Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-skzmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T02:55:34.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GERMANICUS ON TOUR: HISTORY, DIPLOMACY AND THE PROMOTION OF A DYNASTY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2016

Katie Low
Katie Low*
Affiliation:
Brussels
*
k_a_low@hotmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Towards the end of Book 2 of Tacitus' Annals, Germanicus, great-nephew of Augustus, grandson of Mark Antony, and nephew, adopted son and heir of the emperor Tiberius, falls ill and dies at Antioch (2.69-72). His travels in the eastern Mediterranean in a.d. 18 thus reach a sad conclusion. They had begun when, after being recalled from the wars of conquest in Germany described in detail in the opening books of the Annals (1.50-1, 1.55-71; 2.5.2-26), he was sent from Rome by Tiberius to preside over the installation of a new king of Armenia (2.43.1; cf. 2.3-5.1).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , May 2016 , pp. 222 - 238
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2016 

INTRODUCTION

Towards the end of Book 2 of Tacitus' Annals, Germanicus, great-nephew of Augustus, grandson of Mark Antony, and nephew, adopted son and heir of the emperor Tiberius, falls ill and dies at Antioch (2.69-72).Footnote 1 His travels in the eastern Mediterranean in a.d. 18 thus reach a sad conclusion. They had begun when, after being recalled from the wars of conquest in Germany described in detail in the opening books of the Annals (1.50-1, 1.55-71; 2.5.2-26), he was sent from Rome by Tiberius to preside over the installation of a new king of Armenia (2.43.1; cf. 2.3-5.1).

At 2.5.1 Tacitus asserts that Tiberius viewed the need for Germanicus to go to Armenia as a convenient pretext for recalling him from the warfare with various German tribes that is described at 1.49-51 and 1.56-71 and at 2.5.2-26.1, and for exposing him to dolo … et casibus (‘deceit … and chance events’) in the east. Within the text, this allegation appears to be consistent with the historian's recurrent characterization of Tiberius as a dissimulator, and with the repeated suggestions in Book 1 that the relationship between him and Germanicus was troubled: Tiberius' resentment of the popularity acquired by his heir amongst the German legions under his command has become a recurring theme (see 1.52.1-2 and 1.69.3-4).Footnote 2

Tacitus reports notable halts on Germanicus' route: after taking up his consulship (held jointly for that year with the emperor) at Nicopolis, and viewing the Actium memorial there (2.53.1-2), he stopped at Athens, where in homage to the city's distinguished past and connections with Rome he was attended by only one lictor and accorded many honours by the Athenians (2.53.3), before heading north.Footnote 3 He reached Lesbos, where his wife Agrippina gave birth to their youngest child, and then came to the mouth of the Black Sea, and is said to have settled some internal provincial matters there (2.54.1).

Unfavourable winds then prevented him from landing at Samothrace, but he next visited Troy and then the oracle at Colophon (2.54.2). He finally reached the capital of Armenia, Artaxata, for the coronation of its new king, Zeno, son of the Pontic king Polemo (2.56.1-3). After an ill-tempered encounter with Gnaeus Piso, the governor of Syria, at Cyrrus, where he also received a Parthian embassy (2.57-8), he spent a period of time in Egypt (2.59-62): two papyri, P.Oxy. 2435 and P.Berol., record the speech he made on his arrival in Alexandria and two of the edicts he issued there, and testify to Germanicus' enthusiasm for the city and the eager reception its inhabitants gave him.Footnote 4 Finally he came to Antioch (2.69.1).

Epigraphic and numismatic finds provide evidence for some of the stops made by Germanicus not mentioned in Tacitus' narrative.Footnote 5 In his selective account, the historian's main interest is clearly in sites of particular historical resonance that had also been visited by other famous Romans.Footnote 6 Accordingly it is surprising that, amongst these references to high-profile locations, attention is drawn to where Germanicus went after leaving Lesbos (2.54.1):

tum extrema Asiae Perinthumque ac Byzantium, Thracias urbes, mox Propontidis angustias et os Ponticum intrat, cupidine ueteres locos et fama celebratos noscendi; pariterque prouincias internis certaminibus aut magistratuum iniuriis fessas refouebat.

Then [he came to] the edges of Asia and Perinthus and Byzantium, Thracian cities; afterwards he entered the narrows of the Propontis and the mouth of the Pontic sea, through a desire to become acquainted with ancient sites of notable reputation; at the same time he was reviving provinces that were exhausted by internal squabbles or by the unjust actions of magistrates.Footnote 7

These places do not share the links of Athens, Troy and Egypt to prominent Romans of the Late Republic and Early Empire. Moreover, instead of specifically describing what Germanicus did there, Tacitus merely ascribes his decision to turn north to a rather nebulous desire to ‘become acquainted with ancient sites of notable reputation’, and although he mentions the additional need for intervention in troubled provinces, these are not named.

The narrative of Annals 1 and 2 repeatedly hints that Germanicus has a penchant for revisiting the past for its own sake: this can be linked to the emotional if not self-indulgent qualities that he displays on other occasions.Footnote 8 His visit to Troy is represented as a chance to see what was owed respect uarietate fortunae et nostri origine (‘because of the vicissitudes of fortune, and our origin [i.e. because Troy had been the home town of Aeneas]’) (2.54.2). Later his sojourn in Egypt is undertaken for the sake of cognoscendae antiquitatis (‘getting to know antiquity’) (2.59.1), and his visit to Thebes brings him into close contact with Egypt's ancient past (2.60.3-4).Footnote 9 In this case his antiquarian interests are not the only reason given for his journey to visit the Black Sea, and indeed no further information is provided about what particular historical connections drew him to the region, but within the text they seem sufficient to account for his detour. This may be the reason why this short passage in Annals 2 appears to have received no detailed scholarly attention.Footnote 10

Nevertheless, a consideration of the history of the Black Sea region in the Early Imperial era will suggest that Tacitus' brief reference does not tell the whole story, and that the real Germanicus is not likely to have been motivated simply by touristic interest in the area. This notion is strengthened by a piece of contemporary evidence, the Tabula Siarensis of a.d. 19, which states that Germanicus was missus in transmarinas pro[uincias] in confirmandis iis regnisque eiusdem tractus ex mandatis Ti(berii) C˹a˺esaris Aug(usti), dato reg˹e˺ Armeniae (‘sent to overseas provinces to confirm their status and the kingdoms of the same region in accordance with the instructions of Tiberius Caesar Augustus, giving a king to Armenia’) (fr. 1, 15–17).Footnote 11

In what follows, both specific and general aspects of Germanicus' voyage will be discussed. In the first section, Rome's relations in the years prior to a.d. 18 with the dynastic families that occupied the Black Sea region will be reviewed, and it will then be argued that during his detour Germanicus may well have performed a particular diplomatic duty. In the second section, this part of his voyage will be linked with other events in the east that feature elsewhere in Annals 2. In the third section it will be suggested that, in addition to these political missions, Germanicus' travels as a whole were intended to have a wider function, one that was particularly meaningful in the context of the Early Imperial era. Finally, speculation will be offered about why further information about these actions was not included in the narrative of Annals 2, and why Tacitus chose to portray Germanicus and his relationship with Tiberius as he did.

