cover

IsraelNumismaticResearch5 | 2010

Published by The Israel Numismatic Society

Israel Numismatic Research Published by the Israel Numismatic Society

Editorial Board: Donald T. Ariel (Editor), Alla Kushnir-Stein, David Wasserstein, Danny Syon, Ilan Shachar

Text editor: Miriam Feinberg Vamosh

Typesetting: Michal Semo-Kovetz and Yael Bieber,Tel Aviv University Graphic Design Studio

Printed at Elinir, Tel Aviv

ISSN 1565-8449

Correspondence, manuscripts for publication and books for review should be addressed to: Israel Numismatic Research, c/o Haim Gitler, The Israel Museum, P.O. Box 71117, Jerusalem 91710 ISRAEL, or to dtariel@ins.org.ilWebsite: www.ins.org.il

For inquiries regarding subscription to the journal, please e-mail to info@ins.org.il

The editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors.

© The Israel Numismatic Society, Jerusalem 2010

Israel Numismatic ResearchPublished by the Israel Numismatic Society

Volume 5 2010

Contents

3 Wolfgang fischer-Bossert and haim gitler: The Ismailiya Hoard 1983

13 novella vismara: Kuprlli or Kherẽi: a Problem of Attribution or a Problem of Method?

21 Yoav farhi: A Silver-Plated Samarian Coin from Tel Dor

31 Yehoshua Zlotnik: A Hoard of Alexander the Great from the Region of Syria

41 Catharine c. lorBer: A Gold Mnaieion of Ptolemaic Cyprus at Tell Kedesh: Background and Context

59 Walter c. holt and nicholas l. Wright: A New Seleucid Bronze Coin and Dura Hoard 13 Revisited

67 haim gitler and Daniel m. master: Cleopatra at Ascalon: Recent Finds from the Leon Levy Expedition

99 Yaniv schauer: Mint Remains from Excavations in the Citadel of Jerusalem

109 Jean-PhiliPPe fontanille: The Barbarous Coins of Judea

123 fernanDo lóPeZ sáncheZ: Military Units of Mark Antony and Lucius Verus: Numismatic Recognition of Distinction

139 Yigal ronen: Coins as Scale Weights

143 cecilia meir: Tyrian Sheqels from the ‘Isfiya Hoard, Part Two

151 Julian Baker: The Tel ‘Akko hoard of Venetian Torneselli

161 ruth JacoBY: Tokens for Sheḥita and Miqve from Samarkand

167 REVIEW: Nikolaus Schindel, Sylloge Nummorum Sasanidarum Israel. Vienna, 2009 (Stuart D. Sears)

175 Abbreviations

175

ABBREVIATIONSAJC Y. Meshorer Ancient Jewish Coinage. Dix Hills, NY 1982AJN American Journal of Numismatics BMC e.g., BMC Arab.: G.F. Hill. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and

Persia. London 1922BMCO e.g., BMCO 1: S. Lane-Poole. The Coins of the Eastern Khaleefehs in the British Museum.

Catalogue of the Oriental Coins in the British Museum 1. London 1875CH Coin HoardsCIL Corpus Inscriptionum LatinarumCNP e.g., L. Kadman. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palestinensium IV).

Jerusalem 1961CRE e.g., H. Mattingly. The Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I. Augustus to

Vitellius. London 1923DOC e.g., P. Grierson. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and

in the Whittemore Collection 3. Leo III to Nicephorus III 717–1081. Washington, D.C. 1973IEJ Israel Exploration JournalIG Inscriptiones Graecae IGCH M. Thompson, O. Mørkholm and C.M. Kraay. An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards. New

York 1973INJ Israel Numismatic JournalINR Israel Numismatic ResearchLA Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Liber AnnuusLRBC e.g., P.V. Hill and J.P.C. Kent. Part 1: The Bronze Coinage of the House of Constantine,

A.D. 324–46. In Late Roman Bronze Coinage (A.D. 324–498). London 1965. Pp. 4–40MIB e.g., W. Hahn. Von Anastasius I. bis Justinianus I (491–565). Moneta Imperii Byzantini

1. Österreische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Denk-scriften 109. Veröffenklichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 1. Vienna 1973

MIBE e.g., W. Hahn. Money of the Incipient Byzantine Empire (Anastasius I–Justinian I, 491–565) (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte der Universität Wien 6). Vienna 2000

MN American Numismatic Society Museum NotesNC Numismatic ChronicleNCirc. Numismatic Circular NNM Numismatic Notes and Monographs NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift RRC M.H. Crawford. Roman Republican Coinage. Cambridge 1974RIC e.g., C.H.V. Sutherland. The Roman Imperial Coinage I. From 31 BC to AD 69. London 1984RN Revue NumismatiqueRPC e.g., A. Burnett, M. Amandry and I. Carradice. From Vespasian to Domitian (AD 69–96).

Roman Provincial Coinage 2. London 1999SC e.g., A. Houghton and C. Lorber. Seleucid Coins. A Comprehensive Catalogue. Part I.

Seleucus I through Antiochus III. New York, Lancaster, PA and London 2002SICA e.g., S. Album and T. Goodwin. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean, Volume 1: The

Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period. Oxford 2002 SNAT e.g., L. Ilisch. Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum Tübingen–Palästina IVa Bilād aš-Šām I.

Tübingen 1993SNG Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (with suffix as necessary, e.g. SNG Cop.)SNR Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau TINC Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress TJC Y. Meshorer. A Treasury of Jewish Coins from the Persian Period to Bar Kochba. Jerusa-

lem and Nyack 2001ZfN Zeitschrift für Numismatik

123INR 5 (2010): 123–138

Military Units of Mark Antony and Lucius Verus: Numismatic Recognition of Distinction

fernanDo lóPeZ sáncheZ

Universidad Jaume I (Castellón)Wolfson College (Oxford)

flopezsanchez@hotmail.com

AbstractCertain aurei and denarii forming part of the so-called ‘legionary series’ of Mark Antony (32/1 BCE) allow us to learn more about a little-known victory of Mark Antony at the beginning of 31 BCE. Also, two denarii minted in an Antonine style in the year 165/6 CE lead us to the conclusion that Lucius Verus personally took part in the capture of Ctesiphon. The elite military units of these two Roman generals were honored with special coin issues.

