The Tetrarchic Reorganization of the Limes Scythicus

T HE L OWER D ANUBE

IN

A NTIQUITY , 6.-7.10.2005, BG-Tutrakan (Sofia 2006)

THE TETRARCHIC REORGANIZATION OF THE LIMES SCYTHICUS

MIHAIL ZAHARIADE
One of the most striking aspects of the
Tetrarchic regimes achievements, after the mid
3rd century crisis, was a thorough recovery in all
branches of the social life in the Roman Empire.
The territorial reorganization that followed and
had a significant impact on the former Augustan
provincial system, was paralleled only by the late
1st B. C. early 1st century A. D. administrative
reforms. Once accomplished, although not in its
entirety and at once, it required a second step of
an unprecedented financial and human effort
aiming at reinforcing the states frontier defence
and the strengthening of the armed forces. These drastic measures, supported by a sagacious
diplomacy ensured an over all revival of the Roman Empire.
I. The Administration
The measure of creating a system of 12 new
territorial-administrative units by grouping the 100
or so provinces into larger districts, or dioceses
(dioceseos) was original in its essence, and the
result of some careful thought, taken it seems, at
a date not much after 286. The provinces were
subjected to a gradual but drastic process of
partition and reshuffling, on an Empire-wide
basis, and their final form was inextricably linked
to their individual circumstances, geographical
realities, and political requirements. In about 297,
the Diocletianic reorganization seems to have
been roughly completed, although some territorial adjustments and reorganizations also continued
into the first part of the 4th century (Arnold 1971,
24-32; Ensslin 1930, 383-408 27-34; Seston 1946,
311-342; Stein 1948-1959, 69-72; Jones 1964, 4252; Barnes 1982, 209-225; Williams 1985, 102114; 221-223).
The Province of Scythia (Pl. I) is the result
of such reorganization. The Verona List
(Laterculus Veronensis) as finalized by 314/315
and 324 is the earliest surviving document related
to the massive territorial restructuring. (Jones
1954, 21-29; 1964, 391; Eadie 1967, 154-171;
Barnes 1982, 201-208).
The creation of Scythia involved the partition
of Aurelians reorganised Moesia Inferior, after

the establishment of Dacia Ripensis to its west,

and now re-named Moesia Secunda. The labeling
of the province as Scythia Inferior in Rufius
Festus late 4th century text has nothing surprising
in it, given the authors penchant towards dividing
provinces into prima and secunda e.g. Thracia
Prima, Thracia Secunda (i.e. Haemimontus)
and might well be an interpolation by the author,
repeating the archaic stereotype of Moesia
Inferior.
It is commonly accepted that the province of
Scythia was created during Diocletians reign,
some specialists alludes to its formation at an
earlier date, during the reign of Probus (276-282),
on the basis of an interpretable information in
Scriptores Historiae Augustae (SHA, v. Prob.
XVI 3). However, two inscriptions from Durostorum from 284-286 mention Silvius Silvanus and
Aurelius Dizzo as praesides Moesiae Inferioris, both ranked as viri perfectissimi ( 1976, 61-64). The inscriptions are paramount epigraphic evidence of an undivided
Moesia Inferior at that date, on the eve of the
Diocletian accession to the Imperial purple. A
well-known building inscription from Tomis
records Caius Aurelius Firminianus, vir
perfectissimus dux limitis Scythiae (IGLR 3)
and provides the earliest reference point for the
provinces establishment. The inscription mention
only the two Augusti, Diocletian and
Maximianus, indicating that the work was carried
out after 1st March, 286, when Maximianus was
proclaimed Augustus, but before the adoption of
the two Caesares, Galerius and Constantinus, on
March 1 st , 293. The years 286-293 seem
therefore the most convenient date for the
organization of the province.
More precise information regarding the date
of the provinces establishment is supplied by
two other sources. A terminus post quem is indicated by the names of the two new legions assigned to Scythia, the legio I Iovia and the legio
II Herculia. Both units took their titles from the
two Augusti, Diocletian and Maximianus, who
assumed the cognomina of Iovius and
1

