Part 8

Claudius gave a similar exhibition on the Fucine Lake, but with a hundred triremes and quadriremes, and a force of nineteen thousand men, “as once Augustus did in a pond by the Tiber, but with lighter vessels and a smaller force.” Cf. Tac. _Ann._ XII, 56; Suet. _Claud._, 21; Dio, LX, 33.

[116] Another instance of avoidance of the name of an enemy while distinctly referring to him. Antony had stripped various temples at Samos, Ephesus, Pergamos, and Rhœteum, all in the province of Asia, and had given the spoils to Cleopatra. Dio, LI, 17, says that great numbers of such things were found in her palace when Alexandria was captured. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, XXXIV, 8, 58, says: “He (Myro) made an Apollo, which was taken away by the triumvir Antony, but restored to the Ephesians by the divine Augustus.” Strabo, XIII, 1, 30, writes of Rhœteum: “Cæsar Augustus gave back to the Rhœtians the shrine and statue of Ajax which Antony had taken away and given to Egypt. He did the like for other cities. For Antony took away the finest votive offerings from the most famous shrines for the gratification of the Egyptian woman, but Augustus restored them.” Ib. XIV, 1, 14, writes of the temple of Hera, at Samos: “Antony took away three colossal sitting statues on one base, but Augustus Cæsar restored two of them, Athene and Heracles, to the same base; the Zeus, however, he placed upon the Capitol.”

[117] Suetonius, _Aug._, 52, says these gifts took the form of tripods. Cf. Dio, LIII, 22; LII, 35; LIV, 35.

[118] The allusion is to Sextus Pompeius, whose fleets, manned largely by slaves, cut off the grain ships on their way to Rome. Again Augustus avoids the name of an opponent. Cf. Vell., II, 73, who thinks it remarkable that a son of the great Pompey, who had freed the sea from pirates, should himself defile it with piratical crimes. Florus, IV, 8, reflects the same sentiment. App. _B. C._, V, 77, 80, says that captured pirates under torture confessed that Sextus Pompeius was the instigator of their crimes. When the peace of Misenum was made, Sextus Pompeius stipulated for the freedom of the slaves who had fought under him. It was after the overthrow of Pompey, in 718, that the slaves were returned. Dio, XLIX, 12, adds that slaves whose masters did not claim them were returned to their several cities, there to be crucified. Cf. App. _B. C._, V, 131; Oros. VI, 18.

[119] This was in 722, just before the breaking out of hostilities between Antony and Octavian. Cf. Dio, L, 6; Suet., _Aug._ 17.

[120] Cf. c. 8, Note 49. There were a thousand senators at this time. Augustus, in his statement, probably means that seven hundred of the thousand then in the senate were on his side, not merely seven hundred who then or later were senators.

The number of consulars, eighty-three, is quite consistent with the facts, as is shown in a careful analysis of the _Fasti Consulares_ for the period by Mommsen. _R. G._, p. 100.

The priests referred to were probably members of the four great colleges and the Arval brotherhood. Cf. c. 7, notes 40-45.

[121] This statement is borne out by what we otherwise know. Taking the provinces in order we find: First, the German frontier is pushed forward from the Rhine to the Elbe. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 21. Second, in Illyricum and Macedonia he had erected the new provinces of Pannonia and Moesia. Third, in Asia Minor he did not extend the older limits of Bithynia, but out of the kingdom of Amyntas, he made the new province of Galatia and later added Paphlagonia to it. Fourth, in Africa, Augustus rather narrowed than extended the empire by his partition with Juba in 729. But a number of Roman proconsuls won laurels there.

[122] Here the record is of commotions quelled within the recognized limits of the empire. In Spain there was the Cantabrian war from 727 to 735. In Gaul, G. Carrinas had subdued the Morini, and triumphed, July 14, 726; and M. Messala had suppressed the Aquitani, triumphing Sept. 25, 727. Cf. Suet. _Aug._, 20, 21.