INTRODUCTION

The legions XII Antiqua, XVII Classica, XVIII Lybica, various cohortes praetoriae and a cohors speculatorum are given privileged treatment in both epigraphic and iconographic terms in one of Marc Antony’s legionary coin series minted at the beginning of 31 BCE. The special honors granted to the cohors speculatorum in this series fit in well with the information provided by Cassius Dio (50:9.2; 50:11.1) regarding the important role played by Antony’s reconnaissance vessels during the winter of 32/1. This cohort, together with the cohortes praetoriae, formed part of the legio VIII, mentioned on a denarius of Pinarius Scarpus minted in Cyrenaica in 31. The legiones VIII (cohortes praetoriae and speculatorum), XII, XVII and XVIII were, along with Scarpus and Antony, based in Corcyra from the autumn of 32, and by their presence helped to dissuade Octavian from disembarking in Epirus in the following winter. This action earned Scarpus and Antony their first and fourth salutations as imperatores respectively. These four Corcyra legions are the same ones as those mentioned by Orosius (6:19.5) as accompanying Scarpus in Cyrenaica before the battle of Actium.

Distinctions awarded to particular units in Antonine-style legionary issues are not, however, limited to 31 BCE. The Antonine type of legio VI was brought back two centuries after the events at Actium by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. There are two variants on the reverse of these restitution denarii of 165/6 CE: an aquila with two standards, and another with an aquila, two standards and a figure of Victory with a wreath above one of them. The distinction granted to this

124 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

legio VI — legio VI Ferrata — over all others in 165 CE was derived from the fact that it was led by Verus in person during his Parthian campaign. The legio VI Ferrata also seems to have been the military unit that took the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon, thus earning the deserved salutation of Parthicus for Verus in 165 CE. This military victory is the raison d’être of the denarius which shows Victory crowning the head of the aquila of the legio VI Ferrata.

A VERY SPECIAL LEGIONARY ISSUE OF MARK ANTONY

The legionary series of Antony are very well known (Ritterling 1925:1206; Kirkpatrick 1967:102–105; RRC:539–541, Nos. 544/1–39; Keppie 1983:27–29; Keppie 2000:78–79). The denarii and aurei representing a war galley on the obverse, and military standards on the reverse, appear to highlight the naval abilities of the triumvir throughout 32/1 BCE (RRC:539; Keppie 2000:78). The denarii offer an uninterrupted list of legionary numerals from I to XXIII, as well as explicit mentions of at least two cohortes praetoriae and of a cohors speculatorum, formed by scouts and messengers. The denarii with legionary numbers above XXIII are not considered today to be genuine, either by numismatists or by historians (RRC:552, No. 117; Keppie 1983:27 and n. 13; Keppie 2000:79 and n. 47). As far as the aurei are concerned, the only hitherto-discovered instances are for the cohortes praetoriae and for legions II, IV, VI, XII, XIII, XIV, XIX and XXII,1 but this list may not be final. The aurei were much more valuable coins than the denarii, which is why they are much rarer today.

Although it may be argued that the mentions of Antony’s legions on coins are pure propaganda (Schmitthenner 1958:126–127), Keppie argued cogently that this coin series in fact provides reliable information on the forces which the triumvir possessed during the Actium campaign (2000:78).2 These coins of legionary and naval character must have been distributed among the soldiers of Antony’s army. Whether they were handed over as a regular stipendium or as extraordinary donativa payments is, however, difficult to ascertain: the most likely eventuality is that both these forms of distribution took place throughout the campaign of 32/1 BCE.

The fact that there were several series of legionary issues, and not just one, seems clear from the numerous stylistic and epigraphic variations that are to be found on the many coin types. Such variations can be best explained by the

1 Keppie 2000:79; Numismatica Ars Classica 2004, Lot number 289 for the new legionary gold coin of Legio XXII.

2 The legionary series of Septimius Severus at the end of the second century CE, or those of Gallienus, Victorinus or Carausius, in the third century, also constitute excellent guides (and often the only ones) as to the military strength of these emperors.

125MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

different chronologies of these series.3 One of the proofs for the chronological staggering of Antonine series may perhaps be found in the two parallel ways of writing numerals for a number of legions (IIII or IV, VIIII or IX, XIIII or XIV, and XVIIII or XIX; Watson 1969:103; Keppie 2000:79). The clearest evidence, however, of the existence of an Antonine series distinct from the rest is provided by those aurei and denarii that add cognomina to the mentions of the legions. The epigraphic formula employed by coin engravers in the seriation of legiones XII Antiqua (RRC:540, No. 544/9; Pl. 21:1), XVII Classica (RRC:540, No. 544/10; Pl. 21:2), XVIII Lybica (RRC:540, No. 544/114; Pl. 21:3) and of cohors speculatorum (RRC:540, No. 544/12; Pl. 21:4) and cohortes praetoriae (RRC:539, Nos. 544/1,8; Pl. 21:5) is indeed highly distinctive and original. These five coin types appear to make up together a legionary mini-series of a very limited quantity which differs from Antony’s other legionary issues (Keppie 1983:27). The hoards that contain legionary coins of Antony show lower frequencies of these five types compared with the others (Keppie 2000: 80 and n. 51).

