIL V 7425=ILS 2720.) or Germanicum (ILT 778-779.), donor: Nerva or Traian.52 On the ground of all these, there is bound to have been a war during which the Germans and the Sarmatians acted on together. Solely Dio's fragment (LXVII 5, 2.) provides explanation for that the Suebians who bore a grudge against the Romans for the armed aid to the Lugii (even if the 100 people had only symbolical value) had the intention of attacking Pannonia together with the lazygians. This fragment could hardly be dated to other period than before the war of 92 since this was the only Pannonian war that — according to Suetonius (Dom. 6, 1.) the emperor launched necessario.

One of the great problems concerning the military history of the province is the dating of Velius Rufus' expedition across the territory of the Dacians in the Markomannic-Quadian war (ILS 9200). The inscription from Heliopolis has been throughly analysed since it was unearthed (1903). According to the traditionally accepted dating, the event happened in 89 i.e. the chronology of the first war is as follows: 1. Domitian attacks the Germans, since they did not give aid in the Dacian war 2. initial failures 3. peace treaty with Decebal, handing the royal diadem for Diurpaneus in Pannonia 4. the unit participating in the expedition attacked the Sarmatians in the back 5. victory.54 However, the dating is not as easy for we have no data on the participation of the Sarmatians in the war, and what is more, this cannot be linked to die war datas of the inscriptions. Accordingly, we could not date the three groups to 89, 92 and 96-97. I have to call the attention to the fact that from the specifications from the second group, the bellum Suebicum et Sarmati* cum or the expeditio Suebica et Sarmatica denote the same war as on Velius Rufus' inscription if we translate the attribute Suebicus (=Markomannic and Quadian!). It cannot be explained by the bare fact that the unfinished war had no official name. For this reason, a dating urged by others (since H.-G. Pflaum) would seem more reasonable that Velius Rufus led his unit across Decebal's kingdom in the war of 92 due to the peace treaty three years before.56 This possibility is not excluded by Velius Rufus' cursus honorum (he was appointed procurator of Pannonia, and later of Raetia still during the reign of Domitian),57 moreover, the groups of the wars mentioned on the inscriptions do not mingle this way. It is also controversial — it does not turn out from the text of the inscription —, what office Velius Rufus held while leading the unit. The main problem is caused by the fact that we do not know in what system Velius Rufus' offices were listed. The structure of the insctiption is as follows: A) offices: I. primipitus leg. XII Fulm. 2. praefectus vexillariorum 3. trib. coh. XIII urbanae4. dux exercitus Africi etMauretanici B) dona: I. bellum Iudaicum 2.7 3. as a leader of the expedition in the Marcomannic-Quadian-Sarmatian war C) serving as procurator: Pannonia-Dalmatia, Raetia; D) Vespasian's legatus in Parthia-The other problem lies in the fact that he did not name his office he held and the unit he led in the war. If we suppose ascending chronological order (as Visy 1978), then his activities at the Danube was followed by his assignment in Africa; in that case his second donum would be problematical, moreover, too many assignments would fall on the 90's. According to the traditional, mostly accepted view, he still served as the tribunus of the cohors XUl urbana. On the basis of this hypothesis beside his

dona also the offices are standing in chronological order: his African office can be dated to the middle of the 80's (before the Danubian wars). On the basis of the new military diploma RMD 213. the cohors urbana is bound to have been staying in Africa in 85 and later took part in the Dacian and the German-Sarmatian war until 92. His assigment in Africa is placed chronologically after his tribunatus since he received his office of dux as tribunus temporarily, and after its expiry he was transferred to the Danubian front again as tribunus. In others' opinion, it is not probable because of the too long term of tribunal office,60 but due to the war circumstances, it could drag on as a special exception. According to a third opinion, in the Danubian wars Velius was the praefectus of the vexillatio formed from the 8 legiones mentioned at the beginning of the cursus. 62 After the mention of the primipifatus (1.), the cursus turns back and becomes descending in this case (3. 4. 2.). The detachment is of conspicuous structure, it comprises the legiones of Panno¬nia (/and U adiutrix, XXI Rapax) and of Moesia (XIV gemina and VIU Augusta), and a vexillatio comprising Britannian units (11 Augusta, Villi Hispana, XX Valeria vicvrix) .63 We have data on the presence of these latter ones as vexillatio Briuxnnica (Camuntum: CIL III 4466.).64 The legio XXI Rapax was most probably destroyed in the first half of the war in 92, so its participation in the expedition is impossible if we date it to later- On the evidence of the collective concentration of troops in Moesia and Pannonia, the offensive could be launched across the Bandt.65 On the evidence of the present state of the research, both options are conceivable, but in case of the second one, the order of units already mentioned are overturned.66 The fact that the sources speak of only a victory on the Sarmatians also causes difficulty. I see no other possibility for that than the deditio took place only on the part of the Sarmatians.67 This is the only explanation why the third German war that dragged on after Domitian's death was necessary.