The German campaigns extending at intervals over the years from 742 to the very end of Augustus’ reign it is needless to detail. This reference to the pacification of Germany has been the subject of much dispute. Mommsen in two places (_R. G._, p. VI, and 48), uses the word “crafty” (_callidus_) of Augustus, referring to his alleged glozing over of unsatisfactory events. Hirschfeld goes further, and in connection with the present passage accuses Augustus (_Wiener Studien_, V, 117) of a “masterly concealment and whitewashing (übertünchung) of all that could hurt his reputation.” This charge is made because Augustus omits all mention of the disaster under Varus. Against this charge Johannes Schmidt defends Augustus, (_Philologus_, XLV, p. 394, ff.). The contest between Schmidt and Hirschfeld is based really upon opposing views of the purpose of the _Res Gestae_. Schmidt believed it to be an epitaph. In this there would be no place for anything save the fortunate events of a life. If _nil de mortuis nisi bonum_ be wise, Augustus might well have adapted the adage to his own case and said, _nil de me morituro nisi bonum_. But Hirschfeld insists that the _Res Gestae_ constitute not an epitaph, but “an account of his administration,” and therefore contends that the omission of the German disaster was not in good faith. To this, Schmidt answers that Augustus had nothing to gain by such concealment—indeed that concealment of so notorious a disaster would be absurd. And in the text itself he finds a recognition of the real state of affairs, inasmuch as Augustus expressly distinguishes Germany from the provinces, Gallic and Spanish, and while claiming it for Rome, does not assert that it belongs to her as do organized provinces. Schmidt also says that _pacavi_, “I pacified” does not necessarily imply that Germany continued in a state of peace. It may well enough cover the fact that there was temporary success. But this is hair-splitting. The character of the _Res Gestae_ must be always had in mind. Cf. Introduction. Its deliverances were _ad populum_ and they constituted an epitaph.

[123] Suetonius, _Aug._ 21, says: “He waged war upon no people without just and necessary causes.” The present Torbia near Monaco, derives its name from a _Tropæa Augusti_, “Trophy of Augustus,” some fragments of which still exist.

The inscription has been preserved by Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, III, 20, 136: _imp. Cæsari divi f. Augusto pontifice maxumo imp. XIIII tribunic. potestate XVII s. p. q. R. quod ejus ductu auspiciisque gentes Alpinæ omnes quæ a mari supero ad inferum pertinebant sub imperium p. R. sunt redactæ_—“the Roman senate and people to Cæsar ... Augustus ... because under his leadership and auspices all the Alpine nations, from the upper to the lower sea have been brought into subjection to the Roman empire.” Then follows an enumeration of forty-six peoples. Pliny adds, “the Cottian states were not annexed because they had not been hostile;” and an arch at Segusio was placed in honor of Augustus, and on it are the names of fourteen states, six being repetitions from the Torbia monument. Cf. C. I. L. V, 7817 and 7231.

The campaigns here referred to are: First, of Varro Murena against the Salassi in 729. Cf. Strabo, IV, 6, 7, p. 205; Dio, LIII, 25; Livy, _Epit._, CXXXV; Cass. _ad. ann._ 729; Suet. _Aug._ 21. Second, of Publius Silius against the Vennones and Camunni in 738. Cf. Dio, LIV, 20. Third, of Tiberius and Drusus against the Ræti and Vindelici in 739. Cf. Suet. _Aug._ 21. Fourth, against the Ligurians of the Maritime Alps in 740. Cf. Dio, LIV, 24. Finally these regions were formed into the province of Rætia in 747-748.

[124] This naval expedition was connected with the German campaign of Tiberius in 758. Cf. Vell. II, 106; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, II, 67, 167.

[125] Strabo, VII, 2, 1, describes an embassy of the Cimbri asking for “peace and amnesty.” They dwelt in the end of Jutland. Cf. Ptolemy, II, 10. Below them were the Charudes, whom the mason at Ancyra makes Charydes, and the Greek translator, thinking of the fable, transforms into Chalybes, living just south of the Cimbri. Cf. Ptolemy, ii, 11, 12. The Semnones were between the Elbe and the Oder.

[126] When the Egyptian garrisons were weakened on account of the Arabian expedition, Queen Candace took advantage of it and captured a number of towns in Upper Egypt. These the præfect, C. Petronius, re-took, and inflicted severe punishment upon the Æthiopians. This took place 730-732. Cf. Strabo, XVII, I, 54; Dio, LIV, 5; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VI, 29, 181, 182.