THE COHORS SPECULATORUM AND THE VICTORIES OF ANTONY AND PINARIUS SCARPUS (IMP IIII/IMP)

It seems likely that cognomina were added to the numerals of some legions and cohorts as a mark of military distinction in the context of the war of 32/1 BCE. It is interesting to note that the denarii with the head of Jupiter Ammon facing right (RRC:542–543, Nos. 546/1–3c), and the legend M. ANTO. COS.III. IMP IIII, provide information on a fourth victory salutation for Antony in 31 BCE (Imp IIII). These denarii were minted in Cyrenaica by Pinarius Scarpus in 31 BCE (RRC:542–543). One of Antony’s legates, Scarpus is also referred to as Imperator in RRC:542, No. 546/2a (ANTONIO AVG/SCARPVS·IMP) and in Nos. 546/2b–2d (SCARPVS·IMP; RRC:542), also struck in Cyrenaica. The salutation imperator in the Roman world was always granted as a result of an important military triumph (Southern 1998:139), and the type on the reverse of

3 Gallienus coined several series of legionary issues in Milan around 260 CE, as is clearly proved by the different numerical salutations (V P VI F, VI P F, VII P, VII F) found on his radiates (King 1984:103). The series of Carausius, too, which seems to have been staggered in two phases, with the first, characterized by the mint marks L, C and RSR, as well as by unmarked examples, was minted between the beginning of 287 CE and the beginning of 288 CE. The second, identifiable by the appearance of the mint marks SMC, SMCC and CXXI, was coined later (Williams 2004:70–71).

4 The epithet Antiqua indicates the legion’s ancestry in relation to Caesar’s legio XII. Classica refers to legio XVII as a naval unit of Mark Antony (41–31 BCE). Lybica appears to be a title adopted by legio XVIII after its service in Libya before 31 BCE (Keppie 1994:204).

126 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

most of these denarii, with Victory holding a wreath and a palm branch, seems to confirm the existence of a victory by Antony and Scarpus (Pl. 21:6). These denarii, therefore, are the sole documents that provide us with information about a military victory for the enemies of Octavian in 31 BCE, and it is likely to be related to the aforementioned cognomina of the Antonine legions and cohorts.

Few historians or numismatists have shown any interest in clarifying the victory to which Antony’s fourth imperial salutation and Scarpus may have related.5 Southern was one of very few to have been intrigued by this, suggesting that the series RRC:542–543, Nos. 546/1–3c of Scarpus may refer to a victory on land by Antony shortly before the definitive battle of Actium on September 2, 31 BCE.6 The proclamation of Antony as Imp IIII does not, however, fit in well with a date very close to September 2. First of all, the relevant military operation must have been concluded by the time the coin series was issued, and there seems not to have been enough time for that. It would also leave unexplained the salutation of Scarpus who seems to have already been in Cyrenaica by that time. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a victory for Antony in a simple skirmish at Actium would have earned a fourth salutation of Imperator for a triumvir who was at the time under greater pressure than ever from the forces of Octavian. That is why a location and chronology different from those proposed by Southern must be sought.

According to Cassius Dio (50:9.2), the military campaign that led to the final battle of Actium began in the straits of Otranto in autumn 32 BCE. It was then that Antony sailed to the island of Corcyra with a view to crossing the Adriatic and disembarking in Italy. In this passage, Cassius states that “Caesar [Octavian]... was busy settling matters in Italy… and so could not go to the front before winter; …and as for Antony…when he came to Corcyra and ascertained that the advance guard of ships sent to reconnoitre his position was lying off the Ceraunian mountains, he suspected that Caesar himself with all his fleet had arrived and hence proceeded no farther. Instead, he sailed back to the Peloponnesus, the season being already late autumn, and passed the winter at Patrae” (Cary 1917:453). In a related passage, Cassius (50:11.1) affirms that “the two leaders…spent the winter in spying upon and annoying each other. For Caesar had set sail from Brundisium and had proceeded as far as Corcyra intending to attack while off their guard the enemy forces lying off Actium, but he encountered a storm and received damage which caused him to withdraw” (Cary 1917:457).

5 “The legend …celebrates Antony’s fourth imperatorial acclamation (Imp IIII)…but the occasion for his fourth is uncertain” (Sear 1998:238).

6 The “coin evidence shows that at some point he (Antony) was hailed as Imperator for the fourth time in his career, which means that he enjoy at least one victory. The context is not known but it perhaps suggests that the attempt to blockade and cut off Octavian´s camp was not such a shambles as it has been described” (Southern 1998:23).

127MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

Cassius Dio’s lines 50:9.2 clearly signify that the scouts of Octavian’s army were active in the straits of Otranto, though the leader himself was absent. At the same time, Cassius’ claim that Antony withdrew from Corcyra to Patrae at the end of autumn of 32 BCE does not necessarily imply that all his forces on the island withdrew with him. On the contrary, the mutual spying of Octavian and Antony described by Cassius in 50:11.1 seems to suggest the existence of an “advance guard of ships” on Antony’s part in Corcyra, though the leader himself was no longer present on the island. On the other hand, the passage in which Cassius affirms that Octavian “proceeded as far as Corcyra… but he encountered a storm and received damage which caused him to withdraw” sounds somewhat obscure. Why did Octavian not bypass Corcyra in his attempt to cross the Adriatic? Was the storm the sole cause of his retreat to Brundisium?

In order to understand fully these key texts of Cassius Dio on the control of the straits of Otranto, another episode, which took place on Corcyra in 48 BCE, might be of relevance. At that time, as in 32/1 BCE, the island played an extraordinary role in the war that Caesar and Pompey were waging in Epirus. Caesar’s seven legions and cavalry, which left Brundisium on January 4, 48 BCE disembarked without initial problems in Palaeste (Paljasa), at the foot of the Ceraunian mountains and halfway between Oricum to the north and the island of Corcyra to the south.7 At the time, Oricum was protected for Pompey by 18 ships under the command of Lucretius Vespillo and Minucius Rufus. The island of Corcyra, on the other hand, sheltered 100 vessels commanded by Bibulus, another supporter of Pompey. The ships of Vespillo and Rufus, according to Caesar, did not dare to leave the port, but Bibulus, though he was initially surprised by Caesar’s arrival on the island of Corcyra (Caes. B.Civ. 3:7; Cass. Dio 41:44.2–3), then managed to set fire to 30 enemy ships in what Van Ooteghem qualified as a semi-success (1954:594). Shortly thereafter, Bibulus managed to use Corcyra to interrupt Caesar’s naval traffic between Brundisium and the ports of Epirus (Caes. B.Civ. 3:8; App. B.Civ. 2:54.225; Cass. Dio 41:44.4; Van Ooteghem 1954:594 n. 1) until April of the following year (Caes. B.Civ. 3:25–26; Luc. Pharsalia. 5:703; Van Ooteghem 1954:598–599; Fig. 1).