By reason of my above argumentation, Domitian's Pannonian wars can be reconst-ructed as follows: 89 A.D. — each event is the same with the exception that the war was going on against only the Germans and Velius Rufus' expedition did not take place at that time. Domitian was tied up with the Saturninus' rebellion in the January of 89, and then the second wat against the Chatti in Germania (March-April in 89, XIXdl imperial acclamation); as a result of that, the legio XXI Rapax was transferred to the limes section against the Sarmatians. As a consequence of the redeployment of the troops, the legio I adiutrix was transferred to Brigetio, the legio II adiutrix to Aquincum (later, this will be the final garrison of them); one of the relics of this event is the unfortunately fragmentary building inscription (CIL III 143472). I myself would date the evacuation of the legionary fort at Poetovio and the transfer of the legio XIII gemina to Vindobona to the period of either the first or the second war (though no precise data is in our possession).72 The fact that the right of colonia was given during the reign of Traian is not considered to be a dating argument against it, the legio was primarily needed at the limes and on hostile territories. Poetovio is too far from this. In the year of the war, the Pannonian army consisted of 5 legiones and their auxiliary units (almost 50 000 soldiers!) consequently. The war could only be launched in Domitian's presence (the execution of the second legation: DioLXVIl 7,1.) in the late spring of 89, then after the initial failures rhey were forced to conclude peace with the Dacians: Dio LXVII 7, 2-4-75 Inasmuch Velius Rufus participated in the Danubian wars as praefectus, his expeditio must be dated to the period following the peace treaty with the Dacians. The successes of the campaign are proved by the XXth and XXllh imperial acclamations: during 89, but it is clear that he did not regard the question solved with the Suebians because he made a treaty with their enemies, the Semnons and die Lugians (LXVII 5,

2-3.); as an addition, he held his double triumphal march for the victory over the Dacians and the Chattians in the autumn of 89 (Suet. Dom. 6, 1, Eutr. VII 23, 4, Hier.Chron. 191b, Oros. VII 10,4-).

92 A.D.: giving assistance to the Lugii 2. Suebian-Sarmatian alliance 3. break-in, desctruction of a legio (Suet. Dom. 6, 1, Eutrop. VII 23, 4.) 4. Domitian stayed far from Rome in Pannonia for 8 months (Mart. Epig- VIII8.) 5. Velius Rufus's campaign, victory, Sarmatian deditio, XXII1 acclamauo as an imperator in the August of 92 5. return to Rome in January of 93 (Mart. Epig. VIII8.), placing the triumphal wreath of the victory over the Sarmatians in the Iuppiter-temple on the Capitol. (Suet. Dom. 6, 1, Mart. Epig. VIII 15. 65, Stat. Silv. Ill 3,170-171, Eutrop. VII 23, 4, Sil. It. Pun. XV 120.).77 The legio destroyed in the war (Suet. Dom. 6, 1, Eutrop. VII 23,4, Oros. VII10,4.) was the legio XXI RoDax,78 which was succeeded by the legio llll Flavia from the more stable Moesia. The locus (Ruf. Fest. 8.) mentioned earlier may have originated from this period- It refers to the expelling of the Marcomannians and the Quades from Valeria (FPA 1220-2 21.). The tombstone of the carrier of the imperial sedan chair from Camuntum (CIL III 4497.) is a peculiar relic of the wars and thepersonal presence of the emperor; the tombstone can be dated both to 89 and 92.