I. THE BLACK SEA AND ROME: DYNASTIC DIPLOMACY

After the death of Mithridates the Great in 63 b.c., Pompey undertook a reorganisation of his domains (App. Mith. 113–15, Dio 37.14). Leaving Mithridates' son Pharnaces as ruler of Bosporus and an amicus et socius populi Romani, he created a new Roman province, Pontus, under the command of the governor of Bithynia, out of the western half of the kingdom of Pontus. Other parts of the former kingdom were given over to native rulers, and the tetrarch of the Galatian Tolistobogii, Deiotarus, was granted a large section of territory on the southern side of the Euxine.Footnote 12 In due course Pharnaces tried to claim the rest of his father's realm, but was defeated by Julius Caesar at Zela in 47 ([Caesar], BAlex. 72–7). After escaping to Bosporus he was killed by Asander, whom he had left to rule there in his absence. Asander, once he had defeated an alternative candidate favoured by Caesar, Mithridates of Pergamum, continued as ruler of Bosporus. He married Dynamis, a niece of Mithridates the Great, in what has been seen as a move to strengthen and legitimize his position. In the late fourties, as Pseudo-Lucian notes (Macrobii 17), he was officially recognized by Antony and Octavian, who permitted him to call himself king rather than ethnarch.Footnote 13

Meanwhile, in 39 b.c. the kingdom of Pontus was reconstituted by Mark Antony under Darius, grandson of Mithridates (App. B Civ. 5.75), who was succeeded in 37 by Polemo, son of an Anatolian politician.Footnote 14 He is recorded as participating in Antony's Parthian campaign the following year (Dio 49.24.5, 33.1-2), and was made a Roman citizen.Footnote 15 Later Octavian, now the Emperor Augustus, confirmed the territories that Polemo had been granted (Strabo 12.8.16), and in 26 the latter was also enrolled as an amicus et socius populi Romani (Dio 53.25.1).Footnote 16 In Bosporus, Asander committed suicide c.16 b.c. after his subjects went over to a new claimant to his throne (Pseudo-Lucian, Macrobii 17), a man named Scribonius who asserted that he was another grandson of Mithridates the Great, and alleged that Augustus had bestowed Bosporus on him. Dio (54.24.4-6) reports that, once Scribonius had become king, he married Asander's wife Dynamis. At this juncture Marcus Agrippa, Augustus' lieutenant, induced Polemo, who was still reigning in Pontus, to intervene. The Bosporans killed Scribonius before this could happen, but they then resisted Polemo all the same, not wishing to be ruled by him.Footnote 17 It was only when Agrippa came to Sinope and threatened a Roman military campaign that they submitted to Polemo.

Dio goes on to report that Polemo became king of Bosporus and, with Augustus' encouragement, entered into a form of marriage with Asander's widow Dynamis, which marked the ‘reunion’ of Bosporus and Pontus, the two main territories of Mithridates the Great's kingdom. It is not clear whether this event represented the continuation of a long-term Roman policy, initially practised by Caesar and Antony, that sought to bolster the region against potential incursions from the north and east, or was merely a pragmatic means of promoting stability in the area. Either way, internal trouble in nearby Thrace would have been one reason for attempting to prevent further unrest.Footnote 18 This link between Bosporus and Pontus was not particularly durable. Polemo seems to have returned to Pontus; he had another wife, Pythodoris,Footnote 19 and meanwhile Dynamis remained in Bosporus. The latter issued coins with portraits of Augustus and Agrippa, and statues of the emperor and his wife Livia with inscriptions that proclaim Dynamis' own status as φιλορώμαιος (‘friend of Rome’); a dedication made by Pythodoris to Livia also survives. The links between the Black Sea region's dynasts and the new regime in Rome extended beyond political intervention to these publicly advertised personal ties.Footnote 20

Moreover, Strabo (11.2.11, 12.3.29) reports that Polemo died in the Bosporan kingdom, fighting a tribe called the Aspurgiani near Phanagoreia, and his widow Pythodoris carried on ruling in Pontus (see p. 230 below). Dynamis, meanwhile, seems to have died in a.d. 7/8, as no coinage of hers survives from beyond that year, and was succeeded first by a short-lived ruler whose identity is unknown and then in a.d. 10/11 by a man named Aspurgus, who may have been her son by Asander.Footnote 21 The exact dating of the events leading up to his accession is uncertain. Traditionally it was assumed that the appearance of Bosporan coins minted by Dynamis alone from 8 b.c. onwards meant that Polemo was then no longer alive, and that Aspurgus reigned jointly with Dynamis for some years after his death, before she died and Aspurgus became sole monarch of the Bosporus. Andrea Primo has recently argued, however, that the political import of the marriage of Polemo and Dynamis was minimal and therefore joint coinage should not be expected. Polemo's death may then have occurred after that of Dynamis, and Primo also suggests that, when Dynamis died in 7/8, Polemo tried to claim the throne of Bosporus, as did Aspurgus, who had prevailed by 10/11.Footnote 22

Aspurgus, then, became the ruler of the Bosporan kingdom in the closing years of Augustus' principate. He married Gepaepyris, whose parents were the Thracian monarch Cotys VIII and Antonia Tryphaena, the daughter of Pythodoris.Footnote 23 Although there is no record of any attempts to remove him, it seems he was not immediately recognized as king by Rome.Footnote 24 Bosporan coins from the end of the first century b.c. to around a.d. 13/14 display monograms which may represent Roman financial officers operating in the region, or even Bosporan moneyers: Aspurgus seems not to have used the formal title of ‘king’ at first.Footnote 25

Nevertheless, epigraphic evidence suggests that his relationship with Rome became closer over time, and to some extent its development may be traced. Inscriptions from relatively early in Aspurgus' reign (AE 1994, 1538, two letters of Aspurgus engraved on an altar to Zeus at Gorgippeia and dated to the first half of a.d. 16, and CIRB 985, an inscription from Phanagoreia dated to the second half of 17) apply to him the epithet φιλορώμαιος.Footnote 26 CIRB 40, meanwhile, a monumental inscription from Pantikapaion, calls him at l.1 βασιλέα μέγαν Ἀσποῦργον φιλορώμαιον (‘great King Aspurgus, friend of Rome’), but then at l. 2 refers to him as φιλοκαίσαρα καὶ φιλορώμαιον (‘friend of Caesar and friend of Rome’). It has also been suggested by Heinz Heinen that the same pairing of titles should be reconstructed in CIRB 39, a fragmentary dedication from Phanagoreia which is similar in form to CIRB 40 and begins at l.1 with βασιλεῖ μεγάλωι Ἀσπούργωι φιλορωμαίωι (‘to great King Aspurgus, friend of Rome’). CIRB 39 is dated to 23/24.Footnote 27

Heinen goes on to assert that these inscriptions show that initially Aspurgus was in the habit of using φιλορώμαιος as an epithet, but in time the full φιλόκαισαρ καὶ φιλορώμαιος pairing became part of his titulature. Moreover, at lines 4–5 of AE 1994, 1538 A the king expresses his gratitude to the people of Gorgippeia for remaining peaceful ἐν τῆι πρὸς τὸν Σεβαστὸν | Αὐτοκράτορα ἀναβάσει (‘during [his] journey to the Emperor Augustus’). The letter is dated to a.d. 16; Heinen argues convincingly that it refers to a visit to the new emperor Tiberius in Rome, who had succeeded Augustus in 14, and that during this visit the Bosporan king's position was confirmed.Footnote 28 Moreover, there are further indications that Aspurgus wished to demonstrate particular connections with Tiberius: Bosporan staters from this period with the head of the new emperor on the one side and Germanicus on the other have also been found. All subsequent Bosporan kings took the names ‘Tiberius Iulius’ as a mark of Roman citizenship and, while this is not attested for Aspurgus himself, it has been thought plausible that he was given it by Tiberius and passed it on.Footnote 29 It was noted previously that other recent rulers of the Black Sea had been favourably looked upon by Rome, but the relationship between the new Bosporan king and the new Roman emperor appears to have been marked by a wider range of tokens of affiliation, which were publicized in Bosporus.

At this point Germanicus’ voyage to the Black Sea in a.d. 18 becomes relevant. When the heir to the Principate travelled to the region, Aspurgus had a very few years earlier made a visit to the emperor in Rome, and presumably received some form of official sanction. It may be proposed that when Germanicus came to the Black Sea he formally met Aspurgus, or at least his representatives, and further confirmed his friendship with Rome. It may also be the case that the king began to style himself as φιλόκαισαρ as a result: Heinen points out that the dating of the relevant inscriptions shows that it was not as a direct result of the king's visit to Rome that he started to do so and, if his own reconstruction of CIRB 39 is correct, the terminus ante quem for this was 23/24.Footnote 30

Given the history of personal links between the Roman imperial family and leading individuals in Pontus and Bosporus, and Aspurgus' recent dealings with Tiberius, this hypothesis offers one plausible reason for Germanicus' excursion to the Black Sea. The setting for their encounter was conceivably Sinope, as epigraphic evidence suggests that Germanicus probably went there.Footnote 31 It would have been an appropriate intermediate location, as it offered the shortest route to the Crimea; Agrippa had based himself in the town when overseeing events in the Bosporan kingdom in 14 b.c.Footnote 32

II. EASTERN KINGDOMS AND PROVINCES IN ANNALS 2

So circumstantial evidence suggests that an affirmation of the relationship between Rome and Bosporus may lie behind the bald statement at 2.54.1 that Germanicus entered the Propontis and the mouth of the Pontic sea in a.d. 18. What, though, of the rest of that passage, in which Tacitus asserts that he visited the ‘Thracian cities’ Perinthus and Byzantium, and revived provinces that had been suffering as a result of internal struggles and wrongdoing by magistrates?

