Aelianus (P. Aelius Aelianus) was a Roman general and senior official of the mid-Third Century AD who rose from relatively lowly origins to become the prefect of a legion under the Emperor Gallienus. He was one of the earliest beneficiaries of Gallienus’s policy of excluding senators from army commands in favour of career-soldiers of equestrian rank. His later life is obscure.
He was possibly procurator (i.e. Chief Financial Officer) of Epirus in the late-260s, but the foremost authorities query this identification. However, there are stronger grounds for believing that he was appointed a praeses (provincial governor) in Africa, most likely under the Emperor Probus.
Contents |
The sum total of our knowledge of this man derives from five inscriptions from:
(a) A commemorative stone found in Poetovio in Pannonia Superior (now Ptuj in present-day Slovenia);[1]
(b) The sarcophagus Aelianus dedicated to the memory of his parents found at Obuda, a district of modern Budapest on the west bank of the River Danube which was the site of Aquincum Castrum, the base of Legio II Adiutrix;[2]
(c) An altar offered Herculi Augusti - i.e. to the Majestic Hercules - from Szentendre, the site of Ulcisia Castra an auxiliary fortress 12 km north of Aquincum;[3]
(d) A stone from Photike in the Roman province of Epirus, nowadays a province of Greece;[4] and
(e) El-Khemis in Algeria, in the Roman provinceof Mauritaniae Caesarenses.[5]
The last four of these inscriptions are analysed in great detail by Prof. T. Nagy.[6] This article largely reflects Prof. Nagy’s findings and conclusions.
It is likely that Aelianus was born at Aquincum in Pannonia Inferior which, as noted above, was the base of Legio II Adiutrix. His father was Martialis (P. Aelius) who had been a/the Custos Armorum (i.e. Warden of the Armory) of Legio II (obviously he was described as ex custode armorum - i.e.'formerly Warden etc.' on his tomb) and his mother Fl. Agathe. The gentilicum 'Aelius' suggests that the family was either descended from one of the settlers who arrived in Pannonia in the century after the Roman conquest or from one of many native Pannonian clans that was given Roman citizenship when the future Emperor Hadrian was governor in the early years of the second century AD and took Hadrian’s family name. If the Aelius ancestor was enfranchised during the reign of Hadrian or his successeor, Antoninus Pius he would have taken the name of the imperial dynasty as his own nomen as was the custom of the day. Thus by this interpretation of the onomastics Aelianus’s clan had been Roman citizens for well over 100 years by the time he dedicated his parents’ sarcophagus and possibly more than 150 years and it is likely that the family had had connections with Legio II for generations.It may be safely assumed that they were people of substance in the ruling elite of Aquincum.
It can be safely assumed that, as a castrensis (i.e. 'Son of the Camp' - born of a serving soldier), Aelianus would have enlisted at the earliest age – i.e. 18-20 – probably in his father’s legion. Nagy is inclined to the view that he would then have risen ex caliga – i.e. 'from the ranks of those who wear hobnailed sandals' (the footwear of legionary rankers). This is debatable. His father, Martialis, was a senior non-commissioned officer, one of those given the right to wear the golden ring of equestrian rank by the Emperor Septimius Severus,[7] and it seems unlikely that such a man would not have used every scrap of influence he could deploy to make sure his boy was spared the rigours of life as a ranker and got the best possible shove up the ladder of promotion. There are plenty of known instances of men entering the army at the rank of centurion.[8] Although Martialis may not have disposed of sufficient influence to elevate Aelianus directly to the centurionate or the command of cohort of auxiliary infantry it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was at least able to ensure that his son was entered on the Legio II muster roll as an immunis – i.e. excused fatigues – which would have cut several wearisome years off his upward career. The inscriptions cited make it clear beyond all doubt that Aelianus showed himself a highly capable officer and probably a lucky one as well who prospered in the conditions of crisis that prevailed on Rome’s northern frontiers in the middle years of the Third Century AD. Although he probably enlisted in Legio II and certainly commanded it at a high point of his career, he is unlikely to have served solely with that legion. Like many of Rome’s more brilliant general officers it seems safer to postulate that he rose through the centurionate receiving progressively more senior postings in different legions.[9] It is not known whether he served in Gallienus’s field army or comitatus where he would have been noticed by the Emperor and his senior commanders, but it is not unlikely that he did.
The first Aelianus inscription cited above is incomplete, but mentions an Aelius Aelianus, a man of egregius equestrian rank, who was the commander (Dux) of detachments drawn from the four legions of the Pannonian provinces at Poetovio. Whether or not this is in fact the A discussed in this article is disputed. Prof. Nagy did not make the connection in his survey of A's career - see above - and Martindale et al. also failed to make the attribution. However, Fitz believed that they were one and the same person).[10] Fitz also suggests that the inscription is dated around about the early 260s AD - i.e. around the time that Gallienus recovered the region after the death of the usurper Regalianus.
Fitz's supposition that the Aelianus referred to was our A seems plausible, partly because: (i) it seems highly unlikely that there would have been two very senior officers of that name commissioning lapidary inscriptions in Pannonia within a very short period yet making no attempt to differentiate themselves from each other; and (ii) the Poetovio posting seems a highly probable career move for a man who was soon to be re-manifested as one of Gallienus's legionary prefects.