It cannot be excluded by a remark of Younger Plinius (Paneg. 14, 5.) that Traian the later emperor personally participated in Domitian's Danubian war. 1 This locus, however, does not prove on its own that Traian served as the legatus of Pannonia in the period following the war. Domitian did not feel the Suebian question finally settled, either,82 5 legiones were stationed in the province in future too (legio I and 1/ adiutrix, III! Flavia, XUl gemina, XV ApolUnaris), 10 aloe and 23 cohortes,83 but the final organization took place only during the reign of Nerva, the announcement of the emperor's victory over the Suebi coincided with the day of Traian's adoptio and his appointment as co-emperor: the 27th of October in 97 (Plin. Paneg. 8, 2, 36, 1, Rel. Libr. LXVIII Leo p. 283, 6-9 Cram.).85 The campaign was led by the legatus of the province, Cn. Pinarius Aemilius Cicatricula Pompeius Longinus, and as we could see, enough armed force was available for him. The legio XI1II gemina got to Pannonia during the war; very soon Vindobona served as the constant garrison of that.87 The war is mentioned on the inscriptions as bellum Suebicum or German^ cum (ILS 2720, 1LT 778—779-)- Nerva (andTraian) then (November) took up the attribute Germanicus and recieved the second acclamatio as imperator.88 Fot the person mentioned on the inscriptions ILT 778-779, Geminius Sabinus, Traian donated the award as Augustus (Nerva deceased at die end of January in 98). It is also certain on the evidence of Tacit's Germania that a new, and as we will see, a long-lasting foedus was born (Germ. 42). From the beginning of 98 (Felsonana: 20th of February), two diplomas are known (CIL XVI 42, RMD 81.), that is why the state of affairs could seem secure. The formal deditio was not carried out until Traian's return who visited the Danubian provinces as well on his way to Rome after Nerva's death (in October in 99), as we know that from the main source of that period. Younger Pliny's Panegyricus recited in September in 100 (Plin. Paneg. 12, 1-3.). The already mentioned dischatges and Traian's dona to Geminius Sabinus could refer to this but the hostages mentioned in Pliny's Panegyricus could do so even more (12, 2.). The transfer of Servianus. the new governor to Pannonia can be linked to this visit (Plin. Ep. VIII 23, 5.)- The main destination of the visit was already Moesia, but he had the intention of ensuring the loyality of all Danubian legati and the legiones (Paneg. 18,1, 19, 1-2.).92

Traian's Dacian wars (101—102,105-106 A.D.), though indirectly, exerted great influence on the life of the province. Our problem is that Nerva and Traian are the only emperor's whose biographies have not descended to us; Suetonius ends his work with Domitianus, the Historia Augusta begins with Hadrian. Our only source is the Xiphilinus' excerptum of Cassius Dio's LXVIII" book and the excerpta of the unknown author from the 10r century. On the basis of the datas of examinations of the troop history, in the first campaign against the Dacians, the legio XIII gemina, the I adiutrix and the IIII Flavia also participated; the legio XI Claudia was transferred to the latter's place to Brigetio. Leaving its earlier garrison (Ad Flexum?), the legio XIIII gemina took possession of its final garrison, Vindobona.93 There is also an epigraphic source of its building works from 103/6 A.D. (CIL III 4566. p. 1045, 14359 2).94 It is also a fact that several auxiliary units were transfened to the Dacian front.95 The fragment of a huge building inscription with the emperor's name (in the nominative case!) (CIL III 3262= 10246.) unearthed in the auxiliary fort of Malata can be dated to the reign of Traian as well. No doubt, raising Poetovio to colonial rank also took place before the end of the second Dacian war (106). This latter event is proved by a fragmentary, but well reconstructable building inscription (AEp 2000, 1189.), according to which the emperor had some public building (maybe a forum) built for the colonia between 103 and 106.96 Epitaphs of veteran soldiers (AIJ 373=ILS 2462, AEp 1986,562, AIJ 374.379.) and Hyginus' one data (De cond. Agr. 84, 8.) also prove that the emperor carried out veteran settlements into the new colonia primarily by missio agraria (legio 11 adiutrix and legio XIII v. XI Claudia, XIIII gemina) (ILS 9085.: the veterans of the legio I adiutrix by missio nummaria). We may be able to narrow the date when Poetovio was raised to the rank of a colonia to between 98 and 102,98 for Hyginus did not mention Traian's attribute Dacicus that he acquired only in the autumn of 102." The already mentioned Q. Glitius Atilius Agricola was certainly the governor of the undivided Pannonia in November in 102 on the evidence of data of the military diploma No. CIL XVI 47.