It is impossible to determine the nature of any intervention by Germanicus in Perinthus and Byzantium,Footnote 33 but his activities in nearby provinces could have taken several forms. Like the involvement in Black Sea affairs that has already been postulated, moreover, these would fit the assertion in the Tabula Siarensis that he went to the east to organize overseas provinces and kingdoms in addition to settling the situation in Armenia (see pp. 224–5 above). In a.d. 18 there were only two Roman provinces that bordered the Black Sea: Moesia and Bithynia. There is no evidence that he travelled to the formerFootnote 34 —this in any case would have involved a substantial additional voyage up the west coast of the Black Sea—but the honours paid to him by Caesarea and Nicomedia, two Bithynian cities, mean that it is reasonably likely that he spent time there.Footnote 35 Although the history of Bithynia under the early Julio-Claudians seems not to have been marked by any major disturbances,Footnote 36 Tacitus does mention a Roman governor being tried for extortion a few years earlier (1.74), and there is also ample attestation of the fierce intercity rivalries in the province at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second.Footnote 37 Bithynia may then have offered Germanicus opportunities to resolve problems generated by both provincials and Roman magistrates.

It is also worth paying attention to what was happening in two other nearby provinces around the time of Germanicus' voyage, and Tacitus himself provides relevant details. He reports how Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, died in a.d. 17 after being summoned to Rome by Tiberius, who was allegedly resentful of the king's failure to pay court to him when he was living on Rhodes from 2 b.c. to a.d. 6 (2.42.1-4). Afterwards the kingdom was converted into a Roman province initially overseen by Quintus Veranius (2.56.4), who, according to a later passage in Annals 2, was a close associate of Germanicus (2.74.2).Footnote 38 Archelaus' widow was Pythodoris, who had married him after the death of her first husband Polemo (cf. p. 227 above), and who now returned from Cappadocia to Pontus, where she ruled over a number of tribes and continued to do so for at least another fifteen years (Strabo 11.2.18, 12.3.29). Her second husband's loss of imperial approval appears not to have affected her own favour with Rome.Footnote 39

I suggest, then, that while Germanicus was in this part of the empire he was involved in making arrangements for the provincialisation of Cappadocia, and he may also have come into contact with Pythodoris on her return to Pontus.Footnote 40 The queen, moreover, was the mother of Zeno, whose accession to the Armenian throne, overseen by Germanicus, is described at 2.56.2-3. The new king appears in the text suddenly, without much introduction (fauor nationis inclinabat in Zenonem, Polemonis regis Pontici filium [‘the nation was favourably inclined towards Zeno, son of the Pontic king Polemo’], 2.56.2), although Tacitus goes on to stress how his lifestyle made him an appropriate and successful choice. Zeno's selection by Rome must have come about as a result of negotiation and diplomatic discussions, however, and it is plausible that Germanicus participated in these while he was in the area, and even that Zeno joined him in Pontus and then accompanied him through Asia Minor to Armenia for his coronation.Footnote 41

At the same time significant events were also occurring in Thrace. In his narrative of a.d. 19, Tacitus surveys the situation there and its background.Footnote 42 After the death of Rhoemetalces (cf. n. 33 above) in the closing years of Augustus' reign, the emperor partitioned the kingdom of Thrace between the king's brother Rhescuporis (III) and the king's son Cotys (VIII), but Rhescuporis soon began to encroach on his nephew's lands, especially after Augustus' death (2.64.3). Although a centurion was sent to warn the two rulers against beginning a war, and Cotys complied, Rhescuporis treacherously captured him and, after receiving an inscrutable response to a letter which he sent to Tiberius justifying his actions, killed his nephew. A Roman friend of the king, Pomponius Flaccus, was sent to induce him to come to Rome (2.65.1-2.67.1). He was tried in the Senate, and accusations were laid against him by Cotys' wife—who was Antonia Tryphaena, daughter of Polemo and Pythodoris, although Tacitus does not name her.Footnote 43 Rhescuporis was condemned and kept in custody, and he subsequently died in dubious circumstances in Alexandria, while Thrace was divided anew between his own son Rhoemetalces (II) and Cotys' children (2.67.2-3).

In the years before Germanicus' travels, then, Rome had intervened in Thracian affairs on a number of occasions.Footnote 44 Given the proximity of Thrace to the Black Sea region, and the fact that not only was Antonia Tryphaena the daughter of Pythodoris but also Cotys' daughter Gepaepyris was probably married to Aspurgus,Footnote 45 it is distinctly possible that Germanicus (perhaps via intermediaries) made some attempt to resolve the dispute between Rhescuporis and Cotys, and at least aimed to show that Rome was not indifferent to what was going on. Tiberius was indeed known for preferring diplomatic solutions to more belligerent interference.Footnote 46

III. A ‘HEARTS AND MINDS’ MISSION?

Tacitus' brief note about Germanicus' time in the Black Sea and its environs has offered ample material for informed speculation about what he may have done there, and how he may have furthered Rome's relations with a number of key personages in the area. But in addition to these presumably self-contained activities, and indeed the coronation of Zeno, could there have been a wider purpose to his journey in the east? The narrative does not specify why Germanicus took the particular route that he did,Footnote 47 and it has already been shown that Tacitus' account of his northern detour appears to be highly selective. It therefore seems worthwhile to consider whether there were further elements to the rest of his travels. The episode must be considered in the wider context of Early Imperial history.

Germanicus was not the first member of the domus Augusta to be sent east with a diplomatic brief. Two other individuals preceded him, Tiberius himself in 6 b.c., and in either 2 or 1 b.c. Augustus’ grandson Gaius Caesar, son of Agrippa and Augustus’ daughter Julia, who had been born in 20 and adopted by his grandfather (along with his brother Lucius) in 17.Footnote 48 These missions turned out rather differently. Tiberius, as the emperor's stepson (although not yet his adoptive son and heir) and a commander of substantial experience, was given a five-year term of tribunician power and dispatched to Armenia, which was becoming hostile to Rome after the death of Tigranes III, the king Tiberius himself had installed in 20 (Dio 55.9.4; cf. 54.9.4-5 and Annals 2.3.2). Instead of intervening, however, he took up residence at Rhodes, in what was represented as a wish not to stand in the way of the current heirs Gaius and Lucius (Vell. Pat. 2.99.2, Suet. Tib. 10.2), and after the expiration of his tribunician power his official position was left undefined.Footnote 49 Nevertheless, it seems that he fostered personal links with individuals such as Cn. Pompeius Macer from Mytilene (descendant of Pompey's associate Theophanes) and maintained his family's long-standing connections with Sparta. Tiberius' known philhellenic tendencies (see 4.58.1 and Suet. Tib. 56.1) must have contributed to the popularity that he acquired in this part of the empire, and Glen Bowersock has argued that he was seeking to establish a base of support that would bolster his own claim to the throne. In response, Augustus dispatched Gaius, who was after all his chosen heir, to the east and recalled Tiberius in a.d. 2, when support for his accession became overt.Footnote 50 After Gaius' death he was adopted by Augustus and then sent to fight in Germany (Vell. Pat. 2.103.1-2.104.2, Suet. Tib. 13.2, 15.2-16.1).