Poetovio was a highly strategic fortress commanding the approaches to Italy through the Julian Alps. It was thus an appropriate outpost for Gallienus's field army from which it could watch for evidence of further disquiet on the part of non-loyal elements of the provincial garrison and guard against further incursions by the Quadi and Roxolani who had ravaged Pannonia and penetrated Italy in the aftermath of Regalianus's downfall. That Gallienus's fears were justified and that a substantial portion of the four Pannonia legions were still unhappy with his regime as late as 261 is evidenced by the support they gave the Macrianus brothers in their attempt to usurp the Empire that year. Our records for this period are desperately inadequate, but they do suggest that the legions concerned (and, no doubt, their associated auxilia) were bitterly divided on whether or not Gallienus had forfeited his mandate and different elements fought on both sides with the exceptional savagery that often characterises civil wars.
As the Praefectus Legionis II Adiutricis referred to on the Aquincum sarcophogus A is likely to have been one of the earliest beneficiaries of Gallienus’s policy of excluding senators from army commands in favour of professional equestrian officers. Nagy points out that, as a non-senator, Aelianus would not have been given this posting prior to the Persian captivity in 260 AD of Gallienus’s father and senior Augustus, the Emperor Valerian who was, the sources seem to agree, a very model of Roman patriarchal conservatism. Nor could he have been given it after 267 in which year we know that Valerius Marcellinus was in command of Legio II.[11]
Nagy is inclined to ascribe A's promotion to the earlier part of this five year ’window’ in which case it is tempting to associate it with Gallienus’s suppression of the attempted putsch of Quietus Macrianus. (If Fitz is correct and he was earlier in command of the Poetovio garrison this association is plausible. Gallienus would have wanted to secure the loyalty of the provincial officer corps by putting in his own men in command of all the main units. A was no doubt able to draw on a lot of local connections as prefect of the garrison of Aquincum.
The Ulcisia altar describes the dedicator, P. Aelius Aelianus, as prefect of the Second legion, thus confirming that he was the same man as the one who had commissioned the sarcophagus of Martialis and Fl. Agatha. It adds the additional information that he was protector nostri augusti Gallieni – i.e. 'Protector of Our Majestic Lord Gallienus'. He was, thus, one of the earliest known recipients of that title. However, that the honorific should refer to 'Our Majestic Gallienus' rather than to 'Our Majestic Lords' (i.e. Valerian and Gallienus) as in the case of L. Petronius Taurus Volusianus shows that the inscription can be dated to the period of Gallienus's sole reign. Furthermore, that Aelianus was designated a Protector while simultaneously holding an active independent command supports the notion that at this time the title was given as an honorific distinction and did not mean that the holder was part of a military unit stationed about the Imperial camp and concerned with guarding the Emperor’s person. (See Protectores Augusti Nostri).
More important, perhaps, the inscription states that he was praefectus legionis agens vices legati – i.e. 'Prefect of the Legion acting on behalf of the (senatorial) legate' who we know was never to be appointed. However, the use of this terminology - presumably a formula to ensure that the prefect had the legal authority of a legate - seems to throw doubt on the proposition advanced by many historians [12] that Gallienus had always intended the removal of senators from legionary commands as a permanent reform as opposed to an expedient resorted to in the crisis following the captivity of Valerian that was never reversed. In other words, it suggests Aurelius Victor was mistaken when he said that Gallienus had issued an edict incorporating the change in law.[13] If such a law had been promulgated the formula agens vices legati would surely have been superfluous.
The Photike inscription is in Greek and it identifies an Aelius Aelianus as the chief financial officer (Lat. Procurator) of the province of Epirus sometime in the period 275-80 AD who had previously taken part in the census of the frontier province of Noricum. Nagy does not believe that the Aelianus who was a legionary prefect before 266 could have held these offices at a later date as the posts were lower in the equestrian career structure.
However, Nagy’s summary rejection does not seem to take into account the possible effects of the 'regime change' of 268 when Claudius Gothicus replaced Gallienus. If our Aelianus had shared the anger of the lower ranks of the field army at the murder of Gallienus and his views had been made known to Claudius and Aurelian he could well have been demoted and packed off to some financial post in Noricum to reflect on the nature of political reality. This would fit in with Claudius’s known preference for assuaging rather than challenging the army’s wrath on this occasion. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that an Aelius Aelianus could have been active in Noricum in the late 260s-early 270s and not be aware that he bore the same name as a soldier who had been a praefectus legionis in next-door Pannonia only a few years before and thus feel that he needed to make sure that he was not confused with that dignitary. Both these propositions supporting the notion that the Aelianus of Photike was the same man as the Aelianus of Aquincum seem to be within the bounds of permissible speculation. Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence and expert opinion is on Nagy’s side.
On the other hand, Nagy considers that the Aelius Aelianus who was identified as praeses provinciae Mauritaniae Caesarensis (i.e. 'Governor of the province of Mauritania Caesarensis') in around 276 could well have been the praefectus legionis II in Aquincum of a dozen years earlier. This would have been a promotion quite compatible with what we know of the equestrian career structure. Furthermore, it would also fit in with the known tendency to appoint military men to governing posts in Africa from the later years of the Emperor Probus onwards to deal with increased restlessness on the part of the Berber tribes of the Mauretanian interior. As Nagy observes, the Aelianus who cut his teeth fighting the Sarmatian steppe nomads in Illyria would have been well qualified to deal with the Moorish raiders of Rome’s west African provinces.