The book duly arrived, a weighty tome of 482 pages based (apparently) on the author’s doctoral thesis submitted to the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia in Spain.
I’m afraid that, sadly, Spanish is not one of my languages, and the book lay unread on my shelf. A year later, my own book about Gallienus appeared: Phantom Horsemen, a considerably slimmer volume than Señor Magdalena’s.
All of this came to mind today, when I discovered that Dr Magdalena had reviewed my book in the Spanish journal Studia Historica, Historia Antigua (Vol. 43, 2025).
An invaluable book
Dr Magdalena is broadly complimentary, favourable even. He uses words like “rigorous” (rigoroso) and “skilful” (hábilmente), and recognizes that Gallienus’ battle cavalry was based on “mere conjecture and a biased interpretation of the few available sources” (meras conjeturas con una interpretación sesgada de las pocas fuentes disponibles).He concludes his three-page review with the verdict, el libro de Campbell constituye una muy valiosa aportación a los estudios historiográficos sobre Galieno (“Campbell’s book constitutes a very valuable contribution to the historiographical studies of Gallienus”).
He continues: La obra ofrece datos sólidos y argumentos convincentes para avanzar en la investigación histórica, por lo que considero su consulta imprescindible para los especialistas (“The work offers solid data and convincing arguments to advance historical research, which is why I consider it essential for specialists to consult”).
Essential reading? Who wouldn’t be happy with an endorsement like that?
And yet ... Dr Magdalena claims that I have made “certain omissions and glaring errors”. Let’s look at them.
The reform of the legionary command
Dr Magdalena’ criticism centres on the replacement of senatorial legionary legates (the legati legionis) with non-senatorial prefects (praefecti legionis) drawn from the equestrian order. This act was masterminded by Gallienus — so the story goes — and forms a major plank in his supposed military reforms. I have begged to differ.It is, I think, an important part of my book. Gallienus has been credited, in modern scholarship, with five military reforms. My main purpose was to expose one of these as a fiction — the creation of a battle cavalry —, but the reader is entitled to know that all five are false. Dr Magdalena thinks, on the contrary, that I have gone beyond my remit; that my book has “lost its guiding thread”.
His complaint stems from my statement that, in 1883, the scholar Hermann Schiller cited three prefects supposedly put in charge of legions by Gallienus, and my observation that, to this day, only six such men are known. Dr Magdalena accuses me of “denying the very evidence of the change” (i.e. from legatus to praefectus), citing his own book as proof (but without any page reference — I think it might be the table on p. 280).
It would be instructive to look at those examples of men supposedly installed by Gallienus in pursuit of his alleged reforming agenda (“from 260 onwards”, says Dr Magdalena).
Third-century prefects
Dr Magdalena has a much longer list, running to seventeen items. From this evidence, he assures us that, under Gallienus, “the change began by affecting six legions stationed on the Danube front and in Africa”, and notes that they are “specifically the legions that remained under Gallienus’ control after the rebellion of Postumus”.
Readers might wonder how on earth I managed to miss seventeen of Gallienus’ legionary prefects. But all is not as it seems. The late Brian Dobson long ago observed that there was a habit, as early as the second century, of shortening the title of the post of praefectus castrorum (“prefect of the camp”, the legion’s senior equestrian officer) to praefectus legionis. For example, Marcus Porcius Iustus calls himself interchangeably by the two titles in CIL VIII 2587 and AE 1942–43, 37 (AD 180–181).
Several of these praefecti are known to us. One example is Marcus Cocceius Severus, who was promoted from primuspilus legionis VIIII Hispanae (“chief centurion of the Ninth Hispana legion”) to praefectus legionis X Geminae (“prefect of the Tenth Gemina legion”), demonstrating the normal advancement of senior centurions to the post of praefectus castrorum. A similar progression can be seen in the career inscription of Marcus Apicius Tiro, who was primuspilus legionis XXII Primigeniae then praefectus legionis XIII Geminae.
Dr Magdalena cites the first of these men to fall within the reign of Valerian and Gallienus — a certain Donatus, who oversaw the completion of a building project at the legionary fortress of Potaissa in AD 257 or 258 — and presents him as the first of his seventeen equestrian legionary commanders. But he was most likely another praefectus castrorum, and cannot, in any case, represent a reform enacted (according to Dr Magdalena) in AD 260.
Also doomed to failure is his contention that the reform extended to the African legion, the Third Augusta, as this is based on a certain Aurelius Syrus, another man who is, in all likelihood, the legion’s praefectus castrorum. (Note that the inscription can only be dated broadly within Gallienus’ sole reign, and not “260–263” as claimed by Dr Magdalena.)
Turning to the others, it is difficult to say for certain, but Marcus Aurelius Dionisius, whose undated sarcophagus came to light in 2010 at the fortress of Aquincum, was probably another praefectus castrorum. Likewise Marcus Aurelius Veteranus, the praefectus legionis XIII G Galleniana who erected an altar to the health gods in deepest Dacia. Although Veteranus wasn’t sure how to spell his legion’s epithet (Gallieniana, “Gallienus’ own”), it at least dates him to some point within Gallienus’ sole reign (and not necessarily “260–262” as claimed by Dr Magdalena).