Gaius, then, was sent out towards the end of Tiberius' Greek sojourn, in the wake of the dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor in Rome and poetic acclamations of the young man in the role of an avenger against the East (cf. Res Gestae 21.1).Footnote 51 Unlike Tiberius' abortive trip, his journey bears distinct resemblances to that of Germanicus. Gaius stopped at a range of destinations on his way east,Footnote 52 probably including Corinth,Footnote 53 Athens,Footnote 54 the lower Danube,Footnote 55 Troy,Footnote 56 AssosFootnote 57 and Samos or Chios.Footnote 58 By a.d. 1, however, he was in Syria, where he assumed the consulship and was presumably visited by Tigranes IV (Dio 55.10.20-1; cf. Vell. Pat. 2.101.1), the son of Tigranes III who had initially occupied the Armenian throne without Rome's approval but with Parthian support (Vell. 2.100.2, Dio 55.10.18); nevertheless, after the Armenians deposed the Roman candidate Artavasdes III with the help of the Parthians (Ann. 2.4.1), Tigranes managed to conciliate Augustus.Footnote 59 Dio also reports that around the same time the new Parthian king Phrataces (Phraates V), an illegitimate son of his predecessor Phraates IV who had killed his father and seized the throne, sought the return of his father's legitimate offspring—who were being held in Rome as hostages (Res Gestae 32.2, Ann. 2.1.2)—as a condition of not making further trouble in Armenia. Augustus instead ordered him to lay down his royal title and withdraw from Armenia.Footnote 60

Once he had heard of Tigranes' acceptance by Rome, however, and as he was also faced with internal dissension in Parthia, Phrataces dropped his demands (Dio 55.10a.4). A grand summit was held between him and Gaius on an island in the Euphrates (there is an eyewitness account at Vell. Pat. 2.101.1-3). Meanwhile, Tigranes had been killed in Armenia (Dio 55.10a.5), in what may have been an anti-Roman uprising, and in a.d. 2 Gaius installed in his place Ariobarzanes, who was already king of Media Atropatene (2.4.1, Dio 55.10a.5). But an anti-Roman war that was apparently backed by Parthia—despite the recent rapprochement—broke out in Armenia, and after being tricked by an enemy general, Addon, Gaius was wounded and later died in Lycia early in 4 (Dio 55.10a.5-9).Footnote 61

Germanicus' involvement in Armenia has already been discussed (see p. 230) above. In 18, meanwhile, Artabanus III was reigning in Parthia,Footnote 62 and Tacitus records a visit by envoys from him to Germanicus and Piso at Cyrrus, with assurances of good faith and an invitation to meet the king on the banks of the Euphrates. In contrast to Gaius and the conference he held with Phrataces, Germanicus responded politely but declined the invitation, although he did accede to the king's request to remove Vonones from Syria (2.58.1-2).Footnote 63 Even so, despite the divergent ways in which their activities in Parthia and Armenia were concluded, there are clear parallels between the roles played by Gaius and Germanicus when they were sent east.

As representatives, adoptive sons and heirs of the reigning emperorFootnote 64 they implemented Rome's eastern policy and managed its official relationship with Parthia and Armenia. Not only that, but on their travels they halted at a number of sites, where their visits were commemorated, and it is not hard to guess what the purpose of this ostensibly incidental aspect of their voyages was: both Augustus and Tiberius would no doubt have wanted to display their heirs to the empire's subjects. The travels of both men would have served to ‘promote’ the Principate, conveying the current emperor's goodwill and also demonstrating the future continuity of the dynasty through a display of the princeps' intended successorFootnote 65 —and it can be conjectured that when Tiberius left Rome in 6 b.c. he was expected to proceed in a similar way.

Such a strategy would have been especially important, of course, during the Principate's early years, in which not only did Augustus' burgeoning dynasty represent a new way of ruling the empire, but memories of the civil wars from which this dynasty had emerged were fresh. Publicizing the new regime would have been an important factor in the numerous foreign journeys undertaken by Augustus and also Agrippa, of which by no means all had purely military purposes.Footnote 66 Moreover, there were particular reasons for attempting to win ‘hearts and minds’ in the East, the part of the empire where Mark Antony had enjoyed most support, and two relevant missions of Agrippa are recorded, in 23 and 16–14 b.c., while Augustus journeyed from Greece to Syria in 21–19.Footnote 67 This process of reconciliation seems not to have been entirely smooth, however, especially in Athens ([Plut.], Mor. 207E; Dio 54.7.2), although the many honours paid to Gaius in that city suggest that its attitude had changed in the course of Augustus' Principate.Footnote 68

The idea that there was a wider purpose to Germanicus' mission makes much sense within this broad context. Like Tiberius and Gaius before him, he would have been sent out to continue the process of advertising the new regime and its intended durability: under the new emperor Tiberius, who of course had his own links to the east, his appearance would have harked back to the first princeps but also pointed to the future. Indeed, the presence of his wife Agrippina and their children would have been a clear token of the dynasty's continuation. Moreover, there was another aspect to Germanicus' role not shared by either of his predecessors: he was a blood relation, indeed the grandson, of Mark Antony. In Tacitus' narrative Germanicus' Antonian connections are signalled more or less overtly at key points along his route.Footnote 69 At the outset, the bittersweet resonance of Actium for a man related to both antagonists in that battle is emphasized, and the Late Republican civil wars introduced as a theme in the chapters to come (2.53.2-3). Then his enthusiastic reception and relaxed behaviour in Athens seem to be an unacknowledged echo of Antony's similar actions in the same city,Footnote 70 which finds confirmation when Gnaeus Piso bluntly criticizes his colleague's respect for a people who had been Antonii aduersus diuum Augustum socios (‘allies of Antony against the deified Augustus’) (2.55.1). When Germanicus reaches Alexandria, he adopts a casual bearing that is similarly reminiscent of accounts of his grandfather's behaviour there, although Tiberius is said to have been more irked by his entry into Egypt without imperial permission, a transgression of the rules laid down by Augustus to prevent future challengers from holding Rome to ransom.Footnote 71

Tacitus does not say explicitly that Germanicus imitated his grandfather, but his narrative hints that Germanicus' presence in the east was viewed in Antonian terms, and may well suggest that he actively modelled his behaviour on Antony. Given that other imperial figures had already sought to win over Mark Antony's eastern supporters for the Augustan regime, it seems plausible that the narrative reflects what actually happened. It can be conjectured that Germanicus was sent out for a similar reason, played up (or, at any rate, did not prevent others from playing up) his family connections to the defeated triumvir, and perhaps imitated his likeable manner. He would have been able to demonstrate that the memory of this local hero was not to be entirely erased.Footnote 72 The narrative gives the impression that Tiberius was not wholly supportive of this,Footnote 73 but it is unclear whether this was indeed the emperor's attitude, or if it was postulated by Tacitus or another historian to fit the idea that the relationship between the two men was generally uneasy.Footnote 74

The impression has a certain plausibility. It is not hard to imagine why the ageing emperor may not have relished seeing his younger and more popular heir (cf. 1.33.2) travelling across the empire to wide acclaim, and Tiberius would have known from experience the ambiguous but powerful status that sons of the emperor could acquire in the east. Tacitus, however, may be making a rather different sort of point here. He does not suggest that Germanicus tried to bolster his own position, but he attributes to him an ability to win popular enthusiasm that would not be out of place in a potential usurper, while the references to Actium and Antony in the narrative do not exactly discourage recollections of how the East had played a key role in the Late Republican civil wars. Readers may also have thought of the conflicts of a.d. 69 (see Tac. Hist. 2.79 and 3.48.3 for Alexandria and Vespasian). Significantly, in Tacitus' account of the German army mutiny of a.d. 14 in Annals 1 there are similar overtones to Germanicus' portrayal. When his soldiers offer to make him emperor he is horrified (1.35.3-4; cf. 1.31.1), but within the text the episode looks forward to the role played by the legions in the bids for the throne that Vindex, Galba and others would make at the end of Nero's principate.Footnote 75 Tiberius' reported suspicions (1.33.1, 1.52, 1.69.3-5, 2.5.1-2) that Germanicus is diverting his troops' loyalties seem strictly unjustified but, with hindsight, not unrealistic. Tacitus may have seen the connections to Antony displayed by Germanicus in the east as material for a similar point.

IV. GAPS IN THE RECORD?

This discussion has considered a variety of aspects of Germanicus' journey in the east. It began by suggesting how a focus on contemporary events in the region reported elsewhere may illuminate Tacitus' report of his detour to the Black Sea and its environs, and it went on to consider what the wider purpose of his travels may have been. It does not seem unreasonable to conclude that, when the heir to the Principate embarked on a high-profile journey through a large sector of the empire (as well as going beyond its borders), he was sent with a range of overlapping aims. Nevertheless, the question remains open of why the narrative of Annals 2 offers such a selective account of Germanicus' detour to the Black Sea and, more broadly, why Tacitus does not directly discuss the wider aims of his trip as a whole beyond the installation of Zeno in Armenia.