In 1896 Capt. Lyons, R. E., found, at Philæ, an inscription in Latin, Greek and hieroglyphics, of which Prof. Mahaffy gives this translation: “Gaius Cornelius, son of Cnaeus Gallus, a Roman knight, appointed first prefect, after the kings were conquered by Cæsar, son of Divus, of Alexandria and Egypt—who conquered the revolt of the Thebaid in fifteen days, having won two pitched battles, together with the capture of the leaders of his opponents, having taken five cities, some by assault, some by siege, viz., Boresis, Coptos, Ceramice, Diospolis the Great, Ombos (?); having slain the leaders of these revolts, and having brought his army beyond the cataract of the Nile to a point whither neither the Roman people nor the Kings of Egypt had yet carried their standards, a military district impassable before his day; having subdued, to the common terror of all the kings, all the Thebaid, which was not subject to the kings, and having received the ambassadors of the Ethiopians at Philæ, and guest-friendship from their king (and received their king under his protection) and having appointed him tyrant of the 30-_schoeni_ district of Lower Ethiopia—makes this thank-offering to the Dii Patrii, and to the Nile, who aided him in his deeds.” _London Athenæum_, March 14, 1896, and _Sitzungsberichte d. kgl. Pr. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin_, 1896, I, pp. 469-480.

[127] The Arabian campaign, under C. Aelius Gallus was probably in 729-730. Cf. Dio, LIII, 29; Hor. _Carm._ I, 29, 35; Strabo, XVI, 4, 22, 24. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, VI, 28, 159, 160,

[128] Egypt was made an integral part of the empire after Actium and the death of Cleopatra, in 724. Its connection with the empire was peculiar. W. T. Arnold, _Roman Provincial Administration_, p. 113, says: “The government of Egypt was in many points wholly exceptional. Julius Cæsar had deliberately abstained from making it a province of the country (cf. Suet., _Jul._ 35); and when Augustus added it to the empire he subjected it to an altogether exceptional treatment. The country was his private property, or rather the Emperor’s private property; it passed as a matter of course, that is, from emperor to emperor. Augustus appointed a præfect to represent him in the province, just as in earlier times the urban prætors had sent prefects to represent them in the municipalities of Italy. This præfect was of equestrian, and not of the highest equestrian rank (Tac. _Ann._, XII, 60; II, 59; _Hist._ I. 11); no senators were admitted into the province; and the greatest jealousy was shown of the smallest interference with it. The reasons for the special jealousy of Egypt shown by Augustus and his successors were partly the great defensibility of the country (in case of insurrection—ED.), partly its immense importance as the granary of Rome. 'It was an accepted principle with our fathers,’ says Pliny, 'that our city could not possibly be fed and maintained without the resources of Egypt.’” For a fuller treatment cf. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, I, 282-298.

[129] Armenia Major had been raised to greatness by Tigranes I (658-699) who had been a formidable ally of Mithridates. Pompey finally subdued him, 688. Henceforth Armenia was in a subject condition. Tigranes was succeeded by his son Artavasdes. In 718, when Antony attacked the Parthians, this king sided with him against Phraates of Parthia, and another Artavasdes, king of Media. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 25.

But presently the two Artavasdes changed relations, the king of Armenia passing to the Parthian side and he of Media joining Antony. Cf. Plut., _Ant._, 52; Dio, XLIX, 33, 44. Antony captured Artavasdes of Armenia and gave him over to Cleopatra, who killed him in 721. His kingdom was assigned to Antony’s son Alexander to whom was betrothed Jotape daughter of Artavasdes of Media. The Armenians made Artaxes, son of the late Artavasdes, their king. When Octavian overcame Antony he did not befriend all the Oriental enemies of the latter, but for purposes of his own set up a rival to Phraates of Parthia in Tiridates. Cf. c. 32. And, angered at the Armenians, who had dealt harshly with certain Romans in that kingdom, he held as hostages the brothers of king Artaxes, and set Artavasdes of Media over Armenia Minor as a check upon Artaxes. Cf. Dio, LI, 16; LIV, 9. In 734 Augustus went to the East to arrange affairs there. A campaign against Artaxes was planned, but he was assassinated. Cf. Dio, LIV, 9; Tac., _Ann._, II, 3; Vell., II, 94, 122; Suet. _Aug._, 21; Jos., _Ant._, XV, 4, 3; Eckhel, VI, 98. At this point the action of Augustus, recorded here in the _Res Gestæ_, takes place. Augustus follows the example of Pompey, who, in dealing with Armenia in 688 had contented himself with making the Armenian king accept his royalty as a gift from Rome. Cf. Cic. _pro Sext._ 27. The affair was conducted by Tiberius, not yet adopted. Cf. Suet. _Tib._, 9; Vell., II, 122. Henceforth Armenia was regarded as part of the empire, though its native sovereigns were continued. Cf. Vell., II, 94, 122: “Armenia restored to the control of the Roman people;” “Armenia retaken.” “The Medes likewise were subjected.” Cf. c. 33.