The importance of Corcyra in the campaign that led to the battle of Pharsalus in 48 BCE is not without parallel in the war waged by Octavian and Antony in 32/1 BCE (Carter 1970:200). Cassius Dio (50:11.1) implies that Corcyra was the furthest point where Octavian’s fleet could go without being harried, and it looks highly possible that there was at the time a squadron of Antony’s ships on the island, just as Pompey’s fleet had been there on a similar mission in 48 BCE. It is indeed only the stationing of a squadron of Antony’s there that could reasonably

7 Caes. B.Civ. 3:6.3; Cass. Dio 41:44.3; App. B.Civ. 2:54.223; Lucan. Pharsalia 5:460; Plut. Vit. Pomp. 65:3 is wrong in stating that Caesar disembarked at Orcium (Van Ooteghem 1954:593).

128 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

explain the spying described by Cassius during the winter of 32/1 BCE (50:11.1), even after the departure of Antony to Patrae in autumn of 32 BCE. The presence of a fleet of Antony’s in Corcyra also provides an alternative explanation for the withdrawal of Octavian to Brundisium after a first failed attempt to disembark in Epirus. Although Cassius cites a storm as the cause of Octavian’s retreat from the Corcyra area, such a situation can only be due to his lack of control over the island. Had Corcyra been abandoned by Antony’s troops, Octavian’s ships would have been able to find anchorage off the island, or at least in the ports of Epirus. It must therefore be assumed that Octavian’s return to Brundisium at the beginning of 31 BCE was not due solely to the effects of the storm, but also to Antony’s forces watching over the entire region of Epirus from their base in Corcyra.

The denarii for the cohors speculatorum (RRC:540, No. 544/12) depict on the reverse three signa, each decorated with two wreaths and a prow. These are per se the most remarkable coin issues of all those in Antony’s legionary series. If the wreaths signal a triumphant military action, then the rostra make it clear that it was naval in character. These two elements, the scout boat8 together with features

8 The speed of a fleet under oar in fair conditions would have been about five knots at most. A reconnaissance ship could maintain a continuous speed of seven knots (Morrison 1996:258–259). While it remains unknown in exactly how many ships the men of Antony’s cohors speculatorum embarked, it seems likely that the wide variety of signa implies that they used several scouting vessels. Whether there were just three

Fig. 1. Map of west coast of Greece (from Rodgers 1937:364–365, map 23)

129MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

of the legend CHORTIS·SPECVLATORVM (RRC:540, No. 544/12) appear to suggest that it is Antony’s watchful attitude, as described by Cassius (50:11.1) that is specifically referred to in these denarii. Antony’s vigilance proved successful, as Cassius indicates in his statement that Octavian’s fleet was unable to proceed beyond Corcyra and had to return to Brundisium. There can be little doubt that this was viewed as a victory by Antony’s troops, and, consequently, Antony was granted the salutation Imp IIII on the RRC:542–543, Nos. 546/1–3c series of Scarpus in Cyrenaica in 31 BCE.

P. SCARPUS IN CORCYRA AND CYRENAICA

The mention of the Praetorian Guard and of speculatores on Antony’s denarii, with the similar type of coin legend (CHORTIVM·PRAETORIARVM and CHORTIS·SPECVLATORVM) suggests that the victorious scouts of Antony’s army were not alone in watching over the straits of Otranto and that the Praetorian Guard may have been left there together with them. It is worthy of note that Cassius (50:9.2) refers to the withdrawal of the triumvir from Corcyra to Patrae at the end of autumn of 32 BCE, but makes no mention of his Praetorian Guard, which almost certainly accompanied him until that time.

We are not informed by literary sources about the whereabouts of Antony’s Praetorian Guard thereafter. In the context of the final battle of September 2, Orosius (6:19.8) claims that Octavian was supported by five Praetorian cohorts, but his detailed review of troops does not mention any Praetorian components on Antony’s side (Roddaz 1984:171). It is thus possible that, in contrast to the views of Keppie, the Praetorian cohorts depicted on the aurei and denarii of the Antonine series were not with the triumvir at Actium on September 2 (2000:76).

The five Praetorian cohorts that we know to have boarded Octavian’s ships on September 2 could have each comprised 1,000 men, thus numbering the equivalent of a legion (Keppie 1983:34). As regards Antony’s Praetorian units at Actium, it should be pointed out that legio VIII of Casilinum was described by several ancient authors as legio praetoria of Antony since 44 BCE (Cic. Phil. 2:100 and 108; App. B.Civ. 3:5; Keppie 1983:53). The legio VIII which appears in one of the denarii of Scarpus (Pl. 21:7) may therefore be viewed as identical in composition to the cohortes praetoriae noted in two coins (RRC:539, No. 544/1, 8), an identification that fits the iconography of these pieces, as a legionary aquila,

is a matter for speculation, but what is clear is that the different ships seem to have been individually distinguished, given that each signum is decorated with a prow and up to two wreaths. In that period, a reconnaissance ship of this kind was generally manned by an elite crew, and there is no doubt that the men of this cohort are depicted as the best sailors in Antony’s entire fleet.

130 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

and not the traditional Praetorian signa or vexilla, (Durry 1938:198–199; López Sánchez 2007) is depicted between two standards (Pl. 21:5).

If we accept that Scarpus was with Antony on the island of Corcyra in the autumn of 32 BCE, then ancient sources on the Actium campaign become clearer, and are consistent with Antony’s coining. In Corcyra in 32 BCE Scarpus might have already been commander of legiones XII Antiqua, XVII Lybica and XVIII Classica, as well as of the cohors speculatorum and of all the cohortes praetoriae of Antony. Schmitthenner, Crawford, Sear and Keppie claimed that Scarpus commanded four legions, which were very African in character: legio III Cyrenaica, legio VIII in Cyrenaica, legio XVII Lybica and legio XXII Deiotariana.9 Orosius (6:19.5), however, mentions Scarpus in Cyrenaica solely in relation to the battle of Actium, which leads us to believe that he was sent there on a special mission (Perl 1970:352; Crawford 1974:247). If so, there seems to be no reason why his four legions should have necessarily been ‘African’ in character.