In the decisive, second Dacian war already the legio II adiutrix and the XI Claudia participated, and the legio X gemina and the XXX Ulpia Victrix occupied their garrisons. The XIIII gemina (CIL III 1158. 1196.) and XV Apollinaris (CIL III 1478.) participated in the battles with a squad. However, the armed force of the province did not decrease significantly even for the duration of the war, either. It could not decrease since we have information from Cassius Dio (LXVIII 10, 3-*\.) that the Sarmatian lazygians (contrary to the Roxolans)102 were on Traian's side in terms of the earlier foedus; they may have wanted to get back the temtory (maybe at Oltenia) (they had their earlier common border here: Jord. Get. 74.) that Decebal took away from them earlier after the first war. On the Traian column, the lazygians will appear on Rome's side when Traian negotiates with Dacian envoys; they are standing armed on the left-hand-side of the picture (scene C.).104 Traian's denial led to the new Iazygian war in all probability in 107 A.D. This latter area was indispensable for upkeeping the connection between the lazyges and the Roxolans, but since the organisation of Dacia into province did take place, Rome could not give that up, either. Tackling the question was the task of Hadrian, the later emperor, Traian's relative (SHA v. Had. 3, 9.), who served earlier as tribunus precisely in the legio 11 adiutrix in Aquincum (SHA v. Had. 2, 2.).105 The period of this may coincide with Traian's possible governorship in Pannonia.106

Hadrian, however, became one governor of the already divided Pannonia,107 namely of Inferior that had only one legion in Aquincum (legio X gemina) in the beginning, that is why it had only a praetorian

legatus. Pannonia Superior had three legiones with the centres Vindobona (legio XIIII gemina), Carnuntum (legio XV Apollinaris) and Brigetio (legio XXX Ulpia Victrix), that is the reason why it was directed by a consular governor. The model could be found in Numidia where the Eegatus of the legio III Augusta directed the whole province as well, but in Pannonia the governor, the legatus Augusti was at the same time the commander of the legio.108 The border of the two provinces can rather well be established;109 the establish¬ment of the common border of Pannonia Superior and Inferior in the second century was made possible by the examination of the boundary of the civitas Azalorum and EYaviscorum with the help of the military diplomas and the inscriptions of the natives. This later one run from the north-eastern corner of Lake Balaton along the line of the Vertes-Pilis (the region of Csakbereny may be a small protude — cf. the Azalian onomastic material of the inscriptions RIU 1403. 1405.) and reached the Danube on the limes section between Cirpi and the Ulcisia castra.110 The question of the affiliation of Ulcisia Castra, though still under discussion, is probably decided by the inscriptions of the legio II adiutrix from the second century.111 The most certain border line seems the Papkeszi-Osku-Inota line on the evidence of the new inscriptions unearthed at Lake Balaton.312 The inscriptions of the officials from town Aquincum found in county Veszprem also support the theory of this border line: RIU 356.1421. S 70.113 The line is not known enough to the south of Balaton, but it most probably run in a northern-southern direction (cf. the altar of an active beneficiarus from Inferior found at Sagvar [RIU 956.], and the data of the It. Burd. [562, 8.] to the south of the river Drave). The division into two is not accidental; too great power was concentrated in the governor's hand, and it could be rather well implemented in the emperor's internal politics (cf. separation of Galatia from Cappadocia in 113). Beside all these, we should not ignore the fact that Hadrian served only as praetor so Traian could not appoint his protege as governor in Pannonia. The choice of the place is not by mere chance, even if the emperor could not have been sure whether he would be chosen as his successor, but he had every reason to appoint Hadrian as governor in that province in which he himself served as governor.115 For that, however, he had to create a province under praetorian direction, Pannonia Inferior. That is how Brigetio and its legio could be part of Superior at that time. During the reign of Traian, 7 alae, 7 cohortes were being stationed in Superior (cf. the diploma No. 112: Lorincz 2001. 306. No. 510.) beside the three legions of Upper Pannonia, whereas in Inferior 4 alae, 10 cohortes (and a vexillatio: cf. the diploma from Tokod No. CIL XVI 164) and three unknown units belonged to one legion.11 We know almost nothing on the events of the war against the Sarmatians, but in all probability it ended with peace treaty that remained valid for the duration of the reign of Traian (Eutr. VIII 3,1, Hier. Chron. 194, 5, Jord. Rom. 267).117 The assumption may not be unjustified that the Sarmatians could take possession of the regions at TiszSntul that had belonged to the Dacians earlier (the appearance of their archeological material here refers to that as well); additio¬nally, among the conditions of the peace treaty we can find the right to visit the markets and the upkeeping the free connection with the Roxolans, just as in the peace treaty following the wars at the end of the century (Dio LXX 19, 1-2.).118

