and the members of the Oxford University Ancient History Work in Progress Seminar. I am especially grateful to CQ's anonymous referee, whose perceptive comments prompted me to reconsider a number of key issues. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Brian Jones, who provided much support and encouragement while supervising my research on the Severan period. All errors and omissions are my own responsibility. 1 All dates are A.D. unless otherwise noted. References in brackets without further qualification are to Cassius Dio, using the edition of U.P. Boissevain, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt (Berlin, 1895-1931). Translations are those of the Loeb edition of E. Cary, Dio's Roman History (London and Cambridge, MA, 1914-27), with modifications where appropriate. It should be noted that the Loeb does not always reproduce Boissevain's numbering accurately. 2 Excerpts from Xiphilinus constitute the majority of Books 72-80, supplemented by passages from writers such as Zonaras and Peter the Patrician. A single manuscript preserves Dio's original account of the death of Caracalla, the reign of Macrinus, and the rise of Elagabalus. Our conception of Dio's history is therefore necessarily dictated by this fragmentary material, but Xiphilinus' tendency to quote directly, or at least closely paraphrase, Dio's own words means that we can reconstruct the text of the history with some confidence.

No abstract

This article considers a group of inscriptions, ranging in date from the late second to late third centuries AD, which indicates that low-ranked members of the Roman army gained access to equestrian rank in this period. The inscriptions attest two interrelated phenomena: (1) the promotion of soldiers to posts in the militiae equestres, a series of officer commands usually held by men from the ordo equester; and (2) grants of equestrian status to soldiers' sons, many of whom were only very young. These developments represent a marked departure from the circumstances that prevailed in the early Empire, when equestrian rank could be bestowed only by the emperor on men who possessed a census qualification of 400,000 sesterces. In this article, I propose that successive emperors gave soldiers greater access to the militiae equestres, and in some cases awarded equestrian rank to their sons, because they recognized the widespread desire for social mobility among the ranks of the army. The widening of access to equestrian rank within the Roman army contributed to the devaluation of this status over the course of the third century AD.Questo articolo prende in considerazione un gruppo di iscrizioni, la cui datazione è compresa tra tardo II e tardo III secolo d.C., che indica che i membri di basso livello sociale dell'esercito romano guadagnarono l'accesso al rango equestre in questo periodo. Le iscrizioni attestano due fenomeni correlati: (1) la promozione dei soldati da destinare alle militiae equestres, una serie di ordini di ufficiali generalmente rivestiti da uomini provenienti dall'ordo equester; e (2) sovvenzioni dello status equestre a figli di soldati, molti dei quali erano molto giovani. Questi sviluppi rappresentano una notevole mossa dalle circostanze che prevalevano nell'Alto-Impero, quando il rango equestre poteva essere concesso solo dall'imperatore ad un uomo che possedeva una qualifica censoria pari a 400.000 sesterzi. In questo articolo, propongo che imperatori che si succedettero al trono diedero ai soldati un maggiore accesso alle militiae equestres, e in alcuni casi conferirono il rango equestre ai loro figli, perché questi riconoscessero il diffuso desiderio di mobilità sociale tra i gradi dell'esercito. L'ampliamento dell'accesso al rango equestre all'interno dell'esercito romano contribuì alla svalutazione di questo status nel corso del III secolo d.C.

The adoption of Antoninus Pius provided Cassius Dio with the opportunity to insert into his narrative a speech delivered by Hadrian justifying the selection of his successor (69.20.1–5). This article examines the content of the speech and its relationship to Dio’s own thoughts on the mechanics of imperial succession expressed elsewhere in the Roman History . It is argued that the speech articulates Dio’s ideal mode of succession, which sees the promotion of a model civilis princeps , while subtly drawing attention to the problems inherent in a system where an emperor chooses his successor. Furthermore, it is suggested that these views may be read as Dio’s hostile reaction to the practices of his own day.

No abstract