If Scarpus was indeed sent to Cyrenaica on a special mission in 31 BCE, the likely nature of his mission would have been to guarantee the provisioning of Antony’s army from Egypt to Actium.10 Especially in view of the fact that Orosius links the Agrippa’s capture of Methone in the Peloponnese (Oros. 6:19.6) with Antony’s abandonment of Corcyra (Oros. 6:19.7; Morrison 1996:159). The interruption of provisioning from Egypt caused by the capture of the strategic Methone (Strabo Geographica 8:4.3; Cass. Dio 50:11.3; Oros. 6:19.6) led to severe hunger in the triumvir’s army at Actium at the beginning of spring in 31 (Cass. Dio 50:11.2; Morrison 1996:157).

The withdrawal of Antony’s troops from Corcyra allowed Octavian to cross from Brundisium with his whole army and continue as far as the Ceraunian mountains (Cass. Dio 50:11.4, Oros. 6:19.6; Plut. Vit. Ant. 62:3; Strabo Geographica 6:3.5), from where he could then descend from Epirus to Actium (Cass. Dio 50:12.2) and blockade Antony’s entire fleet (Cass. Dio 50:12.3–4). Antony’s abandonment of Corcyra and its subsequent occupation by Agrippa´s forces may therefore be considered the key moment that shifted the balance of the war in Octavian’s favor. The special distinction bestowed by a peculiar Antonine coin series on legions XII Antiqua, XVII Lybica and XVIII Classica, the cohortes praetoriae, and above all the cohors speculatorum, may thus be better understood in the context of the successful blockade by Antony of Octavian’s first attempt to disembark in Epirus in the beginning of 31 BCE. Scarpus, then commander of all

9 On the African names of these two legions, see Schmitthenner 1958:239 n. 5; RRC:542 n. 546; Sear 1998:238–239; Keppie 2000:78 and n. 54.

10 The legate Scarpus had previously performed logistical operations on Mark Antony’s behalf, such as the one that led him to base himself at Amphipolis in 42 BCE, overseeing the smooth functioning of operations on the Philippi plains (Ferriès 2007:453; App. B.Civ. 4:107).

131MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

the troops based on the island of Corcyra, won a significant tactical victory for Antony, earning the salutation imperator for himself for the first time, and for the triumvir for the fourth.

LUCIUS VERUS AND THE ANTONINE RESTITUTION DENARIUS IN HONOR OF LEGIO VI

Almost two centuries after the battle of Actium, at some point between 162 and 166 CE, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus minted the restitution denarius (CRE IV:456, Nos. 500–501, RIC III:248, No. 443, in the Antonine style of 31 BCE. The obverse of this restitution issue represents a Praetorian galley with four oarsmen and sweeps of oars moving to the left over waves, with the legend ANTONIVS AVGVR III VIR R P C. On the reverse the legend ANTONINVS ET VERVS AVG· REST·/ LEG VI (in the field) surrounds a legionary eagle between two standards. The reason for this restitution is not certain, but Mattingly pointed out (CRE IV:cxxiii) that “the legion [honored] is the VI Ferrata,” adding that “the legion distinguished itself in the Parthian War.”

RIC III only displayed one type of reverse on this legionary restitution, No. 443, but CRE IV showed two variants. On No. 500, the legionary eagle is facing right, between two signa, with the one on the right surmounted by Victory, to the left, crowning the eagle’s head with a wreath (Pl. 21:8). No. 501 shows the legionary eagle facing left, and there is no Victory on the standard to the right (Pl. 21:9). Askew assumed that these two variants in CRE IV corresponded to the two legiones VI that existed in the empire at the time of M. Aurelius and L. Verus. According to him, the denarius with neither Victory nor wreath should be viewed as related to legio VI Ferrata, one of the Syrian legions that took part in Verus’ eastern war between 162 and 166 CE, while the denarius with a reverse showing Victory and wreath should be identified with the sister unit stationed in Britannia: legio VI Victrix (Askew 1951:15).

Birley supported Askew in his interpretation of the two legiones VI celebrated by M. Aurelius and Verus (1971:86). For Birley, the restitution was motivated by the commemoration of a chronological event. He suggested that the allusion to the unit VI Ferrata, of Antonine origin, is related either to the bicentenary of the Parthian victory of P. Ventidius in 38 BCE (Keppie 2000:75; Syme 1960:223; Rice Holmes 1928:121) or to that of the conquest of Armenia by P. Canidius Crassus in 37 BCE.11 In either case, this type of restitution must have been minted in 163 or 164 CE, and thus related not to the Parthian campaign of

11 This would be the case despite the fact that this campaign resulted in many losses on the Roman side, with the siege-train under the command of Oppius Statianus destroyed, along with two legions, Cass. Dio 49:25.2; Vell. 2:82.2.

132 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

Verus, but to the expedition to Armenia. Despite the cogency of this explanation, some questions remain. Roman legionary series normally celebrate a group of units that fought together at the same location and under the same commander. If it is accepted that the two variants of denarii with the inscription LEG VI correspond to two different military units, it must then also be accepted that this is a ‘legionary issue,’ however small it might be. This would make it difficult to explain the celebration of legio VI in Britannia. If, however, it is to be understood that only one legion was being honored, then the reasons behind the existence of two typological variants must be elucidated.

