The third century ad is crucial to understanding the transformation of the Roman army and administration from the system established by Augustus to the new world of Late Antiquity. After the mid-third century senators ceased to hold the positions of tribunus militum and legatus legionis, and no longer commanded troops in battle. They were replaced as officers by commanders of equestrian rank, and over time equestrian governors came to administer most provinces that had previously been entrusted to senators of praetorian or consular standing. These changes laid the foundation for the largely separate military and civilian career paths of the fourth century and beyond. This historical outline is well established. But important questions remain that continue to exercise the minds of scholars. Why precisely did these changes come about? What impact did they have on the senatorial order? It is easier to pose these questions than to answer them, given the exiguous nature of the literary sources. Documentary evidence, especially inscriptions, has long assumed pride of place as a source for reconstructing senatorial and equestrian career paths.
H.'s mammoth 890-page book, based on his 2017 Zürich Ph.D. dissertation, does exactly what the title says. It examines the continuities and changes in senatorial careers, and within the senatorial order itself, during the years 235–284. This period is commonly referred to (as it is by H.) as the ‘age of the soldier emperors’, even though this appellation is misleading. Periodisation exists as a way to give shape to our study of the past and cannot be avoided. But the use of this term for the period 235–284 gives the impression that all emperors were former soldiers, promoted directly from the ranks of the legions, when the majority of Rome's rulers up to and including Gallienus (260–268) came from the senatorial order. Moreover, generals of senatorial background (many of them later emperors) could be found leading troops in the turbulent frontier wars of the 240s–250s, as Ronald Syme observed (‘Emperors from Etruria’, BHAC 1979/1981 [1983], 333–60).
The title is indicative of the traditional structure and approach of H.'s work. After an introduction that discusses the ancient sources and the benefits and drawbacks of prosopographical analysis, he examines the different groups within the senatorial order (Chapter 1); the offices held by senators in Rome, Italy and the provinces (Chapter 2); the changing career paths of senatorial office-holders (Chapter 3); their geographical origins (Chapter 4); and the social composition of the senatorial order (Chapter 5). These prosopographical chapters are followed by sections that analyse the larger picture, namely the relationship between senatorial office-holders and emperors (Chapter 6); the changed situation of senators at the end of the third century (Chapter 7); and a short conclusion.
The bulk of the book consists of H.'s prosopographical data, a catalogue of 301 named senatorial office-holders in alphabetical order, plus 24 anonymous cases; the same individuals are here additionally presented in consular and provincial fasti. Each entry includes a brief overview of the senator's career, followed by literary, epigraphic, papyrological and numismatic evidence, quoted in full in the original Greek or Latin. H. offers an analysis of each office-holder's career and provides an exhaustive list of their appearances in previous prosopographical works (sometimes an entire paragraph in itself). A tremendous amount of work has gone into this directory, and I admire H.'s industry and diligence. But was all this effort really necessary? The two-volume Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser (ed. K.P. Johne, with U. Hartmann and T. Gerhardt, 2008), barely more than a decade old, also featured consular and provincial fasti with citations of ancient evidence for each individual. Moreover, Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser integrated both senatorial and equestrian governors into its lists, whereas H.'s fasti (pp. 675–96) only feature senators. This gives an incomplete picture of the changes that took place in the late third century, during which some provinces were administered by both senators and equites (e.g. Pannonia Inferior, Moesia Inferior). H.'s entries are longer than those in the 2008 work, but he has few new governors to include (no. 276, M. Ulpius Cassius, is a rare addition; others are augmented by new inscriptions, such as no. 222, Ti. Pollienus Armenius Peregrinus).
The hard work that H. has put into compiling the prosopographical catalogue has unfortunately not led to major new insights. He divides the senatorial order into three groups: patricians; non-patricians who held consular office; and non-patricians who did not hold consular office (there is a helpful table on p. 26). The careers of patricians, most of whom did not seek army provincial commands, were least affected by the changes of the third century. The greatest impact was on non-patricians, who could no longer hold military posts and who were gradually replaced by equestrians as provincial office-holders. Over time the careers of non-patricians and patricians assumed a similar shape, and there was a separation between administrative and military careers. Nevertheless, the senatorial order retained its wealth and prestige, and the senate itself still played an important role in legitimating emperors. Although H. attempts to distinguish his conclusions from those of previous scholars (pp. 208–9), it is difficult to discern any real difference. The results of his examination of senatorial career paths are largely the same as those reached by M. Christol in 1986 (Essai sur l’évolution des carrières sénatoriales dans la seconde moitié du IIIe s. ap. J.-C.). Furthermore, although I recognise that this is a book about senators, not equites, the treatment of the equestrian order is not as strong as it could have been, and H. reproduces misleading notions that a new merit-based promotion system arose for army officers (pp. 211, 232). If we look beyond the third century to the world of Ammianus Marcellinus, we can see that there was no military meritocracy in Late Antiquity.
Indeed, the book is rather insular, concentrating on the narrow period between 235 and 284 and interacting primarily with previous scholarly discussions of this same period. One potential route to a more innovative treatment would have been to engage in comparative historical analysis, comparing Rome with other societies that experimented with divisions in military and administrative hierarchies, such as China. Alternatively, the application of theoretical models of power could have provided an interesting framework (as in I. Mennen's 2011 Power and Status in the Roman Empire, ad 193–284). There is the occasional gesture to such thinking in H.'s book (p. 226), but it does not occur in any sustained fashion. One section, which I did find interesting and original, uses sarcophagi (often neglected by political historians) to reconstruct senatorial ideals (pp. 219–24). H.'s work could certainly have been enhanced by a more innovative interdisciplinary approach that incorporated artistic material such as senatorial statues.
It pains me to write a negative review of a scholar's first book, especially when such great effort has been invested in it. I think that the research design had flaws from the beginning: one would hardly expect a catalogue of senatorial office-holders compiled so soon after Die Zeit der Soldatenkaiser to lead to new conclusions. The book assembles a wide range of ancient evidence and exhaustively reviews secondary scholarship in the pursuit of completeness, and for this reason it will be useful to scholars as a first port of call. But it does not offer a fresh framework through which to view the tumultuous events of the third century and their impact on the senatorial order.