Mihail Zahariade

Herculius on the 21st July, 286, a day considered

their dies imperii, and geminus natalis. The two
legions were likely created on or shortly after that
date, and presumably in parallel with the establishment of the new province (Zahariade 1983,
247-259).
According to the Acta SS II, on the other
hand, the martyrdom of Epictetus and Astion took
place at Halmyris in the province of Scythia
on the 8 th July, 290 (Popescu 1994, 92-99) the
specific naming of the province providing a firm
terminus ante quem of 290 for its creation. The
province was most probably, therefore, formed
sometime after 21st July, 286, but before 8th July,
290, indicating that the administrative restructuring of the Lower Danube took place
early in the reign of the two Augusti, Diocletian
and Maximianus.
The partition of the civil and military powers
under Diocletians reforms is plainly reflected in
Scythia by the creation of separate military and
civilian commands, which were not significantly
altered in any practical way until the time of
Justinian I (527-565).
The military affairs were entrusted to a duke
(dux). The Scythian dukes were initially ranked
as viri perfectissimi. If the first attested dux
Scythiae, Latronianus, is recorded in Acta SS
without any status, but simply dux Scythiae
(Acta SS II 18; III 19-23; 27; IV 32, 49) the second known duke, the immediate successor of
Latronianus, C. Aurelius Firminianus is expressly
labelled as vir perfectissimus (IGLR 2, 3). He is
known directly from two inscriptions in Tomis,
although only one, dated in 286-293 he is labeled
dux limitis Scythiae. It is probable that the same
Firminianus dux is also recorded on a
fragmentary inscription found in Axiopolis,
certainly datable to the late 3 rd century, which
bears the last two letters []us of a name in the
nominative case (possibly also Firminianus), and
the abbreviation for the appropriate ducal rank,
at that time of v(ir) p(erfectissimus) (IGLR 192;
PLRE I 339; Popescu 1977, 258; Zahariade 1988,
42)
Towards the end of Diocletians reign, however, the separation of the two powers appears
to have been largely implemented. The civil administration was entrusted to a praeses, the
former Gallienic governor, but depleted of military attributes (Barnes 1982, 147-174; Schlinkert
2

1996, 454-482; Rouech 1998, 31-36; Horster

1998, 37-59; Carri 1998, 17-30; Gascou 1998,
61-64). Although during the Diocletians reign
there is no direct record of a praeses Scythiae
at least we have an indirect indication of his existence in a late 3rd or early 4th century inscription from Tomis, where the praesidial staff, or
officium praesidis obviously clarify this aspect
(IGLR 5=ISM II 373).
II. The Buildings
The Tetrarchic regime is credited with the
largest restoration, reconstruction and repair program ever carried out in the Roman Empire.
Diocletian himself seems to have had a direct
authority over the Danubian frontier until the end
of the Persian war in 299. The Emperor could
have personally inspected the river line in 285294 when he successively visited Suneata and
Atubino (both unidentified), Sirmium,
Viminacium, Ratiaria, Cebrum, Variana, Oescus,
Appiaria, Transmarisca, Reginasse (unidentified)
and established also the future steps of the building program (Ensslin 1948, 2419-2420; Kolb
1987, 10-21; Zahariade 1988, 33-34; Kienast
1990, 262; Kolb 1995, 21-24).
The most affected areas of the Scythian frontier by the 3 rd century invasions seem to have
been the maritime Danube, between Dinogetia
and Halmyris and the one between Axiopolis and
Durostorum.
The building program was focused towards
interventions destined to: repair the older military
installations; rebuilt a fundamentis older fortification; build new installations; repair and upkeep
the frontier (limes) road.
The Tetrarchic propaganda was intended to
bolster this huge financial and military effort. The
Lower Danube provinces enjoyed distinctive and
unique propagandistic formulas: post debellatas
hostium gentes confirmata orbi suo tranquillitate profuturum in aeternum reipublicae praesidium constituerunt. (After the hostile peoples were totally defeated and the peace of his
world have been strengthened, guards for the
Republic for the future, in eternity were established) apparent on Tetrarchic founding inscriptions at Donje Butorke, Sexaginta Prista,
Transmarisca, Durostorum, Seimeni, and
Halmyris (Zahariade, 1997, 228-236; 1999, 553561). In what follows we shall present the
Tetrarchic building activity based on the main

The Tetrarchic Reorganization of the Limes Scythicus

Pl. I

Mihail Zahariade

Pl. II

The Tetrarchic Reorganization of the Limes Scythicus

Pl. III

Mihail Zahariade

results known so far at the investigated sites.