LUCIUS VERUS, COMMANDER OF LEGIO VI FERRATA

It has been argued that on the aurei and denarii of Septimius Severus celebrating legio XIIII Gemina in 193/4 CE, the wreaths above the legionary standards emphasize the fact that this unit was under the direct command of the emperor (http://dougsmith.ancients.info/legio4.html).12 On the denarii of Mark Antony with the legend CHORTIS·SPECULATORUM, what is honored is the essential role played by the elite sailors of Antony’s fleet in a very important military operation in 31 BCE. Moreover, these sailors of Antony seem to have been taken from legio praetoria of Antony himself, legio VIII. It is then unlikely that the two variants of denarii minted by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in celebration of legio VI should be interpreted as a legionary mini-series. It appears more probable that legio VI is identified as under the emperor’s command in both issues (CRE IV:456, Nos. 500–501). It is also a possibility that No. 500, depicting the Victory with wreath, points to Verus as recently triumphant in battle. The only unit that ties in with these two circumstances in the decade of 160 CE is therefore legio VI Ferrata, and not legio VI Victrix.

Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta paint a picture of a Lucius Verus given over to a life of pleasure in the city of Antioch, and always well away from military operations (Lambrechts 1934:196). One may deduce from these descriptions that Verus, who arrived in Antioch from Brundisium at the end of 162 CE (Lambrechts 1934:195), apparently returned to Rome without ever having left Antioch, though he did win the undeserved titles of Armeniacus (163 CE), Parthicus (165 CE) and Medicus (166 CE; SHA Verus 7:9). According to Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta, Statius Priscus was the real commander of the Armenian campaign (SHA Verus 7:1; Marc. 9:1; Cass. Dio 71:3; Fronto Ad Verum Imp. 2:15), and Avidius Cassius (SHA Verus 7:1), legate of legio III Gallica (Alföldy 1977:181 and n. 179; Dąbrowa 1996:280), was the key figure of

12 This is another reason why the legion was commemorated in a series of sestertii, unlike any other legion of Septimius Severus’ army, RIC IV/1:180, No. 652.

133MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

the Parthian one. In the words of Cassius Dio, it was Avidius Cassius who took Seleucia, and also sacked the Parthian royal palace at Ctesiphon.13 The above sources do not mention any action or merit on the part of Verus in the context of any military operation in Parthia.

It appears, however, that Verus was significantly more involved in the eastern wars than is suggested by Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta. Fronto (H. 2:132) describes a Lucius Verus who lived a harsh soldier’s life in military camps, and Lambrechts claimed that “Dio Cassius has doubtless generalized the role of Avidius for the whole campaign” (1934:196) and that “it seems probable that he (Verus) took part in the campaign in person” (1934:200). Nazarius’ panegyric (24:6–7) also describes how, in the campaign against the Parthians, Verus made direct contact with the enemy army (Antoninus imperator in toga praestans et non iners nec futtilis bello, cum adversum Parthos armis experiretur, visis catafractis, adeo totus in metum venit ut ultro ad regem conciliatrices pacis litteras daret; Lambrechts 1934:197; Carrata 1953:79–80), and it is quite possible that Cumont’s claim that Verus entered the city of Dura-Europos on the occasion of that battle is true (1926:410 n. 53), as Lambrechts believed (1934:198).

Trajan’s campaign in Parthia in 116 CE is similar in many respects to that of Verus, as both set off from Antioch and made a similar march toward Parthia via Dura-Europos (Bennett 1997:197–199). According to Xiphilinus/Cassius Dio (68:28.2–3), Trajan received the salutation of imperator in his Parthian campaign only when he captured the city of Ctesiphon in person, and that is where he established his right to be acclaimed as Parthicus.14 If a parallel is drawn with the events of the Parthian campaign of 165 CE, it is unlikely that it was solely Avidius Cassius with his legio III Gallica who were present at the capture of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. The destruction of the royal palace at Ctesiphon would befit an imperial act by Verus, as only an emperor could have presided over such destruction.

It is Birley’s opinion that the Roman forces crossing the Euphrates somewhat to the south of those of A. Cassius were “probably under Martius Verus” (1966:189), and it is also his belief that this legate arrived at the theater of operations in the East with the entire legio V Macedonica (1966:176). It is true that the location of the legion at Troesmis made it easy to use its troops in the conflicts of the east, but even then, a number of authors consider that not all of legio V Macedonica was moved there on the occasion of the war, but only part of it (Piso 2000:214). Martius Verus could certainly have taken part in the Roman crossing of the Euphrates in 165 CE, and independently of Avidius Cassius’ column (Piso 2000:214; Kroll

13 For Seleucia, see Cass. Dio 71:2.3; Oros. Historiarum Adversum Paganos 7:15.3; Eutr. Historiae Romanae Breviarium 8:10.2; Amm. Marc. 23:6.24; for Ctesiphon, see Cass. Dio 71:2.3.

14 Lepper 1948: 9, 44–45 for the problems; Bennett 1997:199.

134 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

1930:2024). However, even if he did, it is unlikely that he did so at the head of a whole army. The inclusion of Martius Verus beside Statius Priscus and Avidius in the Historia Augusta (SHA Verus, 7:1) might well have involved the context of the pacification of Armenia in 164 CE, and probably also with the title of Medicus assumed by Verus in 166 CE. However, it is questionable whether Martius Verus was a pre-eminent leader in the war against the Parthians in 165 CE.

If the Roman army that crossed the Euphrates independently of Avidius Cassius was not necessarily connected with Martius Verus or with legio V Macedonica, it becomes plausible to relate it instead to Verus and legio VI Ferrata. Little is known about the stationing of this legion in the East before Verus’ campaign in Mesopotamia (Cotton 2000:352; Ritterling 1925:1591–1952), but it is believed that it was sent to Arabia in the years 119–123 CE, shortly after Trajan’s Parthian war (Kennedy 1980:297–303; 308–309). It is also supposed that the legion may have been stationed at Caparcotna/Lejjun (near Megiddo) in Syria-Palestine (Lifshitz 1960:110; 1963:784; 1969:461–463), or at Raphanea after 123 CE (Keppie 1986:413–423; Franke 1991:527 and n. 1) . From wherever legio VI Ferrata left to make its way to Parthia, what we do know is that at the beginning of the Armenian war of 162 CE it was commanded, together with legio II Adiutrix, by Q. Antistius Adventus (Birley 1966:213; Adventus: PIR 1 1933:142–143, A 754). In the Parthian war, though (i.e., after 164 CE), Antistius Adventus was only a legate of legio II Adiutrix (PIR 1:142–143, A 754). Therefore, the only commander and legion to cross the Euphrates in the direction of Mesopotamia in 164/5 CE, apart from Avidius Cassius and his legio III Gallica, would have been Verus and legio VI Ferrata.