The historian was, of course, at liberty to include and exclude information as he wished, and some topics may simply have interested him more than others.Footnote 76 Nevertheless, it is worth asking why he goes so far as to record the visit to the Black Sea and note (albeit in a summary manner) what Germanicus did there, when numerous other stages of the latter's route go unmentioned,Footnote 77 but does not add further details of the kind supplied for most of the other stops referred to in the text. It also seems surprising that he does not link Germanicus' activities to contemporaneous developments in Thrace and other nearby regions, even though these are covered elsewhere in Annals 2. Annals 2.54.1 contributes to the portrayal of Tiberius' heir as a man who was enthusiastic about history, and key historical sites, but beyond that it raises more questions than it answers.

The reason may be straightforward: Tacitus might have been aware of the mere fact of Germanicus' trip to a geopolitically important spot, but might not have had a detailed account of what happened there. The putative reconstructions of Germanicus' activities set out above draw heavily on epigraphic evidence, and a number of the non-Romans mentioned are known only from very brief literary references, or do not feature in surviving written sources at all.Footnote 78 It is entirely possible that these events were not recorded elsewhere: Roman historians clearly did not feel bound to provide an exhaustive account of affairs away from Rome, and their coverage of the fringes of the empire tends to be very patchy.Footnote 79 The Black Sea's sheer remoteness is also likely to have made it more difficult for accurate information to be transmitted back, especially as Germanicus did not subsequently return to Rome alive. So no written source may have given details of his activities in that particular corner of the Roman world.

Furthermore, although Tacitus appears more interested in events away from Rome than other writers, as a number of episodes depicting interactions between Romans and others in the Annals are not found in any other historian,Footnote 80 he tends to focus on what happened in one region at one particular time. He may juxtapose similar events in different places (for example, at 3.38.3-47 a revolt in Gaul immediately follows a revolt in Thrace),Footnote 81 but he is not in the habit of drawing explicit parallels, still less tracing developments from one area to another. It may therefore not be reasonable to expect him to have brought together the different eastern strands in Annals 2, not least because he may have used sources that treated events in only one sector of the empire at a time. Not only that, but, given that he was writing around one hundred years after Germanicus' voyage, it seems unlikely that he had a varied range of material at his disposal.Footnote 82

The time that had lapsed between the early years of Tiberius' reign and the second decade of the second century a.d. may have shaped Tacitus' account in other ways. It was argued earlier that Germanicus, like Tiberius and Gaius before him, was dispatched as a high-profile representative of the new imperial regime, and that as a descendant of Mark Antony he would also have been able to show that the defeated triumvir had not been wholly forgotten by Augustus and his heirs. These conclusions make sense, in the light of the travels of other notable Romans, but they were not drawn from Tacitus' narrative alone. The historian does not connect Germanicus' trip with those of Tiberius and Gaius, and he presents the ways in which he seems to have followed in Antony's footsteps as merely incidental details, or as additional irritants for Tiberius, rather than as part of a deliberate strategy. In short, Tacitus does not acknowledge the full significance of Germanicus' eastern journey. It may be suggested that this was because he was writing around a century later and because, from this vantage point, he had adopted a distinctive perspective on the past.

The Annals was produced at a stage in Imperial history when the East and other regions were well accustomed to the Principate as an institution. The empire's subjects would in fact have experienced the rule of a succession of emperors, who had made efforts to display themselves and their heirs to their subject populations.Footnote 83 There was no reason for Tacitus to explore the wider propaganda purpose of Germanicus' eastern travels in detail: by the early second century, that aspect of his mission would have been in some respects irrelevant and in others unremarkable.

Conversely, his narrative of the voyage offered him the opportunity to develop other historiographical preoccupations. The relatively recent events of 69 meant that Tacitus could envisage the heir to the Principate as at least a potential civil-war contender, in the east as well as in the north, and so aspects of his portrayal look suggestively to the future. They also provide further reasons for the animosity shown towards him by Tiberius. Although this animosity, which is likely to have originated in the posthumous tradition about Germanicus (see n. 10 above), does not seem entirely unbelievable (cf. p. 235 above), there is no independent evidence for it. Nevertheless, it offered Tacitus numerous literary possibilities.Footnote 84 It enabled him to filter Germanicus' foreshadowing of the events of 69 through the suspicions of the emperor. It also allowed him to reinforce his portrayal of Tiberius as rebarbative and duplicitous, but nevertheless effective (at least before the advent of Sejanus: cf. 4.7.1), and to present Germanicus in contrast as an engaging, excitable figure who, despite his faults, won the affection of his public and conveniently died before he could face the real challenges of holding imperial office.Footnote 85 Even if Tacitus had been aware that Germanicus' whole voyage, not just his excursion into Armenia, was an official imperial mission rather than a combination of tourism and occasional interventions in the provinces, it would not have suited his purposes to make this clear. The independent, impetuous and at times self-indulgent prince could not have been shown capably doing the emperor's bidding.

References

1 An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Metropolitan Library of Bucharest's international symposium ‘The Book, Romania, Europe’ held at Mamaia, Romania in September 2012. I thank all those present, especially Adrian Dumitru, for their comments. I am also grateful to Rhiannon Ash, Georgy Kantor, Christopher Pelling and Thom Russell for advice and suggestions. All chapter references are to the Annals unless otherwise stated and all translations are my own.

2 This is developed further when Germanicus goes east: at 2.43.2-4 Tacitus asserts that Tiberius dispatched the intractable Gnaeus Piso to replace an associate of Germanicus as governor of Syria, and the emperor is later said to have been displeased by Germanicus' entry into Egypt without permission, in defiance of the rules laid down by Augustus (2.59.2-3). See in general C.B.R. Pelling, ‘Tacitus and Germanicus', in T.J. Luce and A.J. Woodman (edd.), Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition (Princeton, 1993), 59–85, at 67–78. On Tiberius' dissimulatio, see R. Strocchio, Simulatio e Dissimulatio nelle opere di Tacito (Bologna, 2001), 33–85.

3 Tacitus has nothing on the practicalities of Germanicus' journey from Italy to the east, but for other Romans taking similar routes, including Cicero, who went overland from Actium to Athens on his way to Cilicia in 51 b.c., see N. Purcell, ‘The Nicopolitan synoecism and Roman urban policy’, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Nicopolis I (Prebeza, 1987), 71–90, at 74 n. 13, and cf. L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore, 1974), 254–6 and Birley, A.R., ‘The life and death of Cornelius Tacitus’, Historia 49 (2000), 230–47Google Scholar, at 245–6.

4 Cf. F.R.D. Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus: Annals 1.55-81 and Annals 2 (Cambridge, 1981), 372–5, and 459–60 for P.Berol. For further discussion of Germanicus' visit to Egypt, which will not be examined in detail here, see D.G. Weingartner, Die Ägyptenreise des Germanicus (Bonn, 1969) and Kelly, B., ‘Tacitus, Germanicus and the kings of Egypt (Tac. Ann. 2.59-61)’, CQ 60 (2010), 221–37Google Scholar.

5 Honours were paid to him and his family at Mytilene (IG xii 2,207, 212, 213 and 540), a statue of Agrippina was erected at Sinope (IGR iii 94), the Bithynian city of Caesarea added Germanikē to its name (W. Waddington, Recueil général des monnaies grecques d'Asie Mineure [Paris, 1904], i.281 n. 1), and coins from Nicomedeia, also in Bithynia, with his portrait and name have also been linked to this visit (Waddington [this note], 516 nn. 12 and 13). There were further statues of Germanicus and Agrippina at Samos (IGR iv 979), and the former was elected to the office of stephanephorus at Priene (I.Priene 142 ii, line 9). For full references, see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 497–8 and 1356–7 nn. 17–18, and N. Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta (London and New York, 1992), 18 and 43–5; cf. H. Halfmann, Itinera principum (Stuttgart, 1986), 168–70.