By the testimony of the Historia Augusta, the restoration of the military discipline and the control over the procurator(es) and the officials were other really important achievements of Hadrian as governor due to which he deserved his consulship. The centre of the new province did not become Sirmium, the only colonia, but Aquin¬cum because of the legio fort but not the later civilian town that was only a vicus on the territorium. of the civitas Eraviscorum (RIU 1256.) but the fort and the canabae. The

governor's palace may really have been built on this latter's territory, on the Hajogyari Island that announced the supremacy of Rome to the babarians living at the other bank of the river. Some Pannonian units participated in Traian's war against the Parthians (113-117, thus the legio I and II adiutrix, as well, that were (temporarily) transferred from Pannonia during the Dacian wars.'21 However, we have no evidence that the road from Barbaricum, that was described by Aurelius Victor (Caes. 13,3.) and built by Traian, if it really existed, touched the Great Hungarian Plain; but there is no evidence, either, whether this road that led from the Pontus up to Gallia per/eras gentes, could be identified with the supposed road Lugio-Parthiscum-Micia.122

Traian's death in the August of 117 caused great change also in Pannonia: the Iazygians with their nomadic way of thinking and the Roxolans did not regard the peace treaty valid for themselves since the person with whom they signed it was already dead (SHA v. Had. 5, 2.). The emperor's situation became even more difficult after giving the eastern conquests up, his personal presence was urgently needed in lllyricum. Maybe it is not by accident that according to some datas, the thought of even handing Dacia over occurred to him but he gave it up since too many civil people settled down in the province (Eutr. VIII 6,2,FrontoPrinc. Hist. 11. p. 209.). Even if the surrender did not take place, he could make peace with the Roxolani by handing some regions at Oltenia over and evacuation of the fort of legio IIII Flavia at Berzobis (in the Banat) took place at that time as well.123 It also seems doubtless that the bridge built by Traian at Drobeta was partly destroyed by his command to prevent the break- in to Moesia (Dio LXVIII 13, 6.).124 Hadrian personally—onhis way to Rome—visited Moesia, and spent the winter of 117-118 nearby (cf. Florus' satirical poem: SHA v. Had. 16, 3.). (He arrived in Rome only in the July of 118). The problem was increased by the death of Quadratus Bassus, the governor appointed to Dacia (AEp 1933, 268.),126 whereas his predessor, Avidius Nigrinus got involved in the coniuration against Hadrian (SHA v. Had. 7, Dio LXIX 2, 5.).127 Under the influence of the extraordinary circumstances, the emperor was compelled to come up with extraordinary solution: he appointed Marcius Turbo, the friend of his from the equestrian order as the praefectus of Pannonia Inferior and Dacia (SHA v. Had. 6, 7-8, 7, 3.), with whom he got acquainted as the centurio of the legio II adiutrix in Aquincum (CIL HI 143492).

We know from the datas of the Historia Augusta that he made peace first with the Roxolans' king who was nobody else than P. Aelius Rasparaganus, whose inscripti¬ons after his exile in Pola are known (CIL V 32-33.).12 The authors did not list the conditions of the agreement but they are obvious: the increase of the decreased stipendium and the evacuaton of the regions of the pre-Carpathian plain earlier occupied by units that belong to Moesia Inferior. A rather unique reminiscence of this peace treaty was the horse donated to Hadrian. It was called Borysthenes named after the river Dnieper and the emperor could hunt for boars with it in the subsequent year (CIL XII 1122. p. 823.J.1 1 The war with the Iazygians had to be much more significant since the reaction to that was strong (though we do not have much information on its course); it is recorded even in the works of the chronographi from the late Roman period (Oros. VII13, 4, Sync. p. 659, Hier. 198d: A.D. 120). Hadrian himself was staying in Pannonia for a longer period in the spring of 118, there is also another available data beside the epitaph of Borysthenes. The Batavian equestrian soldier's feat showed in front of the the emperor is known from an inscription (CIL III 3676.), but is was recorded also by Cassius Dio (LXIX 9,6.).133 According to M. P. Speidel's researches, it rather seem probable that he belonged to the Batavian imperial guards, he was