As for Titus Flavius Victor (Dr Magdalena calls him Victorinus), I deliberately omitted him because the inscription (CIL III 3426, now lost) is known only from a rather unclear sixteenth-century handwritten transcript (from which several letters must be missing). Although it appears to mention a prefect of the Second Adiutrix legion, it is undated (despite Dr Magdalena’s confident dating of “268–269”) and may be much later than Gallienus.
Permanent change or temporary measure?
Notice, incidentally, that his claim that Gallienus enacted his reform across the legions under his direct control crumbles to dust under this cursory inspection. On the contrary, it looks very much as I stated in my book, that the replacement of senatorial commanders by equestrians was desultory, temporary, ad hoc — a response to unforeseen circumstances, rather than a blanket policy — and certainly not a “military reform”.
It only remains to consider the other six men listed by Dr Magdalena. For one thing, they’re all later, much later, than Gallienus. One of them, Aurelius Victor, belongs to the First Pontica legion, created by Diocletian at some point in the period AD 284–288 and probably (like Severus’ Parthica legions) placed under the command of prefects from the start. It is likely that other legions under Diocletian were similarly placed under the command of praefecti. None of this proves, as Dr Magdalena claims, “the effective removal of senators from legionary command” by Gallienus!
In actual fact, the opposite case is all but proven by five of the six men whom I identified in my book. All of them are scrupulously specific that they are agens vice legati (“acting in place of the legate”). We may definitely draw two conclusions from this. Firstly, these prefects are keen to emphasize that they had been entrusted with additional responsibility, over and above the usual duties of a praefectus castrorum legionis. And secondly, they confirm that this role was usually entrusted to a legatus, in the normal course of events. We may legitimately infer, then, that the legate was absent or otherwise unavailable, necessitating the transfer of his role to the prefect. We may also infer that, once normality had been restored, the command would return to a legate.
This must have been the case right up to the accession of Diocletian in AD 284, since the last known praefectus legionis agens vice legati is Aelius Paternianus (mentioned in my book), who served under Carinus (inscription pictured above, where the emperor’s name has been defaced).
The last legionary legate
On a related point, it is often asserted that (in Dr Magdalena’s words) “the last senatorial legates are dated under Valerian and Gallienus”, providing the oft-quoted terminus of AD 260 for the alleged transfer of all legionary commands to equestrian praefecti.The same point was made by Byron Waldron, in his recent review of Phantom Horsemen (in Classical Review Vol. 75), where he stated that “Davenport has shown that in the 260s Gallienus ceased to appoint tribuni laticlavii and legati legionis, preferring to appoint equestrians as praefecti legionis”. In support, Waldron cites a lengthy section of Caillan Davenport’s 2019 book A History of the Roman Equestrian Order, specifically pages 534–545, where it is claimed that “no senator is ever again attested as a legionary legate after the reign of Gallienus” (p. 536).
Notice that Davenport commits himself only to the period after the reign of Gallienus. And his discussion is, in any case, marred by his belief in Gallienus’ field army and his assumption that its equestrian officers were earmarked for rapid promotion. Here, it is sufficient to note that there was no field army, and thus, no special promotion of its officers.
Waldron seeks to rebut my thesis, that legati legionis could still be found after the reign of Gallienus, by discrediting the testimony of Aurelius Marcianus, which I cite in my book. This man’s heirs, who erected his tombstone — his wife, his nephew, and his colleagues —, knew that he was serving as stator legati legionis (“groom of the legionary legate”) when he died in AD 270 (long after the time of Gallienus).
Dr Waldron thinks that “the fact that Marcianus had been serving since 244/5 problematises the chronological significance of the title”. (In passing, we may note that Marcianus had not been serving since 244/5 — the inscription is unclear but seems to suggest 12 years’ service, which places his enlistment in AD 258.) But more importantly, Dr Waldron seems to want Marcianus to have been appointed to his post before the reign of Gallienus, and to have retained an outdated and incorrect title when the legate was allegedly removed and replaced with a prefect.
Dr Waldron appeals to the evidence of the Second Parthica Legion, which he describes as “always led by praefecti”. However, its commander under Severus Alexander describes himself as praefectus legionis vice legati (“prefect of the legion in place of the legate”), suggesting that this is another example of an ad hoc temporary measure. (Why would the commander of a legion that was “always led by praefecti” specify that he was deputizing for a legate?) Moreover, inscriptions from around the same time mention a stator legati legionis (“groom of the legionary legate”) and a librarius officii legati legionis (“scribe on the staff of the legionary legate”).
Dr Waldron’s claim is that men who had, once upon a time, been attached to a legate would continue to emphasize that attachment even after the legate had been replaced by a prefect. (Worse than that, men who had only ever been attached to a prefect, he suggests, would nevertheless call themselves the legate’s men.) It sounds far-fetched to me. On the contrary, none of this special pleading can alter the fact that, in AD 270, when Marcianus died, he was serving on the staff of a legionary legate. Not a praefectus legionis, but a legatus legionis. During the reign of Aurelian. So Gallienus had not banned them.
Nevertheless, Dr Magdalena is strictly correct when he writes that “the replacement of the legati by the praefecti is a fact proven epigraphically” — after all, it did happen eventually —, but it is perfectly clear that he is mistaken to date this event to the reign of Gallienus.
It is a pity that researchers are still constrained by their belief in Gallienus’ supposed ban on senatorial legates, since it informs their interpretation of the evidence. Any mention of the staff of a legatus legionis is blindly dated to the pre-Gallienic period, although it is clear that the terminus should actually be AD 284.
No comments:
Post a Comment