The association with the names of L.Verus and M. Aurelius on the restitution denarii of legio (VI Ferrata) may have been thus due to a special link between this legion and the imperial household. The denarii Leg VI without Victory or a wreath could have been minted shortly before the capture of Ctesiphon in 165 CE, with the aim of showing the fundamental relationship between legio VI Ferrata and its commander Verus. The LEG VI denarii with Victory and the wreath can, on the other hand, be interpreted as originating somewhat later, and were probably minted in 165/6 CE, once the war in the East had ended and in commemoration of the victorious role (Victory) of legio VI Ferrata, which had entered Ctesiphon with Verus. Furthermore, there can be little doubt that it was the capture of the Parthian capital that won Verus the title of Parthicus in 165 CE.

CONCLUSION

All the Roman legionary series seem to favor one unit over others. The Victorinus legionary series in gold was minted in Gaul during 271 CE, in the context of defense of the region in the face of an imminent invasion by Aurelian. In this series,

135MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

legio XXX Ulpia Victrix, with its Jupiter emblem, and legio XXII Primigenia, with that of Hercules, are shown to be the favored units of Emperor Victorinus (López Sánchez 2006). The legionary series of Septimius Severus minted in 193/4 CE shows clearly that legio XIIII Gemina is superior in rank to all others. This is the only legion to display its totem animal — the Capricorn — on the coin issues, and also the only unit of Septimius Severus’ army to decorate its standards with wreaths (Pl. 21:10). The reason legio XIIII Gemina received this special distinction was that this was the legion commanded personally by the emperor in his conquest of Italy. The aura of elitism surrounding Jupiterine and Herculean units at the end of the third century CE leads us to wonder whether legiones XXX Ulpia Victrix and XXII Primigenia, or vexillationes taken from these two legions, were also units that were particularly linked to Emperor Victorinus in 271 CE.

The cohors speculatorum was the most distinguished of all units that served Antony in 32/1 BCE. As was the case with Septimius Severus and his legio XIIII Gemina, or with Victorinus and his legiones/vexillationes XXX Ulpia Victrix and XXII Primigenia, the cohors speculatorum is honored with special wreaths and rostra as the most important and victorious unit of Antony’s army. No other unit of Antony’s can be compared to the cohors speculatorum in importance, with the partial exception of the cohortes praetoriae. As has been argued in the course of this article, the cohors speculatorum and cohortes praetoriae may be identified with legio VIII of Scarpus in Cyrenaica. Legio VIII is also known, of course, for its special relationship with Antony from 44 BCE onward, and it may therefore be considered highly probable that the presence of the triumvir on the island of Corcyra in 32 BCE might be the factor underlying the transformation of legio VIII into cohortes praetoriae. It is because of this specially privileged position that legio VIII is the only unit expressly mentioned by Scarpus in Cyrenaica.

The Antonine restitution denarii with the inscription LEG VI minted in 165/6 CE follow the same logic that we have seen in the cases above. They also indicate that it is Fronto, and not Cassius Dio or the Historia Augusta, who provides the most reliable account of the Parthian campaign of Verus in 165 CE. Thanks to these denarii, we may reconstruct that legio VI Ferrata was the unit led personally by Verus in his Parthian campaign of 165 CE. Similarly, because of the variant with Victory crowning the legionary aquila with a wreath, it is possible to deduce that it was this unit that entered Ctesiphon with Verus, earning him the title of Parthicus. Lucius Verus, like Antony, Septimius Severus or Victorinus, were commanders of important expeditionary armies. However, as well as coordinating all the units of their armies as supreme commanders, they were also personally in command of specific units, and it was to these units that the most difficult tasks were often entrusted, and again, these units were the ones that often won the most crucial victories.

136 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

DESCRIPTION OF PL. 21

1. š Denarius. Legionary issue of Mark Antony. Legio XII Antiqua. Early 31 BCE. RRC: No. 544.9=CGR 219304=2002.0102.4867. The Trustees of the British Museum.2. š Denarius. Legionary issue of Mark Antony. Legio XVII Classica. Early 31 BCE. RRC: No. 544.10=CGR 219305=2002.0102.4868. The Trustees of the British Museum.3. š Denarius. Legionary issue of Mark Antony. Legio XVIII Lybica. Early 31 BCE. RRC: No. 544.11=CGR 219307=2002.0102.4870. The Trustees of the British Museum.4. š Denarius. Legionary issue of Mark Antony. Cohors Speculatorum. Early 31 BCE. RRC: No. 544.12=CGR 216418=1843.0116.174. The Trustees of the British Museum.5. š Denarius. Legionary issue of Mark Antony. Cohortes Praetoriae. Early 31 BCE. RRC: No. 544.8=CGR 219302=2002.0102.4865. The Trustees of the British Museum.6. š Denarius. Pinarius Scarpus. Mark Antony, Imp IIII, P. Scarpus Imp. Victory type. 31 BCE. RRC: No. 546.2ª=CGR 219350=2002.0102.4911. The Trustees of the British Museum.7. š Denarius. Pinarius Scarpus. Legio VIII. 31 BCE. RRC: No. 546.1=CGR216486=1843.0116.941. The Trustees of the British Museum.8. š Denarius. Marcus Aurelius & Lucius Verus Restitution issue of Mark Antony’s legionary type with Victory on the reverse Rome, 165 CE. Classical Numismatic Group. Mail Bid Sale 79. Auction date 17 September 2008. Lot number 1123. 9. š Denarius. Marcus Aurelius & Lucius Verus Restitution issue of Mark Antony’s legionary type without Victory on the reverse. Rome, 166 CE. Classical Numismatic Group. Mail Bid Sale 61. Auction date 25 September 2002. Lot number 1817. 10. Š Aureus. Septimius Severus c. 193/4 CE. AN658853001. R. 12644. The Trustees of the British Museum.