6 Athens and Troy especially were popular stops for Roman travellers (C.C. Vermeule, ‘Neon Ilion and Ilium Novum: kings, soldiers, citizens, and tourists at classical Troy’, in J.P. Carter and S.P. Morris [edd.], The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule [Austin, 1995], 467–82; Sage, M.M., ‘Roman visitors to Ilium in the Roman Imperial and Late Antique period: the symbolic functions of a landscape’, Studia Troica 10 [2000], 212–31Google Scholar, at 213–14; and Birley [n. 3], 245–6). Nevertheless, in the narrative of Germanicus' travels there are repeated references to Rome's recent history and the roles played by his relations Augustus and Mark Antony (see e.g. 2.53.2, 2.55.1, 2.59.1-2), and it is hard not to see him as following in the footsteps of these close predecessors. On Mark Antony in Athens, see App. B Civ. 5.76 and Plut. Ant. 33.7 (with Geagan, D.J., ‘Roman Athens: some aspects of life and culture I. 86 b.c.–a.d. 267’, ANRW 2.7.1 [1979], 371–437 Google Scholar, at 377–9), and on Augustus' visit, Suet. Div. Aug. 17.4-18.1 and Dio 51.16.3-5. Strabo 13.1.27 and Lucan 9.964-99 refer to Julius Caesar's visit to Troy. Germanicus' visit to Alexandria echoes most obviously Antony (Plut. Ant. 28–9 and App. B Civ. 5.11), but he then sails along the Nile, just as Caesar had with Cleopatra (Suet. Div. Iul. 52.1: see Hillard, T.W., ‘The Nile cruise of Caesar and Cleopatra’, CQ 52 (2002), 549–54Google Scholar. To analyse all the associations evoked by Tacitus' narrative and to consider their function in the Tiberian books as a whole would be beyond the scope of this discussion, but see n. 10 for further bibliography, and pp. 234–5 below for the historical significance of Germanicus' links with Antony.

7 The text leaves it strictly unclear whether Germanicus went beyond the junction of the Bosporus and the Black Sea, or even as far as that point: see Harrison, E., ‘Ramsey's Tacitus’, CR 18 (1905), 407–11Google Scholar, at 410 on os Ponticum (I am grateful to Georgy Kantor for this reference).

8 Germanicus is shown giving way to his emotions a number of times: e.g. his impetuous threat to commit suicide rather than accept his mutinous soldiers' offer to make him emperor (1.35.4), his somewhat ill-judged desire to visit the scene of Varus' defeat (1.61.1), and his ostentatious grief when he believes much of his fleet has been lost at sea (2.24.2). See Shotter, D.C.A., ‘Tacitus, Tiberius and Germanicus’, Historia 17 (1968), 194–214 Google Scholar, at 197–202.

9 When Germanicus himself is in the east, his visits to the Actium memorial and to Athens (2.53.1-3) are also imbued with a sense of history; see further Pelling (n. 2), 72–4. This does not exclude the possibility that the real Germanicus openly evinced an interest in the past (see Goodyear [n. 4], 374 on P.Oxy. 2345 line 19), but it is unlikely to have been as artless and unscripted as Tacitus suggests.

10 It seems likely that Tacitus took his information about the trip from the positive biographical tradition about Germanicus which presumably also portrayed him as the innocent victim of Tiberius' animosity and seems to have originated in the years after his death: Hurley, D.W., ‘Gaius Caligula in the Germanicus tradition’, AJPh 110 (1989), 316–38Google Scholar, at 328–30. The only other surviving historiographical reference to his presence in the east is the generalized paragraph at Suet. Cal. 3.2, which suggests that Tacitus must have actively chosen to focus on it in detail. Various scholars have discussed the individual visits made by Germanicus and attempted, generally without complete success, to determine why Tacitus singles them out in this order—see Questa, C., ‘Il viaggio di Germanico in Oriente e Tacito’, Maia 9 (1957), 291–321 Google Scholar; Koestermann, E., ‘Die Mission des Germanicus im Orient’, Historia 7 (1958), 331–75Google Scholar; Gissel, J.A.P., ‘Germanicus as an Alexander figure’, C&M 52 (2001), 277–301 Google Scholar, at 290–6; and Kelly (n. 4)—but no detailed interest has been shown in 2.54.1.

11 The text is that of Á. Sánchez-Ostiz, Tabula Siarensis: Edición, Traducción y Comentario (Pamplona, 1999); cf. Vell. Pat. 2.129.3, and Weingartner (n. 4), 33–46 on the legal definition of Germanicus' command.

12 Magie (n. 5), 368–75; V.F. Gajdukevič, Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin, 1971), 322-3; and R.D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC (Toronto, 1990), 155–6.

13 H. Heinen, ‘Mithradates von Pergamon und Caesars bosporanische Pläne’, in R. Günther and S. Rebenich (edd.), E fontibus haurire: Beiträge zur römischen Geschichte und zu ihren Hilfswissenschaften (Paderborn, 1994), 63–79; S. Saprykin, ‘Thrace and the Bosporus under the early Roman emperors', in D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks (Exeter, 2006), 167–75, at 168–9; and A. Primo, ‘The client-kingdom of Pontus between philomithridatism and philoromanism’, in T. Kaizer and M. Facella (edd.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East (Stuttgart, 2010), 159–79, at 159–61.

14 Magie (n. 5), 1340 n. 29; Sullivan (n. 12), 161; and Primo (n. 13), 162–4.

15 Saprykin (n. 13), 169 sees this as part of an attempt to create a barrier against Parthian incursions, and possibly also a base for future offensive operations against Parthia.

16 D. Braund, ‘Polemo, Pythodoris and Strabo. Friends of Rome in the Black Sea region’, in A. Coşkun (ed.), Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat (Göttingen, 2005), 253–70, at 254.

17 See Primo (n. 13), 165, who speculates that the Bosporans' resistance to Polemo was derived from the fact that he had no family connection to Mithridates.

18 In 12-11 b.c., Vologaeses, leader of the Bessi, revolted and killed the Thracian king Rhescuporis I in battle, before chasing his regent and successor Rhoemetalces as far as the Chersonese (Dio 54.34.5-7); on subsequent events in Thrace see pp. 230–1 below. Saprykin (n. 13), 170 is of the view that Augustus was following a broader geopolitical strategy here.

19 Primo (n. 13), 166. See also Thonemann, P.J., ‘Polemo, son of Polemo (Dio 59.12.2)’, Epigraphica Anatolica 37 (2004), 144–50Google Scholar, at 146–8, who makes the convincing suggestion that Polemo's marriage to Pythodoris occurred a number of years earlier (though Braund [n. 16], 254 emphasizes the imperfect state of modern knowledge about what was going on in the region at this time). See further pp. 230–1 below for Pythodoris and for Zeno and Antonia Tryphaena, two of the children of this marriage.

20 Coins of Dynamis: Rostovtzeff, M., ‘Queen Dynamis of Bosporus’, JHS 39 (1919), 88–109 Google Scholar, at 101. Statues erected by Dynamis: IosPE II 354, IV 201 and 420, and cf. IosPE II 356, a dedication from the people of Phanagoreia to Dynamis which shows that the town was renamed ‘Agrippeia’ in Agrippa's honour. Statues erected by Pythodoris: Boltunova, A.I., ‘Nadpis’ Pifodoridy iz raskopok Germonassy’, VDI 188 (1989), 86–92 Google Scholar. Coins of Pythodoris: see Waddington (n. 5), at 20 nn. 19–21. Pythodoris also changed the name of Cabeira-Diospolis to Sebaste in honour of Augustus (Strabo 12.3.31). See further Gajdukevič (n. 12), 331, Braund (n. 16), 257–9 and Primo (n. 13), 166–7.

21 It is not clear if the Asandrochos named as Aspurgus' father at IosPE II 36 is to be identified with Asander: see Gajdukevič (n. 12), 328–9.

22 Primo (n. 13), 167–9 (Aspurgus' parentage is discussed at 168 n. 88). For the older view, see Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 102–6 (and 105–6 for Dynamis' poorly attested immediate successor) and Gajdukevič (n. 12), 328–30. Both also consider what the link between Aspurgus and the near-homonymous Aspurgiani may have been: if Polemo's death and Aspurgus' accession were indeed close to contemporaneous, this question could be fruitfully revisited, though cf. Braund (n. 16), 261.

23 Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 107 and Gajdukevič (n. 12), 338, and now Makarov, I.A., ‘Bospor, Frakija i Chersones Tavričeskij v pervoj četverti I v. n.e’, VDI 263 (2007 ), 62–9Google Scholar. On Thracian connections with Bosporus, see further p. 231 below.

