{"title":"Status prawny prowincji mezyjskich w okresie wojen markomańskich","authors":"Leszek Mrozewicz","doi":"10.14746/seg.2020.21.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1962, Anthony R. Birley advanced a remarkable thesis, claiming that the rank of the Roman province of Upper Moesia (Moesia superior) was temporarily reduced from consular to praetorian. To support the assertion, he cited the fact that one of the two legions stationed in the province left it for a period of time; this automatically entailed a revision of its status, which was thus downgraded. A province with one legion was governed by a former praetor, whereas a province with two or more legions was administered by a former consul (vir consularis). A.R. Birley drew on the account in SHA vita Marci 22.9, which states that Marcus Aurelius changed – pro belli necessitate – the status of several provinces, as well as on two inscriptions (CIL III 1566; XIII6806), which contained an unorthodox record of senatorial careers. Both inscriptions mention Upper Moesia. A.R. Birley’s proposition was widely accepted by researchers, though critical views were also expressed. Nonetheless, its impact was so effective that it was subsequently argued that the mechanism should be presumed to have applied to Lower Moesia (Moesia inferior) as well. \nStill, a thorough analysis of all available sources permits one to conclude that the view is erroneous and altogether unfounded. In fact, its represents an outcome of a puristic application of the prosopographic method, which in this case proved a fundamental mistake. \n ","PeriodicalId":152128,"journal":{"name":"Studia Europaea Gnesnensia","volume":"26 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Europaea Gnesnensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/seg.2020.21.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
1962年,安东尼·r·伯利(Anthony R. Birley)提出了一个引人注目的论点,声称罗马上莫西亚省(Moesia superior)的级别暂时从执政官降为禁卫官。为了支持这一说法,他引用了这样一个事实:驻扎在该省的两个军团中,有一个离开了一段时间;这自动导致对其地位进行修订,从而降级。有一个军团的行省由前行政官统治,而有两个或两个以上军团的行省由前执政官(vir consularis)管理。A.R. Birley引用了SHA vita Marci 22.9的记载,其中指出马可·奥勒留(Marcus Aurelius)改变了(pro belli necessary)几个省份的地位,以及两个铭文(CIL III 1566;XIII6806),其中包含了参议院生涯的非正统记录。两个铭文都提到了上摩西亚。A.R. Birley的主张被研究人员广泛接受,尽管也有批评的意见。尽管如此,它的影响是如此有效,以至于后来有人认为这种机制也应该被假定适用于下Moesia(低等Moesia)。然而,对所有可获得的资料进行彻底分析后,人们可以得出这样的结论:这种观点是错误的,完全没有根据。事实上,它代表了一种纯粹应用人物学方法的结果,在这种情况下被证明是一个根本性的错误。
Status prawny prowincji mezyjskich w okresie wojen markomańskich
In 1962, Anthony R. Birley advanced a remarkable thesis, claiming that the rank of the Roman province of Upper Moesia (Moesia superior) was temporarily reduced from consular to praetorian. To support the assertion, he cited the fact that one of the two legions stationed in the province left it for a period of time; this automatically entailed a revision of its status, which was thus downgraded. A province with one legion was governed by a former praetor, whereas a province with two or more legions was administered by a former consul (vir consularis). A.R. Birley drew on the account in SHA vita Marci 22.9, which states that Marcus Aurelius changed – pro belli necessitate – the status of several provinces, as well as on two inscriptions (CIL III 1566; XIII6806), which contained an unorthodox record of senatorial careers. Both inscriptions mention Upper Moesia. A.R. Birley’s proposition was widely accepted by researchers, though critical views were also expressed. Nonetheless, its impact was so effective that it was subsequently argued that the mechanism should be presumed to have applied to Lower Moesia (Moesia inferior) as well.
Still, a thorough analysis of all available sources permits one to conclude that the view is erroneous and altogether unfounded. In fact, its represents an outcome of a puristic application of the prosopographic method, which in this case proved a fundamental mistake.