REFERENCES

Alföldy G. 1977. Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen: prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht. Bonn.

Askew G. 1951. The Coinage of Roman Britain. London.

Bennett J. 1997. Trajan. Optimus Princeps. A Life and Times. London-New York.

Birley A.R. 1966. Marcus Aurelius. London.

137MILITARY UNITS OF MARK ANTONY AND LUCIUS VERUS

Birley A.R. 1971. VI Victrix in Britain. In R.M. Butler ed. Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire: Essays to Commemorate the Nineteenth Centenary of the Foundation of York. Leicester. Pp. 81–96.

Carrata Thomes. F. 1953. Il regno di Marco Aurelio. Turin.

Cary E. 1917. Dio’s Roman History. Volume V. London-New York.

Carter J.M. 1970. The Battle of Actium. The Rise and Triumph of Augustus Caesar. London.

Cotton H.M. 2000. The Legio VI Ferrata. In Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff eds. Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Lyon, Actes du Congrès de Lyon (17–19 septembre 1998) (Collection du centre d’études romaines et gallo-romaines. Nouvelle série 20). Lyon-Paris. Pp. 351–357.

Crawford M.H. 1974. Review of K. Kraft, Zur Münzprägung des Augustus, Wiesbaden 1969. Journal of Roman Studies 64:246–247.

Cumont F.V.M. 1926. Fouilles de Doura Europos (1922–1923). Avec un appendice sur la céramique de Doura par M. et Mme Félix Massoul. Paris.

Durry M. 1938 Les cohortes prétoriennes. Paris.

Ferriès M.-C. 2007. Les partisans d’Antoine (des orphelins de César aux complices de Cléopâtre). Pessac-Paris.

Franke T. 1991. Die legionslegaten der römischen Armee in der Zeit von Augustus bis Traian, II (Bochumer historische Studien, Alte Geschichte 9). Bochum.

Kennedy D.L. 1980. Legio VI Ferrata, the Annexation and Early Garrison of Arabia. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 84:283–308.

Keppie L.J.F. 1983. Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 BC. London.

Keppie L.J.F. 1986. Legions in the East from Augustus to Trajan. In P.W.M. Freeman and D.L. Kennedy. The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the University of Sheffield in April 1986 (BAR Int. S. 297). Oxford. Pp. 411–429.

Keppie L.J.F. 1994. The Making of the Roman Army. From Republic to Empire. New York.

Keppie L.J.F. 2000. Marc Antony´s Legions. In M.P. Speidel ed. Legions and Veterans. Roman Army Papers 1971–2000 (Mavors Roman Army Researches XII). Stuttgart. Pp. 75–96.

Kirkpatrick C. 1967. The Legionary Coinage of M. Antony. Seaby´s Coin and Medal Bulletin 583:102–105.

Kroll W. 1930. Martius Verus. 6. Paulys Real-Enclyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung (RE), XIV. Cols. 2024–2025. Stuttgart.

Lambrechts P. 1934. L’empereur Lucius Verus. Essai de réhabilitation. L’Antiquité Classique 3/1:173–201.

Lifshitz B. 1960. Sur la date du transfert de la legio VI Ferrata en Palestine. Latomus 19:109–111.

138 FERNANDO LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

Lifshitz B. 1963. Inscriptiones latines de Césarée (Caesarea Palestinae). Latomus 22:783–784.

Lifshitz B. 1969. Legiones romaines en Palestine. In J. Bibauw ed. Hommages à Marcel Renard II. Brussells. Pp. 458–469.

López Sánchez F. 2006. La série légionnaire de Victorin et ses emblèmes ad hoc. In D. Hollard ed. L’armée et la monnaie. Actes de la journée d’études de la SÉNA du 10 décembre à la monnaie de Paris (Recherches et travaux de la société d’études numismatiques et archéologiques; L’armée et la monnaie 1). Paris. Pp. 37–49.

López Sánchez F. 2007. Hadrien et la Veme cohorte prétorienne. Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie 153:61–72.

Morrison J.S. (with contributions by J.F. Coates). 1996. Greek and Roman Oared Warships 399–30 B.C. (Oxbow 62). Oxford.

Perl G. 1970. Die römischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrenae und Creta zur Zeit der Republik. Klio 52:319–354.

PIR 1= E. Groag and A. Stein. Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Saec. I. II. III. Pars II. Berlin-Leipzig 1933.

Piso I. 2000. Les légions dans la province de Dacie. In Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff eds. Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Lyon, Actes du Congrès de Lyon (17–19 septembre 1998) (Collection du centre d’études romaines et gallo-romaines. Nouvelles série nº 20). Lyon-Paris. Pp. 205–225.

Rice Holmes T.R. 1928. The Architect of the Roman Empire (44–27 B.C.). Oxford.

Ritterling E. 1925. Legio. Paulys Real-Enclyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung (RE), XII. Cols. 1186–1837. Stuttgart.

Roddaz J.-M. 1984. Marcus Agrippa (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 253). Rome.

Rodgers W.L. 1937. Greek and Roman Naval Warfare. A Study of Strategy, Tactics and Ship Design from Salamis (480 B.C.) to Actium (31 B.C.). Annapolis-London.

Sear D.R. 1998. The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperatores, 49–42 B.C. London.

Schmitthenner W. 1958. The Armies of the Triumviral Period: A Study of the Origins of the Roman Imperial Legions. Ph.D. diss., Oxford University. Oxford.

Smith D. 1997 with update in 2009. http://dougsmith.ancients.info/legio4.html.

Southern P. 1998. Mark Antony, Stroud.

Syme R. 1960. The Roman Revolution. Oxford.

Van Ooteghem J. 1954. Pompée le Grand. Bâtisseur d’Empire. Brussels.

Watson G.R. 1969. The Roman Soldier. London.

PLATE 21

RONEN

LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ

1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

10

1 2

3 4 5

6 7