[130] The reign of Tigranes was brief. The Parthians winning some success against Rome, stirred up Armenia. Cf. Tac. _Ann._, II, 3; Vell., II, 100. They favored the children of Tigranes, Tigranes III and Erato. A Roman faction set up his younger brother Artavasdes. Cf. Tacitus l. c. The suppression of the disorder was enjoined upon Tiberius. But at this juncture, 748, he went into retirement at Rhodes. Cf. Dio, LV, 9. Artavasdes died and the young Tigranes courted the aid of Rome, but was soon killed, probably by Parthian means, and his sister Erato abdicated. Cf. fragments of Dio, cited by Mommsen, _R. G._, p. 113, and Dio, LV, 10. Tacitus confirms the delivery of Armenia to Ariobarzanes by Gaius. Cf. _Ann._, II, 3; and Dio, LV, 10. The Parthian faction did not accept him, and it was in a contest over him that Gaius received a wound, of which he died, Feb. 21, 757. Cf. C. I. L. I, p. 472. For the succession of Artavasdes, cf. Dio, LV, 10. The Tigranes IV, next mentioned “of the royal house of the Armenians” was a grandson of Herod the Great, of Judea, on the one side, and of Archelaus, King of Cappadocia, and probably an Armenian princess on the other. Cf. Tac. _Ann._ VI, 40; XIV, 26; Jos., _Ant._ XVIII, 5, 4; _Wars_, I, 28, 1.

[131] For Sicily and Sardinia, cf. c. 25 and notes.

By the treaty of Brundisium, Antony had received Macedonia, Achaia, Asia, Pontus, Bithynia, Cilicia, Cyprus, Syria, Crete, Cyrenaica. The five last named he had given over to foreign kings. As to Asia and Bithynia, Dio, XLIX, 41 and Plut. _Ant._ 54, are in conflict. But the _Res Gestæ_ tends to confirm the latter. Lycaonia and Pamphylia were taken from the province of Cilicia and given to Amyntas, King of Galatia. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32. He extended Egypt again by restoring to it Cyprus. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 32, 41; Plut. l. c.; Strabo, XIV, 6, 6: he granted to Cleopatra and Cæsarion, her son by Julius Cæsar, the coast land of Syria, Tyre and Sidon excepted, cf. Jos. _Ant._ XV, 4, 1; _Wars_, I, 18, 5; also Coele-Syria, cf. Jos. _Ant._ XV, 3, 8; Plut. l. c.; Ituraea, Judaea and Arabia Nabataea, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32; Jos. _Ant._ XV, 4, 1; 5, 3; _Wars_, I, 18, 5; 20, 3; parts of Cilicia, cf. Strabo, XIV, 5, 3; 5, 6: and perhaps Crete also, cf. Dio, XLIX, 32: and Cyrenaica, cf. Plut. l. c. To his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus he gave Syria, and part of Cilicia, cf. Dio, XLIX, 41; Plut. l. c.: for the elder, Alexander he planned a kingdom made up of Armenia, Media and Parthia, cf. Livy, _Epit._ CXXXI; Plutarch, l. c. These alienations of Roman territory were made the occasion of Octavian’s attack upon Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 1; Plut. l. c.

[132] Mommsen believes that Augustus founded only military colonies. Zumpt thinks otherwise. Cf. _Comment Epig._, I, 362.