24 Gajdukevič (n. 12), 337 and Saprykin (n. 13), 171.

25 D. MacDonald, An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus (Lancaster, PA and London, 2005), 54.

26 A recently discovered undated inscription from Phanagoreia also includes this appellation: see Kuznetsov, V.D., ‘Novye nadpisi iz Fanagorii’, VDI 255 (2006), 155–72Google Scholar, at 156–61 and H. Heinen, ‘Romfreunde und Kaiserpriester am Kimmerischen Bosporua. Zu neuen Inschriften aus Phanagoreia’, in A. Coşkun (ed.), Freundschaft und Gefolgschaft in den auswärtigen Beziehungen der Römer (Frankfurt, 2008), 189–208, at 191–3.

27 Heinen (n. 26), 193–8.

28 Heinen, H., ‘Zwei Briefe des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos (AE 1994, 1538) Übersehene Berichtigungsvorschläge Günther Klaffenbachs und weitere Beobachtungen’, ZPE 124 (1999), 133–42Google Scholar, esp. 136–9; cf. Millar, F., ‘Emperors, kings and subjects: the politics of two-level sovereignty’, SCI 15 (1996), 159–73Google Scholar.

29 Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 106 and Gajdukevič (n. 12), 338–9; cf. D. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King (London, 1984), 41 and Heinen (n. 26), 200–1.

30 Heinen (n. 26), 200: AE 1994, 1538 and CIRB 985 post-date the visit but refer to Aspurgus merely as φιλορώμαιος.

31 See n. 5 above for IGR iii 94, although Goodyear (n. 4), 356 is unwilling to conclude that Germanicus actually went that far.

32 Speidel, M.P. and French, D.H., ‘Bithynian troops in the kingdom of the Bosporus’, Epigraphica Anatolica 6 (1985), 97–102 Google Scholar, at 100. It has also been speculated that Roman ships were stationed in the port, if nothing else to guard the Pontic coast from pirates (cf. Strabo 11.2.12): see D. Kienast, Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bonn, 1966), 106–7, and cf. D.B. Saddington, ‘Classes. The evolution of the Roman imperial fleets’, in P. Erdkamp (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army (Oxford and Malden, 2007), 201–17, at 215 and ILS 2824. Cf. too the importance of the southern Pontic coast later in the first century as a conduit for supplies conveyed to Roman armies in the east, Cappadocia and Syria: see Rostovtzeff, M., ‘Pontus, Bithynia and the Bosporus’, ABSA 22 (1916–18), 1–22 Google Scholar, at 13–14.

33 The possibility that Germanicus also intervened more directly in a difficult situation in Thrace itself will be considered at p. 231 below, but it is worth noting now that IByz 324 confirms that Byzantium was at one point subject to the Thracian king Rhoemetalces I, who died shortly before a.d. 14 (2.64.3): see A. Lajtar (ed.), Die Inschriften von Byzantion (Bonn, 2001), 229. Byzantine drachmas of c.6-9–12 b.c. with the heads of Augustus and Rhoemetalces also point to this and seem to reflect Roman imperial interest in the region (E. Schönert-Geiss [ed.], Die Münzprägung von Byzantion [Berlin, 1972], 2.1302-5). There is evidence, however, that Byzantium was a free city at subsequent points in the first century (12.62-3, Plin. NH 4.46), although Vespasian reduced it to provincial status (Suet. Vesp. 8.4), and later it was part of Bithynia: see A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 625. Thom Russell has tentatively suggested to me that on the occasion of his visit Germanicus could have granted these ‘Thracian cities’ the status of ciuitates liberae.

34 In any case Moesia did not become a province in its own right, separate from Thrace and Macedonia, until 46 a.d.: J.J. Wilkes, ‘The Danubian and Balkan provinces’, in CAH 102.545–85, at 567.

35 See n. 5 above.

36 Harris, B.F., ‘Bithynia: Roman sovereignty and the survival of Hellenism’, ANRW 2.7.2 (1980), 857–901 Google Scholar, at 876–7.

37 See Robert, L., ‘La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomedie: la gloire et la haine’, HSPh 81 (1977), 1–39 Google Scholar and C.P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 83–103 ; cf. J.M. Madsen, Eager to Be Roman (London, 2009), 53–7. Goodyear (n. 4), 356–7 on Ann. 2.54.1 discusses whether Tacitus means that local or Roman magistrates had been misbehaving; he suggests the latter, which might fit the earlier reference at 1.74. See also P.A. Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990), 56–95, esp. 79–80.

38 Rogers, R.S., ‘Quinti Veranii, pater et filius’, CPh 26 (1931), 172–7Google Scholar, at 173–4.

39 See n. 19 for Pythodoris’ earlier Roman connections. Braund (n. 16), 256–9 surveys the evidence for her reign and its length.

40 An inscription from Cyzicus (IGRom IV 145; see Braund [n. 16], 259 n. 28) commemorates the links between the emperor Caligula—Germanicus' son—and Antonia Tryphaena, Polemo and Pythodoris' daughter. Was this connection strengthened by a meeting between Germanicus and Pythodoris?

41 Tacitus is silent about the journey of at least 2000 km undertaken by Germanicus between his last recorded stop on the coast, Colophon (2.54.3), and Artaxata (2.56.2-3). It is likely that for at least part of the way he took the Koine Hodos (Strabo 14.2.29); cf. Levick, B., ‘Pliny in Bithynia – and what followed’, G&R 26 (1979), 119–31Google Scholar, at 127–8, and n. 5 above for other evidence for his route.

42 See further Sullivan, R.D., ‘Thrace in the eastern dynastic network’, ANRW 2.7.1 (1979), 186–211 Google Scholar, at 200–4.

43 See PIR 2 A 900.

44 AE 1998, 1333 provides further evidence of contact between Rhescuporis and Rome at this time.

45 SEG LVII 701, a dedication from Chersonesos in Tauris on behalf of Cotys VIII, is probably connected to the marriage of Aspurgus and Gepaepyris: Makarov (n. 23). See also Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 107–8.

46 See e.g. 2.26.2-4 and 2.64.2. Cf. too n. 33 above: if Perinthus and Byzantium were converted into free cities, could the decision to do so have been linked to the situation in Thrace?

47 Cf. nn. 5 and 9 above.

48 P.S. Swan, The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History, Books 55-56 (9 BC – AD 14) (Oxford, 2004), 116 discusses evidence for the dating of his departure.

49 G.W. Bowersock, ‘Augustus and the East: the problem of the succession’, in F. Millar and E. Segal (edd.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984), 169–88, at 170 and R. Syme, ‘The crisis of 2 b.c.’, in A.R. Birley (ed.), Roman Papers III (Oxford, 1984) [originally published 1974], 912–36, at 913–14.

50 Bowersock (n. 49), 176–82 for full discussion and references; cf. Halfmann (n. 5), 168 and Koestermann (n. 10), 333–4.

51 Bowersock (n. 49), 171–3; Syme (n. 49), 921–3; and Rich, J.W., ‘Augustus's Parthian honours, the temple of Mars Ultor, and the arch in the Forum Romanum’, PBSR 66 (1998), 71–128 Google Scholar, at 79–97 on the temple's dedication and Ov. Ars am. 1.171-82.

52 See in general Suet. Div. Aug. 64.1 and Vell. Pat. 2.101.1 and, for full discussion and references, Romer, F.E., ‘A numismatic date for the departure of C. Caesar?’, TAPhA 108 (1978), 187–202 Google Scholar, at 201–2, id., ‘Gaius Caesar's military diplomacy in the east’, TAPhA 109 (1979), 199–214 Google Scholar, at 203–5, Bowersock (n. 49), 172–4 and Halfmann (n. 5), 166–7. See also Vell. Pat. 2.101.3 on the author's own travels (Achaia Asiaque et omnibus ad Orientem uisis prouinciis et ore atque utroque maris Pontici latere (‘after seeing Achaea and Asia and all the provinces towards the east, and the mouth of the Black Sea and both its shores’), mentioned shortly after the meeting between Gaius and Phrataces. A.J. Woodman, Velleius Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94-131) (Cambridge, 1977), 127 is not convinced that Gaius was present with Velleius at these places, but if Gaius did reach the Black Sea, this would create a further parallel between him and Germanicus.

53 Not certain: see Romer (n. 52 [1978]), 201 n. 34.

54 IG ii2 3250 with Romer (n. 52 [1978]), 201–2 n. 35 and Bowersock (n. 49), 173–4, who also notes the honours paid to Gaius and Augustus at Messene: SEG xxiii 206 and 207.