not Pannonian (in this case, he could probably have been the equestrian soldier of the cohors III Batavorummill. eq. from Vetus Salina).134 Dio goes on with the events that the barbarian tribes later asked the Romans as arbittators to settle their controversial issues! This particular sentence of general validity that interrupts the course of the events can be related to the reign of both Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. It may have happened this time when the young Herodes Atticus dried up while delivering a speech in the emperor's presence because of which he wanted to commit suicide by diving into the Danube (Philost. Vita Soph. II 1, 14.).135 The war events continued after Hadrian was staying in Pannonia; Marcius Turbo's temporal assignment (according to the SHA: ad tempus) probably ended at the beginning of 119 (SHA v. Had. 67, 3.), the data (198d) of the Eusebios' Chronica also refers to that. However, on the evidence of a still unpublished diploma, L. Cornelius Latinianus was the governor of Pannonia Inferior already between February and April of 119. At the end of this year, he received the title praefectus praetorio probably still in Dacia. (CIL III 1462. 1551, AEp 1958,189=1960,152.). Two diplomas (from Dacia and Moesia Superior fRMD 21-22.]) that mention Marcius Turbo caused problem for the research since both can be dated to 123. The possibility of another assignment of Turbo arose on the basis of this,137 but due to G. Alfoldy it became clarified that the units were discharged during Turbo's command but the constitutio is from 123.138 The praefuit present perfect concerning the commander of the unit unambiguously refers to the past.139 Dacia was given its final borders during the organisation: the sourthern part that earlier had belonged to Moesia Superior was renamed as Dacia Inferior, whereas the original Dacia became the Superior, and Dacia Porolissensis was formed from the northern part that time or just few years later.140 On the evidence of a new military diploma, Dacia Superior existed already in the November of 119.141 Similar transformations did not happen in Pannonia, but a really substantial change did take place: the legiones arriving back from East were transferred again here and their station hardly changed after 118-19. Thus the legio U adiutrix was stationed in Aquincum, the legio I adiutrix in Brigetio, the legio X/JII gemina in Carnuntum, and finally the legio X gemina in Vindobona. The legio XV ApolUnaris that was among the original occupying units left Carnuntum for Satala once for all.143 This time several auxiliary units arrived in and left the province; 6 alae and 10 cohortes were stationed in Pannonia Superior, 6 alae and 12 cohortes in Inferior (and 4 unidentified auxiliary troops) and the classis Flavia Pannonica in Taurunum.144 At the end of the reign of Traian and during the reign of Hadrian, the entire defence system was built in its final form; permanent new castra were built only in the Late Roman period and several auxiliary forts partly (only the wall of the auxiliary forts at Carnuntum)145 or totally (Arrabona, Solva, Ulcisia Castra, Albertfalva, Vetus Salina)146 were re-built into stone, which is a main evidence of the stabilization of the defence line.147 The only epigraphic evidence for the Hadrianic building works is the slab RIU 498 that can most probably be dated to after 128 and it concerns the rebuilding of the legionary fort at Brigetio. The builder was the returned garrison, the legio I adiutrix.14 The newly organised deployment remained unchanged practically until the outbreak of the Marcomannic wars. The permanently peaceful situation with the Sarmatians is shown also by the fact that next time we can find data on the lazygians in the wars under the reign of Marcus Aurelius apart from a fragment of Cassius Dio (LXIX. 15.2.) which unfortunately we cannot date to more precisely than only to the end of the reign of Hadrian (134) or to the reign of Antoninus Pius. This locus records that envoys asked for the confirmation of the earlier peace.149