Repairs
Massive repair activities were archaeologically identified at Sacidava, Argamum, Histria,
Noviodunum and Callatis. Apart of reconstruction of the interior buildings, interventions
were done at the gates, curtains and towers. It is
interesting to note that all the above cited sites
show clear traces of massive mid 3 rd century
reconstruction during Gallienus epoch, likely to
have benefited by the assistance of the generals
Cleodamus and Athenaios. whose activity in the
Pontic and Danubian area is notorious: SHA, v.
Gallieni XXIII 12. 6: [] Gallienus compertum
Cleodamum et Athenaeum Byzantios instaurandis urbibus muniendisque praeficit pugnatumque est circa Pontum[]. It is interesting
that all the above mentioned towns to which massive mid 3 rd century interventions were archaeologically identified, display rectangular curtain
towers built in a period when the U shape towers
were not yet in a widespread use. Rectangular
towers are visible in the case of Sacidava,
Argamum, Histria, Tomis and Callatis (Pl.II / 13). Translated into the sites chronological
language, level VI at Sacidava (Scorpan 1980,
118-119) and phase A= level VIII (mid 3 rd
century) at Histria (Domaneantu/ Sion 1982, 379)
would reflect mid 3rd century interventions, while
massive repairs during the first Tetrarchy appear
in phase B at Histria (Domaneantu/ Sion 1982,
379-380) and level VII at Sacidava (Scorpan
1980, 120), and Tomis (see below). The Tetrarchic inscription at Histria (Chiriac 1987, 281284) is an exceptional epigraphic confirmation of
the important repair works of the defence wall
and in the interior.
Detailed observations on the late Roman
defense wall at Argamum were made in the last
five years resuming the P. Nicorescus results
that generally dated the curtain towers in the 6th
century on the basis of Procopius statement.
Older and recent observations at the front wall
towards the Razelm Lake noticed that the
rectangular plinth of the towers serving as
foundation on which the visible superstructure
stands could correspond in fact to the first phase
of construction of the curtain and rectangular
towers (Margineanu-Carstoiu/ Adamesteanu
1998, 237-239). Unfortunately, there is no
satisfactory answer to the dating of the curtain
6

wall in its first phase. The 5th century level that is

vowed to have been identified under the plinth
level (Margineanu-Carstoiu/ Adamesteanu 1998,
249) might be well interpreted as a packing of
the soil in an area on the very border of the lake
submitted to significant collapse and sliding. The
rectangular towers as they are in the today
appearance are strikingly similar in shape to
those at Histria, Tomis and Callatis and we can
not refrain to connect the Argamum front wall to
the lake with the mid 3 rd century activity of
Cleodamus and Athenaios, as it is also the
preserved segment of the wall and towers at
Tomis along the Ferdinand Boulevard. If a
catastrophic earthquake in 238 largely accepted
nowadays by the specialists could have collapsed
at least a quarter of the Argamum town into the
sea (today Razelm Lake), then a massive constructive intervention once this was possible must
have been a major necessity for the local
authorities. The Tetrarchic repair works could
have aimed at only up keeping operations inside
the town.
At Noviodunum the mid 20th century excavations produced evidence for a massive Tetrarchic
reconstruction of the water front of the defence
wall, when bastions were added or especially
rebuilt (Barnea et Al. 1957, 155-172; Barnea/
Mitrea 1959, 461-472; Barnea 1977, 103-108;
Barnea/ Barnea 1984, 97-104; Barnea 1990, 285290) (Pl. II /4). The Maxentius coin from 308309 found in the mortar of the edifice conventionally called Z1 is an indication that this interior
building could be later in date than the curtain
wall and bastions (Barnea et Al. 1957, 162).
Recent excavations yielded also traces of a huge
rectangular tower that could be assimilated to a
Tetrarchic phrourion, although no significant
study on the stratigraphic sequence has been yet
carried out.
A fundamentis
Towns, legionary fortresses and 3 rd century
auxiliary forts were submitted to a thorough
reshuffling in perimeter and layout. The drastic
modifications in surface, plan, and defense
elements implied a general a fundamentis reconstruction that requested a much greater
financial and manpower effort. As a general architectural distinctive feature, particularly in the
case of the gate and curtain towers is their
characteristic U-shape, thickness and far

