Publius Aelius Aelianus
Aelianus (P. Aelius Aelianus) was a senior officer in the Roman Army in 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 that effectively excluded 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 of equestrian rank) ) in Africa, most likely under the Emperor Probus.
The sum total of our knowledge of this man derives from five epigraph inscriptions from:
(a) A commemorative stone found in Poetovio in Pannonia Superior (now Ptuj in present-day Slovenia); 
(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;
(d) A stone from Photike in the Roman province of Epirus, nowadays a province of Greece; and
The last four of these inscriptions are analysed in great detail by T. Nagy. 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 Custos Armorum (i.e. Warden of the Armoury) 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 (around 106AD). If the Aelius ancestor was indeed 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 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. It is likely that he would have risen ex caliga – i.e. 'from the ranks of those who wear hobnailed sandals' (the footwear of legionary rankers). However, given that patronage and influence were the major determinants of advancement in the Roman Army, it is not unreasonable to suppose that, as the son of a principalis, Aelianus would have enjoyed some advantages vis-à-vis his fellow-recruits that would have helped promote his career.
Nevertheless, the inscriptions cited make it clear beyond all doubt that Aelianus showed himself a highly capable soldier 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 the soldiers who rose to prominence in his era, it seems safer to postulate that he rose through the centurionate receiving progressively more senior postings in different legions before he achieved primipilaris status (i.e. had been promoted primus pilus of a legion and had served a year at that rank) and then continued his career as an equestrian officer
Apogée in the Balkans
The first Aelianus inscription cited above is incomplete, but mentions an 'Aelius Aelianus', a man of egregius equestrian rank, who was the commander of detachments drawn from the four legions of the Pannonian provinces at Poetovio, a highly strategic fortress commanding the approaches to Italy through the Julian Alps. Whether or not this Aelianus was that who is the subject of this article is uncertain. Prof. Nagy and Jones et al. did not make the connection. However, Fitz believed that they were one and the same person). 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 Aelianus 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.
As the Praefectus Legionis II Adiutricis referred to on the Aquincum sarcophagus, Aelianus 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 who would, more often than not, have risen from the ranks. 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. The measures that opened the legionary commands to equestrian officers were taken by Gallienus during his sole reign - possibly in 261 AD. Nor could he have been given it after 267 in which year we know that Valerius Marcellinus was in command of Legio II. Nagy is inclined to ascribe Aelianus's promotion to the earlier part of this five year ’window’.
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, but in the early part of that period when the honour was still awarded to senior officers rather than centurions as was later the case.(See Protectores Augusti Nostri. His possession of the title also suggests that when he commanded Leg. II Adjutrix that unit was brigaded with the Imperial comitatus rather than serving with the provincial garrison of Pannonia Inferior - its usual station during High Empire period.
More important, perhaps, the inscription states that he was praefectus legionis agens vice 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  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. If such a law had been promulgated the formula agens vices legati would surely have been superfluous. Recent scholarship has suggested that the real purpose of Gallienus's Edict was not to exclude senators from army appointments - otherwise why did he continue to appoint senatorial provincial governors with supreme military authority within their provinciae(?) - but to make it possible for the Emperor to appoint equestrian officers to these positions thus broadening his powers choice at a time when the Empire was under particular pressure to find commanders with adequate military experience.
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.
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 same man as 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.
It is interesting to note that when he held this office Aelianus was still a Vir Egregius (i.e. 'Select Man') indicating that he was still a member of the Third Class of the Roman equestrian order just as he has been as Praefectus Legionis. In this he may be compared with Lucius Flavius Aper who had governed Pannonia Inferior at this status. On the other hand Lucius Aurelius Marcianus had governed Dalmatia as a Vir Perfectissismus - i.e. a member of the Second Class of the Equestrian Order - although he may have had that status before his appointment. This may indicate that there was no necessary connection between an officer's substantive rank and his social status which depended more on his relations with the Imperial court.
References and notes
- Jones, A.H.M.; Martindale, J.R.; Morris, J. (1971). The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Vol i, 8 'Aelius'. Cambridge University Press.
- L. Nagy: Arch. Ert. 50 (1937) 85 foll., 52 (1939) foll.; T. Nagy: Arch. Ert. (1942) 262 foll., Bud. R. 13 (1943) 392 foll., Acta Ant. 7 (1959) 184; W. Seston: Diocletien et la Tetrarchie, I, Paris 1945. 131
- CIL 3529
- H. Gregoire: Inscription de Photike; BCH, 1907
- CIL VIII 21486 = D4495
- Nagy, Prof. T. (1965). Commanders of Legions in the Age of Gallienus. Budapest: Acta Archeologica Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae, Tm. XVII.
- . For the career paths of centurions see Le Bohec, Yann (2000). The Imperial Roman Army pp 43-5. Routledge.
- Fitz, J. (Trans. Ikdiko Varga, revised George L. Duncan) (1982). The Great Age of Pannonia (AD 193-284). Budapest: Athenaeum Printing House.
- CIL III 3525 = 10492 = D. 2547
- See Christol, M. "La carriere de Traianus Marcianus et l'origine des protectores". Chiron 7: 393–408.
- See, for example, Bray, John (1997). Gallienus: A study in reformist and sexual politics. Adelaide: Wakefield Press.
- Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus 37.6
- For instance, see:Malcus, B. (1969). "Notes sur la revolution du système administratif romaine au III siècle". Opuscula romana 7: 213–237.
- See Nagy, Op.Cit.