[133] Known colonies of Augustus are: In Africa, Carthage, cf. C. I. L. VIII, p. 133; Dio, LII, 43; App. _Pun._ CXXXVI. In Sicily, Panhormus, Thermes, Tyndaris, cf. Dio, LIV, 7; Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, III, 8, 88; 89; 90. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_ I, 246, names seven colonies of Augustus in Sicily. In Macedonia, Dyrrachium, Philippi, cf. Dio, LI, 4. Cassandrea, cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, IV, 10. In Hither Spain, Cæsaraugusta, cf. coin in Eckhel I, 37, which also gives the numbers of the legions whose veterans were colonized here: _leg. IV_, _leg. VI_, _leg. X_. Marquardt _op. cit._, I, 256, names six colonies of Augustus here. In Farther Spain, Emerita, cf. Eckhel I, 12, and 19, _leg. V_, _X_; Marquardt, _op. cit._, I, 257. In Achaia, Patrae, cf. C. I. L. III, p. 95, _leg. X_, _XII_. In Asia, Alexandrea of the Troad, cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, V, 30. In Syria, Berytus, cf. Eckhel III, 356, _leg. V_, _VIII_; Heliopolis, cf. Eckhel, III, 334. In Gallia Narbonensis, Reii and Aquae Sextiae, cf. Herzog, _Gall. Narb. inscr._ n. 113, 356. In Pisidia, Antioch, cf. Eckhel III, 18; Cremna, cf. Eckhel III, 20; Olbasa, cf. Eckhel, III, 20; Parlais, cf. Ramsay, _Bull. de Corr. Hell._, VII, p. 318.

No colonies are assigned to Sardinia, the three Gauls and two Germanies, Raetia, Noricum, Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Galatian Pontus, Paphlagonia, part of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Isauria, Cilicia, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Cyrenaica. As for parts of the empire under subject kings, such as Thrace, Cappadocia, Mauretania, no account is taken of them, though there were certainly colonies in Mauretania, at Cartenna and Tupusuctu. Cf. Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, V, 2, 20; C. I. L., VIII, 8857.

[134] Cf. an article by Mommsen, _Hermes_, XVIII, 161 ff. on the “Colonies of Italy from Sulla to Vespasian.”

When Augustus wrote, Italy was separated from Illyricum by the river Arsia. Yet Illyricum was not counted by him as a province. It had colonies at Emona, Iader, Salona, and possibly at Epidaurus and Narona. Cf. C. I. L., III, pp. 489, 374, 304, 287, 291. Mommsen thinks this omission was intended by Augustus; that he had been able to satisfy some of his veterans, to whom Italian farms had been promised, with lands over the Italian border in Illyricum, and because he could not call it a province, nor yet a part of Italy, he eludes the difficulty by omitting the Illyrian colonies.

The names of the twenty-eight Italian colonies are somewhat difficult to establish. Several perplexing questions rise in the attempt. What of the colonies founded by Antony and Octavian as triumvirs? Were they Antoniæ Juliæ, or some Juliæ and others Antoniæ? If the former were true and they dropped the name Antoniæ, the result would be far more than twenty-eight Julian and Augustan colonies. The second probability is more likely, and that the colonies Antoniæ simply dropped their name after Actium.

A third difficulty rises in the case of the enlargement of old colonies and their resettlement, as, _e. g._, of Minturnæ. Cf. Hyginus, _De Lim._, p. 177. Mommsen gives a list which nearly meets the statement of Augustus. 1. Ariminum, _Augusta_; 2. Ateste; 3. _Augusta_ Prætoria; 4. _Julia Augusta_ Taurinorum; 5. Beneventum, _Julia Augusta_; 6. Bononia; 7. Brixia, _Augusta_; 8. Capua, _Julia Augusta_; 9. Castrum novum Etruriæ, _Julia_; 10. Concordia, _Julia_; 11. Cumæ (?) _Julia_; 12. Dertona, _Julia_; 13. Fanum Fortunæ, _Julia_; 14. Falerio; 15. Hispellum, _Julia_; 16. Lucus Feroniæ, _Julia_; 17. Minturnæ; 18. Nola, _Augusta_; 19. Parentium, _Julia_; 20. Parma, _Julia Augusta_; 21. Pisae, _Julia_; 22. Pisaurum, _Julia_; 23. Pola, _Julia_; 24. Sæna (?), _Julia_; 25. Sora, _Julia_; 26. Suessa, _Julia_; 27. Sutrium, _Julia_; 28. Tuder, _Julia_; 29, Venafrum, _Julia Augusta_. Cf. Marquardt, _Röm. Staatsverwaltung_, I, 118-132.