The Tetrarchic Reorganization of the Limes Scythicus

protruding position in comparison with the wall

line. So far, clear traces of such large scale operations were identified at Tomis, Ibida, Zaldapa,
Capidava Troesmis, Axiopolis, Tropaeum, and
Halmyris. Seimeni is only epigraphically attested
as having been possibly totally rebuilt.
Tomis was the city capital of the new province
of Scythia. Epigraphic and archaeological
evidence indicate massive reconstructions from
the foundations. The northern gate flanked by U
shape towers identified on the Dragos Voda
street displays traces of a basically new construction. The complex structure of the gate was
dated to late 3 rd century (Papuc/ Lungu 1998,
201-208). On the other hand the above mentioned inscription from Tomis shows massive constructive interventions probably at one of the main
gates of the city capital: (porta[s civita]ti
praesida[li]), rebuilt very likely from the bottom
under the direct dukes supervision (curante), C.
Aurelius Firminianus and at the orders of the
imperial authority (IGLR 3). Even though the
defence wall preserves some of the mid 3 rd
century rectangular towers, it appears to have
been rebuilt at least partially from the foundations
in Tetrarchic period, as already the V. Prvans
excavations have plainly demonstrated. On the
other hand, the Tomis urban surface that
enclosed the Tomis peninsula was significantly
enlarged. From the 20 ha encompassed in the 1st
century by the Hellenistic wall, the city capital of
Scythia obtained by early 4th the largest surface
ever reached of ca. 50 ha, with the adjacent 10
ha in the 6th century (Cheluta-Georgescu 1977,
253-260) (Pl. II /5).
Ibida and Zaldapa are next in surface after
Tomis. The first has 24.90 ha, while the second
has 25 ha. Both were definitely among the chief
towns in the province on a strategic north-south
axis (Pl. III / 1-2). At Ibida, limited rescue excavations are now carried out in some sectors
of the town. Although the town plan as it has
been established through surveys and recent
interpretation of the aerial photography render a
6th century existing situation, in a period of maximum extension, it is likely that the precinct wall
was erected during the Tetrarchy or Constantines time. The air surveys and aerial photography
established that the western and eastern sides of
the wall cut transversally the Slava River valley,
while the north side runs on the edges of the

valley slopes. It has also been presumed that the

river that flowed through the middle of the town
implied the building of particular configuration
works, possibly stone bridges and water mills
attested in inscriptions. Ibida seems to have
enjoyed an exceptional advantageous demographic situation and a remarkable urban structure,
given the significant large inhabited area that still
waits for further research (tefan 1971, 43-52;
1974, 104-106; bridges over the Slava river: ISM
V 223 (236-238): vi/[as et po]nt(es) disru(t)/
as per[]).
At Zaldapa, where the extension of its surface was drastically reduced by the terrain to the
south of the peninsula which is a + 45m high plateau with steep slopes there were no systematic
excavations. Most of the knowledge, we owe to
a rather recent study which gathered and systematized the few data about this important site.
Nevertheless, the plateau was large enough to
accommodate a fortification enclosing roughly 25
ha, which places Zaldapa among the biggest fortified centers in Scythia ( 2000, 5)
The Capidava fort (Pl. III / 3) displays in its
phase I hoof-like corner, and U-shape curtain
towers. Excavations could not exactly establish
if the considerable Diocletianic repair implied a
massive reconstruction of the fortified area, even
though, in general, the previous layout must have
been maintained (Florescu, Florescu, Diaconu
1958, 7-72; Florescu & colab 1959, 555-559;
Florescu 1975, 361-372; Covaceff 1988-1989,
188).
Unfortunately, almost nothing substantial can
be said on the chronology of the large area and
two fortresses at Troesmis (Pl. III / 4) The site
did not undergo extensive archaeological investigations, except some limited rescue excavations.
The aerial surveys (tefan, 1971, 43-52) helped
a good deal in deciphering the situation in the
Troesmis area. It is only generally accepted that
the two fortresses, visible today at the surface
(Troesmis east and Troesmis west) seem to have
been entirely rebuilt at the end of the 3rd century
that would imply that the 2 nd -3 rd century
legionary fortress was totally replaced with new
buildings. If Troesmis east seems to have been
used for military purposes, the western one is
suspected to have encompassed the area of the
later civitas/poleis. The significant distance
between the two centers is a relevant illustration
7