55 Dio 55.10.17. Swan (n. 48), 112 argues that Dio presents Gaius' Danube frontier tour as preliminary to his eastern expedition rather than a part of it, but Velleius' phrasing (C. Caesar ante aliis prouinciis ad uisendum obitis in Syriam missus [‘Gaius Caesar, after previously going round other provinces to visit them, [was] sent to Syria’], 2.101.1) surely suggests the two phases of his travels were connected, and it hardly seems likely that his halts in Greece and Asia Minor were not made on the way to the east.

56 IGR iv 205; see Romer (n. 52 [1979]), 203 n. 14.

57 IGR iv 248; see Romer (n. 52 [1978]), 202 n. 37 and id. (n. 52 [1979]), 203 n. 14.

58 Suetonius (Tib. 14.4) says Gaius met Tiberius on Samos, Dio (55.10.19) on Chios.

59 Romer (n. 52 [1979]), 200–2 and Swan (n. 48), 113–15.

60 Swan (n. 48), 117–18.

61 For additional discussion and references, see J.B. Campbell, ‘War and diplomacy: Rome and Parthia, 31 b.c. – a.d. 235’, in J.W. Rich and G. Shipley (edd.), War and Society in the Roman World (London and New York, 1993), 213–40, at 222–5 and Swan (n. 48), 125–34.

62 For an overview of events in Parthia and Armenia, and of Roman involvement in both kingdoms, in the years prior to a.d. 18, see 2.1-4 with Goodyear (n. 4), 187–98. Apart from a brief usurpation in 35 Artabanus retained his throne until 38 (6.31-7, 41.2-44): see Olbrycht, M.J., ‘The political-military strategy of Artabanos/Ardawān II in a.d. 34–37’, Anabasis 3 (2012), 215–37Google Scholar. I am grateful to the anonymous referee for this reference.

63 Germanicus seems to have made a good impression. Zeno enjoyed a long reign in Armenia (see p. 230 above, and 6.31.1 for his death in 35) and Tacitus also asserts at 6.31.1 that Artabanus had initially been metu Germanici fidus Romanis (‘loyal to the Romans through fear of Germanicus’) and a just ruler, before he changed for the worse. While this may simply serve to explain why there was no further trouble in Parthia in that period, it is tempting to see this somewhat unlikely claim about Germanicus’ posthumous influence as a sly echo of Tiberius, who is said to have moderated his own behaviour during the lifetime of Germanicus (and his own son Drusus) (6.51.3; cf. 4.1.1).

64 1.3.5 and Suet. Tib. 15.3 report Germanicus' adoption by Tiberius in a.d. 4.

65 Cf. how Dio at 55.10.7 presents Gaius' visit to the Danube troops as part of his apprenticeship as a ruler.

66 Such journeys became an imperial habit that lasted for several centuries, as emperors sought to indulge their own interests, engage in diplomacy, and ensure support for their regimes: in general, Halfmann (n. 5). The kind of route taken by Gaius and Germanicus also became popular with tourists: Casson (n. 3), 253–61.

67 There is not the space to discuss these in detail here, but see Halfmann (n. 5), 21–9, 156–7 for references.

68 Bowersock (n. 49), 173.

69 Indeed, his journey echoes a similar voyage undertaken by Antony in the aftermath of Philippi: Plut. Ant. 23–4.

70 For references, see n. 6 above.

71 Cf. again n. 6, and p. 223 above for the papyrological evidence for the visit to Alexandria.

72 As indeed it was not: both Caligula (Suet. Cal. 23.1) and particularly Claudius (Suet. Div. Claud. 11.3) made honourable mention of their ancestor. Cf. Tac. Ann. 3.18.1 and D.W. Hurley, Suetonius Divus Claudius (Cambridge, 2001), 105.

73 The disapproval of Piso (whom Tiberius sent to govern Syria in full knowledge of his antipathy towards Germanicus: 2.43.2-4) in Athens is telling.

74 Cf. p. 222 above and p. 238 below.

75 Pelling (n. 2), 69.

76 Within the extant Annals, Bosporus recurs only at 12.15-21, where Tacitus (following on from a lost passage) describes in detail the efforts of its King Mithridates to regain his throne from his brother Cotys, and his journey to Rome to request help, where he is said to have spoken ferocius quam pro fortuna (‘more fiercely than suited his fortunes’) (15.21.1). It is possible that more information was available about this episode than about Germanicus' trip and that the narrative reflects this, but to suggest that the role of the compellingly defiant Mithridates and the resonance of a narrative of fraternal strife for Rome particularly appealed to him may be nearer the mark: cf. Keitel, E., ‘The role of Parthia and Armenia in Tacitus Annals 11 and 12’, AJPh 99 (1978), 462–73Google Scholar and n. 80 below.

77 See nn. 3 and 4 above.

78 Cf. Braund (n. 16), 253–4 and Heinen (n. 26), 192.

79 T.J. Cornell, ‘The end of Roman imperial expansion’, in J.W. Rich and G. Shipley (edd.), War and Society in the Roman World (London and New York, 1993), 139–70, at 152–3, who also points out that official accounts may, for example, have downplayed campaigns in which an emperor was not personally involved.

80 Within the extant account of Tiberius' reign these are found at 1.50-71, 2.6.2-26 (Germanicus' German campaigns); 2.1-4, 6.31-7, 6.41-4 (events in and around Parthia and Armenia); 2.52, 3.20-1, 3.73-4, 4.23-6 (fighting against Tacfarinas in north Africa); 2.64.2-67, 3.38.3-39, 4.46-51 (events in Thrace, including two revolts against Rome); 3.40-7 (the Gallic revolt); 4.72-3 (the Frisian revolt). Traditionally such passages, in the Annals and Tacitus' other works, were seen as mere distractions from the Roman narrative, but in recent years more thoughtful approaches have been adopted, and the notion that foreigners' experience of Roman imperialism is analogous to Romans' experience of the Principate is particularly insightful: see e.g. Roberts, M., ‘The revolt of Boudicca (Tacitus, Annals 14.29-39) and the assertion of libertas in Neronian Rome’, AJPh 109 (1988), 118–32Google Scholar; Clarke, K., ‘An island nation: re-reading Tacitus' Agricola ’, JRS 91 (2001), 94–112 Google Scholar; and M. Lavan, Slaves to Rome (Cambridge, 2013), 124–55.

81 A.J. Woodman and R. Martin, The Annals of Tacitus Book 3 (Cambridge, 1996), 321–2.

82 An interesting comparandum is offered by Strabo's Geography. Even though its author was born in Pontus and had links to Pythodoris, he refers to her (without mentioning the personal relationship) on two separate occasions, in the context of her position as widow first of Polemo and then of Archelaus (11.2.18, 12.3.29), with very minimal cross-referencing: the region-by-region structure of his work wins out, even though the two passages overlap somewhat in their geographical subject-matter. See Braund (n. 16), esp. 256–7.

83 See again Halfmann (n. 5).

84 Cf. the remarks of A.J. Woodman, ‘Self-imitation and history’, in id. (ed.), Tacitus Reviewed (Oxford, 1998), 70–85, at 80–5 on Tacitus' elaboration of episodes for which he would have had very little source material on the basis of what was likely to have happened.

85 See Pelling (n. 2), 78–81, as well as A. Malissard, ‘Germanicus, Alexandre et le début des Annales de Tacite. A propos de Tacite, Annales, 2, 73’, in J.M. Croisille (ed.), Neronia IV. Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos (Brussels, 1990), 328–38, at 333–8. Tacitus' Germanicus is not an unsympathetic figure, but the historian makes it difficult to judge him in a wholly positive manner. In addition to the periodic emphasis on Germanicus' lack of self-control (see n. 8 above), Tiberius' justification at 2.26.2-4 for leaving the Germans to fight amongst themselves, in response to Germanicus' eager desire to continue campaigning, is borne out by subsequent events (as 2.44.2 shows; cf. Pelling [n. 2], 76). Moreover, Tacitus does not endorse the high praise and in particular the comparison with Alexander the Great of which Germanicus was reportedly the subject after his death (2.72.2-2.73.3: see Gissel [n. 10], 286), and the terms of this are contradicted by details in the narrative (Goodyear [n. 4], 415–16).