[135] Of standards recovered in Spain and Gaul we have no further knowledge. It may be that in the Cantabrian war of 728, 729, some such thing took place.

Appian, _Illyr._ XII, XXV, XXVIII, narrates the capture of standards by the Dalmatians from Gabinius in 706, and their restoration to Augustus in 721. These were then placed in the Octavian portico; and probably later transferred to the temple of Mars.

[136] The standards had been lost by Crassus and Antony. Cf. Justin, XLII, 5, 11; Livy, _Epit._, CXLI; Suetonius, _Aug._ 21; Vell., II, 91; Vergil, _Æn._ VII, 606; Horace, _Carm._, I, 12, 56; III, 5, 4; Dio, LIII, 33; LIV, 8; Cass. _Chron._ ad. 734; Oros., VI, 21; Florus IV, 12; Eutropius, VII, 9. One detachment of Antonius’ army, under L. Decidius Saxa, was exterminated in 714, and another in 718 under Oppius Statianus. Cf. Livy, _Ep._ CXXI; Dio, XLVIII, 24.

Tiberius received the standards from the Parthians in 734. Cf. Dio, LIV, 8, etc.; Suet. _Tib._ 9. Eckhel, VI, 95, shows a coin with a Parthian on bended knee presenting a standard to Augustus. Cf. also Horace, _Epis._, I, 12, 27; Oros., VI, 21, 29; and c. 32 of the inscription.

There were two temples of Mars Ultor, a smaller one on the Capitoline, and a larger in the forum, dedicated in 752. The standards were removed to the larger temple. Cf. Dio, LV, 10; Horace, _Carm._, IV, 5, 16; _Epis._, I, 18, 56; Propertius, III, 10, 3; Ovid, _Trist._ II, 295; _Fasti_, V, 549; VI, 459.

[137] Augustus himself had fought the Pannonians in 719, 720. Cf. Dio, XLIX, 36-38. The campaigns of Tiberius were from 742 to 745. Cf. Vell. II, 96; Dio, LIV, 31, 34; LV, 2; Suet. _Tib._, 9.

[138] This statement varies somewhat from Dio, L, 24, who says Augustus reached the Danube in 720, and from Suetonius, _Tib._ 16, who assigns the complete subjection of the district to 759.

[139] The Dacians had become organized and strong in the latter years of the Roman republic. Cf. Justin. XXXII, 3; Jordanis, _Get._, XI, 67; Strabo, XVI, 2, 39; VII, 3, 5; 11; Suet. _Aug._, 44. Julius Cæsar was about to proceed against them when he died. Cf. Suet. _Jul._, 44; _Aug._, 8; App. _B. C._, II, 110; III, 25, 37; _Illyr._, 13; Vell., II. 59; Livy, _Epit._, CXVII. In 719 Augustus began his Illyrican campaign by occupying Segesta on the Save, whence he threatened the Dacians and Bastarnæ. Cf. App. _Illyr._, 22, 23. Antony is responsible for the statement that Augustus sought to secure the goodwill of Cotiso, king of the Getæ (Dacians), by giving him his daughter and by himself marrying a daughter of Cotiso. Cf. Suetonius, _Aug._, 63. Cotiso refused the alliance and joined the party of Antony. Cf. Dio, L, 6; LI, 22. Antony’s story as to the proposed marriages is hardly credible, and may have been invented by him to offset his own alliance with Cleopatra. During the struggle between Antony and Octavian, an invasion of the Dacians was the constant dread of Italy. Cf. Vergil, _Georg._, II, 497; Hor. _Sat._, II, 6, 53; _Carm._, III, 6, 13. When Antony was overthrown M. Crassus undertook the suppression of the Dacians, and triumphed, July 4, 727. Cf. Dio, LI, 23; Tab. Triumph. But Dacian incursions were still frequent. Dio records one in 738, cf. LIV, 20; and one in 744, cf. LIV, 36. Probably it was in this latter incursion that the defeat here alluded to was met by them. Finally an army was sent against them under Lentulus, in 759. Cf. Dio, LV, 30; Strabo, VII, 12 and 13; Suet. _Aug._, 21; Florus, IV, 12, 19, 20; Tac. _Ann._, IV, 44.