sources for the time between 244 and 259/60 from this point of view. In doing so I will survey rapidly the time before the invasion and more in detail the evidence which may refer to the invasion.

During Philip's short rule no military operations took place in Syria or Mesopotamia.39 However, the revolts of Jotapianus in Syria and that of Julius Aurelius Sulpicius Uranius Antoninus, without doubt a descendant of the local ruling house of the Sampsicerami in Hemesa, which both took place at the end of the rule of Philip are significant. Jotapianus was supported by all those in Syria who were oppressed by high taxes, extraordinary contributions and levies officially organized by the general governor of the Orient, Philip's brother Julius Priscus (Zosimus I, 20). It was very probably a combination of a military insurrection and a revolution of the provincials against the harshness of Roman rule, the second playing the more important part. The troops which may have supported Jotapianus were not directly concerned in high taxes and extraordinary contributions, but the soldiers of the Syrian army of occupation, being in general natives of Syria and stationed mostly in cities, took active part in the economic life of the country. However Jotapianus was soon eliminated. Somewhat different was the case of Uranius Antoninus. He foreshadows the coming glory of Odenath and Zenobia in Hemesa's sister city Palmyra. His support was, besides the ruling classes of Hemesa, the native peasants and Bedouins of the large territory of this city. His revolt was caused not so much by Roman oppression as by religious and nationalistic aspirations of the ruling priestly aristocracy. These aspirations were made stronger by the brief glory of their native god under Elagabalus, and the leading role which some members of the aristocracy of Hemesa played under the Severi.40 Some important events probably took place in Armenia, but it is doubtful that it was under Philip that Armenia witnessed the end of the rule of its Parthian dynasty and was invaded by Shapuhr.41

It was not before the reign of Philip's successor Decius that the storm in the Near East broke out. The trouble began in Syria and Cappadocia. We possess only one report of these events -the obscure statement of Orac. Sib. XIII, 89-100, difficult to understand and to interpret. It is inserted between the mention of the accession and of the death of Decius and must in consequence be assigned to A.D. 250/251. The trouble is connected in the narrative of the Orac. Sib., 89 f., with a ... . It led to the capture of Tyana and Mazaca in Cappadocia

39. I cannot accept the suggestion of A. T. Olmstead (op. cit. p. 256 f.) that Mesopotamia was lost to the Romans by the treaty after the death of Gordian III and was later recovered by Philip in two successful campaigns. These two campaigns are unknown to our literary tradition. It is more probable to the present writer that Mesopotamia was never lost to the Romans. In this I am in complete agreement with the majority of the students of the history of the Roman Empire, see W. Ensslin, CAH, XI, p. 131, E. Kornemann, Röm. Gesch. II, 1939, p. 354 f.     40. The evidence on Jotapianus will be found in the article of Stein (Jotapianus) in PWK, IX, 2004 ff. On Uranius Antoninus, PIR, II, p. 170, no. 175, and A. Schenk Graf v. Stauffenberg, Die römische Kaisergeschichte bei Malalas, 193 1, p. 372 f.
41. This was suggested by Olmstead, op. cit. p. 257 on the ground of the rather vague data of our literary sources and especially of his interpretation of a very obscure passage in the Oracula Sib. XIII, 28-34.


Created by the Digital Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.

981201 PN - Email: hseeden@aub.edu.lb