Mihail Zahariade

of the separation between civilian and military,

although both were included in the same large
habitable area.
Given its location on a high promontory,
Axiopolis had little space to expand in surface
(Pl. III / 5). Gr. Tocilescu has carried out limited
digs in the late 19th century within the fortified
area and uncovered some sections of the ruins
(Tocilescu 1903, 354-359). On this occasion two
main phases in the existence of the town were
established: the old town to the south east that
covers the early Roman fortress, dating possibly
from the 2 nd -3 rd century and the new town,
apparently built in the late 3rd or early 4th century.
This late extension enlarged the surface of the
town to ca. 7.60 ha. The above mentioned fragment of the Tetrarchic building inscription with
Mithraic relief that mentions a dux vir
perfectissimus of the province demonstrates the
keen interest of the authority over this old and
strategically very important position on the
frontier.
At Tropaeum, the establishment of a new
layout compared to the previous 2nd 3rd century
municipium took place during the first years of
the Tetrarchy. The town area was significantly
extended (Pl. III / 6) The new wall followed the
line of the plateau and describes an irregular
shape with 22 towers. Large U-shape towers
flank the east and west gateways connected by
the town main street. The northern half of the
western side of the town was built in straight line
and because was probably mostly exposed it
received a massive rectangular phrurion and Ushaped towers. The 295 Gothic attack seriously
affected the reconstruction works that were
continued in the first two decades of the 4 th
century. In 316 during Licinius and Constantine
the entire circuit wall was finished (IGLR 170).
The building inscription proudly mentions an a
fundamentis building that must be understood as
the final stage of the Tetrarchic activity (Mrgineanu-Crstoiu/ Barnea 1979, 109-128)
Halmyris was submitted to a drastic change
in plan. The previous 2nd century card like plan
fort was completely reshuffled in the last quarter
of the 3 rd century. The inauguration of the reconstruction works is indicated by coins from
Aurelian and Probus, but it was only during the
first Tetrarchy that a new triangular in plan
fortress with slightly bent eastern and western
8

curtain walls was erected. The new fortified area

has 13 U-shaped towers and bastions on the
western side, two pedestrian gates towards north
and west and a monumental gate towards the
harbor. In 290 the works were in progress when
the duke of Scythia, Latronianus suddenly came
in an inspection and per triduum opera
publica, et imperialia ministeria, quae ibidem
errant, pervidiseet [for three days he inspected
the public works and the local administrative
authorities] (Acta SS III 19). The Halmyris
systematic investigations carried out over 25
years yielded one of the most comprehensible
sequences of the massiveness of the Tetrarchic
building program on the frontier line. The excavations at the northern and western gate, is an
indication of how massive a fundamentis works
were. At the northern gate the dismantlement
went until the initial 2 nd -3 rd century concrete
tough platform erected in early 2 nd century in
order to thwart the moisture from the nearby
Danube water infiltrate into the stone structure.
The new U-shaped towers considerably extended
the front towards north and drastically modified
the former gateway, where a new threshold built
of eight tombstones as spolia from the 2 nd -3 rd
century necropolis was set out, a port-cullies and
a draw bridge which seems so far very rare, if
not unique in the military Roman architecture
(Zahariade 2003, 43-64).
The 295 Gothic invasion, as in the case of
Tropaeum, seems to have affected for a short
time the continuation of the works that have been
carried on after that date. The Tetrarchic building inscription dated in c. 301/2-305 marks the
end of the building of the new fortress (Zahariade
1997, 228-236).
Knowledge about the Seimeni fort during the
Tetrarchy consists only of a fragmentary
founding inscription (IGLR 205). From the
wording displayed on the stone found on the spot,
results that massive works of reconstruction
were carried out at the fort. The wording,
fragmentary as it is, appears enough to conclude
that it fits into the well-known Donje Butorke,
Sexaginta Prista, Transmarisca, Durostorum and
Halmyris pattern of propagandistic language.
New Buildings
Dinogetia (Pl. III / 7) appears to have been
built a fundamentis, on a virgin ground on a little
island (popina), called today Bisericua, in the

The Tetrarchic Reorganization of the Limes Scythicus

Garvn commune (Barnea 1971, 343-350;

Barnea 1986, 448). The existence of a watch
tower on this place, as has been vowed, was not
yet demonstrated, therefore the new building as
key tactical position at the bent of the Danube is
the most convenient assumption. The fortlet
(castellum) in its initial late 3rd or early 4th century
layout was planned as a sore point in the neighboring region between the Siret and Danube
Rivers, which was no longer under a firm and
permanent control, as previously provided by the
2nd 3rd century Barbosi auxiliary fort. The Ushaped curtain and hoof like corner towers as
basic architectural elements compared with the
stratigraphic sequence reveal almost certainly a
Tetrarchic building in date.
One of the remarkable Tetrarchic innovations
was the implementation of the particular type of
installations known as quadriburgia or tetrapyrgia. With its origin in Hellenistic Near East, this
type of small fort was purposely built to lodge a
small sized garrison, 50-60 soldiers at the most,
to increase the density of the military installations
on the frontier and inland and for patrolling and
reconnaissance activities. In case of an invasion,
through their tallness and massiveness they acted
as a magnet for the enemy forces and dissuaded
pressure on other specific points. They seem not
to have surpassed in number the 2nd -3rd century
forts and fortresses, but their location shortened
the distances among the frontier military installations from 8-9 (12-13 km.) to only 4-5 Roman
miles (6-8 km). Such small sized castella have
been identified at Mineri, Parche, Somova,
Rachelu, Jijila, Traian, Peceneaga, Nicolae
Blcescu, Mircea Vod, and Ovidiu (Zahariade
1999, 3-16).
III. The Tetrarchic army
The 286-293 territorial and administrative
reforms sided by drastic military reshufflings
aimed at bridging the major gaps produced by mid
3 rd century violent Gothic and Carpic attacks.
The creation of a practically novel army in a new
province of Scythia took also advantage of the
existence of a still solid infrastructure (fortifications and roads) systematically maintained during
Gallienus and Aurelians time.
There is an opinio communis the fact that
new principle of basic military reorganization
required, as a rule for the frontier districts, the
distribution of two legions to each province.