The further period of the reign of Hadrian was one of the most peaceful eras of the history of the province, the municipalization of the province not accidentally ended this time. Donating the Roman citizenship was going on at an even more accelerated pace from the turn of the century; we can find find several appearances of the names Cocceius (19) and Ulpius (219; 7)1 1 among the names recorded on Roman inscriptions, but most people received the Roman citizenship under the reign of Hadrian. The genulicium Aelius is known in Pannonia with the greatest number (309; 10). (The latter ones — if they wete given the praenomen Titus — could of course receive their citizenship from Antoninus Pius). The best example for this might be the case of Aelii Carnli] cives Romani from Neviodunum (CIL III 3915=10798.), providing they were a real trans-settled native group.153

The vast majority of the Pannonian civitates peregrinae, even if not all of them, became the part of urban territoria by Hadrian's era. The quite frequent mentions of the officials of the tribal districts disappear. The survival of the civitas was assumed only in case of some officials of the civitas Eraviscorum on the ground that 1. the official isaHadrianiannewcitizen.likeP. Ael. Maximus: CIL III 10408=AEp 1941, 14-; 2. Aquincum appears already as municipium beside the civitas on the inscription: P(ublii) Aeli Septimus et Decoratus dec(uriones) or dec(urio) m(unicipii) et ARM c(iyitatis) Er(aviscorum) — RIU 1066. The altar from Aquincum (CIL III 15169, AEp 1953, 14-) and the 17 I. O. M. Teutanus altars from Bolcske were regarded as evidences of the survival; these altars were erected continuously until the age of the tetrarchy pro salute adque incolumitate Imp. et civitaUs Eraviscorum.156 During the examination of the question, I myself have concluded the we have no data to demonstrate the further existence of the civitas Eraviscorum, the previous inscripti¬ons rather show the situation during the Hadrian's period, whereas in case of the Teutanus altars the Civitas Eraviscorum existed further as the geographical term of the earlier civitas-centre.157The tribe-names that indicate the origines of the military diplomas do not refer to the civitates peregrinae.

It has become clear after A. Mocsy's researches that the area of almost each earlier tribal civitas became part of the territorium of settlements possessing urban rights during the first-second century, the tribal dvitos-centre became town very often as e.g. in the case of Neviodunum-Municipium Latobicorum, and Municipium Iasorum-Aquae Balisae. We can deduce the Hadrianian foundation of towns on the evidence of the imperial Beiname Aelius and of the pseudotribus. According…..

At the end of the reign of Hadrian, we meet again a Pannonian: according to the data of the SHA (25, 3.) an old and blind man from Pannonia visited the severely ill emperor; the Pannonian was given back his sight, and the fever left the latter. The visit is of symbolical value by all means whether it is true or not; Pannonia became part of the empire, and Hadrian was closely connected to it (his own and Aelius Caesar's Pannonian governorships, his assignment as tribunus). The story on Mastor the Iazygian (hunter) servant of the emperor who did not undertake the task to relieve his master from the anguish,

i.e. to kill him can also be linked to the end of the reign of Hadrian. (Cassius Dio LXIX 22, l-3,SHAv. Had. 24,8-11-)-

During the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.) Pannonia, if it is possible, was even more tranquil than during the reign of Hadrian. According to earlier views, the coins of Antoninus Pius from 140-144 A.D. (BMC III 620=RIC IV 204f, 367) with the round legend rex Quadis datus or the scene representing it on the back side204 could be in connection with the events that took place during Aelius Caesar's and Haterius Nepos' activities. This latter view was rightfully criticised by W. Eck, Haterius Nepos' ornamenta triumphalia is not in connection with this- We are also of the opinion that the two events are not related to each other. Dating the earlier disturbance to 138 or later is ungrounded, we have no data for that. We would rather assume that the inauguration of the new Quadian king was a new event that took place during the of service of Statilius Hadrianus (141-145 A.D.), the new governor succeeding Haterius Nepos. We could get familiar with the latter legatus thanks to a fragmentary military diploma (July-September 141) only not long ago. Even if we cannot regard the inauguration of the new vassal king as the prelude of the Marcomannic wars,208 we have no evidences, either, that it took place peacefully since the possibility of a war cannot be excluded on the basis of the coins with the legend Rex Parthis datus struck during emperor Traian's Parthian war (BMC II 1054) !210 It is, however, without doubt that the sestertii with the round legend Rex Armerdis datus (RIC III 110.) are the most similar to Antoninus Pius' coins mentioning the Quadians since their legends and dates are similar. The previous coins do not refer to wars.211 On the evidence of the data of SHA v. Pii 5, 4, we know that he (among other things) Germanos contudit with the help of either legatus of him, moreover, the inscriptions from Africa (145-161, and 157 A.D.) mention the emperor's name Germanicus though not as an official title. (CIL VIII 12513=ILS 345, 20424, cf. CIL VI 1208= CLE 881=AEp 1952, 160=1982, 45. distychon:

Germanos Maurosque domas sub Marte Britanno / Antonine tua diceris arte Pius).m On the evidence of all these data, it seems justified that we have to reckon with a German war under the reign of Antoninus Pius. The question, however, is whether the Pannonian Germans should be meant by this as it has been assumed,213 or it is in connection with the fact that the limes section in Upper Germania was moved forward with 17-30 km under the governorship of C. Popilius Pedo (around 155 A.D) (we have no data on the local wars).214 It is also a fact that Antoninus Pius was noteworthy for his love of peace and his diplomatic solutions of controversial issues in our later sources. (SHA v. Pii 9,10, Eutrop. VIII 8, 2, Epit. De Caes. 15, 3.). From those latter ones, Eutropius' text is worthy of remark: regibus amicis venerabilis non minus quam semper, adeo ut barbarorum plurimae nationes depositis armis ad eum contorversias suas litesque deferrent sententiaeque parerent (Dio LXIX 15, 2!). The inauguration of the Quadian king can serve as the best example for this. A building inscription dated between 145 and 161 A.D. from Aquincum could refer to some fights before the inauguration. A. Alfoldi has already demonstrated215 that the slab earlier considered to be the building inscription of the amphitheatrum of the military town (Nemeth M, Vezeto az Aquincumi Muzeum kdtaraban. Budapest 1999 18-19. No. 30.) is rather the inscription of a triumphal arch (or other monument), since the emperor's name is in the dative case, the builder is the kgio II adiutrix, and the tabula ansata is held by Victoria-figures on both sides. Such building inscriptions appear really rarely in Pannonia, and those could be dated especially to the duration of the reign of Septimius Severus.216 This triumphal arch would much rather refer to a

Pannonian victory than the emperor's victory over the Mauri in 148-149, in which the Pannonian auxiliary troops did participate (CIL XVI 99, RMD 273.),217 but the legio II adiutrix did not. In this latter case, the inscription could be dated to the period of the governorship of Statilius Hadrianus or his successor M. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus (145-150),218 to around 145. In Aelius Aristides' famous Rome-speech, the wars going on [en £cr%axtaic) at distant borderlines came up as well (Or. XXVI 70.) to which the Pannonian one might have belonged.

Apart from this event, as far as we know, only peaceful periods followed one another in Pannonia. The re-building of presumably several auxiliary forts into stone also took place during the governorship of Claudius Maximus, Aelius Caesar's former iuridictts between 150 and 154 in Upper Pannonia. The building inscription mentioning the re-building of the costellum at Odiavum was unearthed in the 1970's during the excavation of the costellum, unfortunately, it is still unpublished.219 On the basis of the type of the gate-towers that similarly protude totally into the forts, the re-building of other Pannonian castella could take place this time (Annamatia, Lussonium), archeo-logic finds strengthen it in the former case (terra sigiUata finds found in the inner earth rampart from the period of the stone fort from not later than the second century).220 The first year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-166) passed by similarly uneventfully, from the Pannonian units, the legio II adiutrix participated in Lucius Verus' victorious Parthian campaign (ILS 89?7=AEp 1893, 88, CIL VIII 18893: A.D. 162-166).221 Temporarily, the legio llll Flavia succeeded it (CIL III 3468, BudReg 8 (1904) 162. No.1.) that is bound to have carried out specific building works (CIL III 3578: Silvanus-shrine).222 From the auxiliary units, the ala I Ulpia contariorum stationed in Arrabona could participate in the war, since it is left out from the unit list of the diploma RMD 62. from 163, furthermore, the author refers probably to the physician of the unit (and to the historical work linked to his name) in Lucianus Quom. Hist. Conscr. The victorious troops, when returned in 166 carrying the plague faced a totally changed Pannonian situation, the analysis of which is the subject of the next volume.