According to this principle, the newly established

province of Scythia received in garrison the also
recently set up regiments: legio I Iovia and legio
II Herculia. The units borrowed their names
from the two Augusti, Diocletian and Maximianus, who became Iovius and Herculius respectively, on July 21, 286. The two legions could have
been obviously created after this date, concomitantly with, or shorter after the setting of Scythia
as a province, whose defence they ensured (Zahariade 1983, 247-259; 1988, 61-68).
There is a noticeable contradiction in two of
essential ancient sources as to the headquarters
of the Scythian legions. While Itinerarium Antonini places the legio I Iovia at Troesmis and legio
II Herculia at Noviodunum (Isaccea), Notitia
Dignitatum, records inversed headquarters, locating I Iovia at Noviodunum and II Herculia at
Troesmis. The commentaries on this obtrusive
disagreement of the sources oscillated from
either admitting an error in Itinerarium Antonini
or a later exchange of headquarters (tefan 1944,
344-348; 1955, 161-163; Aricescu 1977, 110112).
A recently late 3rd century discovered tombstone at Hrova, ancient Carsium reused as a
ceiling for a vaulted tomb in the late Roman
necropolis, is an excellent proof that confirms the
early presence of the legion I Iovia on the western front of the province. The inscription records
a centurio ordinarius in legio I Iovia
Scyt(hica) and his father-in-law, Valerius Valerianus, centenarius in the same legion (Petolescu/ Popovici, 1989, 3, 241-247)
It is thus confirmed the information provided
by Itinerarium Antonini that in the early stages
of the Diocletians tactical arrangement legio I
Iovia Scythica was placed at Troesmis, which
enabled the legionary detachments to be dispatched south of the headquarters and control the
frontier at least as far as Hrova, if not more to
the south, while II Herculia must have been
deployed at Noviodunum. On the other hand, the
appellative Scythica, that appears in both Antonine Itinerary (Todd 1973, 335-336) and in Hrova inscription would suggest that in its earlier
stage, the legion was for quite a short time the
only one in the province ensuring an overall
coverage for the entire frontier, being immediately joined by II Herculia (Zahariade 1988, 6263).
9

Mihail Zahariade

The fact that the two legions had their headquarters in the places indicated by the Antonine
Itinerary would be also a sign that the Diocletianic establishment of the new legions was made
concomitantly by pairs. The switch of the headquarters, as shown in Notitia Dignitatum might
have been done at a later date, with the occasion
of Diocletians travels along the Danube in 297,
or maybe even later, related to the participation
of some detachments of the two legions in the
military events in the Empire. The headquarters
swap was an occasion of an intense issue of
stamped building material (bricks and tiles)
(IGLR 241), an event that also happened in the
case of the legions V Iovia and VI Herculia in
Pannonia Secunda (Zahariade 1988, 63).
A Greek written lettera commendaticia
(letter of recommendation) on a brick found at
Halmyris mentions Valerius Valerinus Constans
who recommended a certain Secundus to his
brother in arms (frater). The text is not very
clear, but the regiment indicated in the letter
appears to have been highly possible I Iovia:
legijnh(j) [pre]maj'I[oubaj] (Suceveanu/
Zahariade 2003, 125-126). This is the first known
so far document datable in Tetrarchic period to
demonstrate that the switch of garrisons took
place during that time.
The Tetrarchic period, on the other hand,
seems to have inherited from the Gallienic
reforms a new type of mobile cavalry units,
recorded in inscriptions as vexillationes
equitum. The ala and cohors type of units seem
not to have survived in Scythia after the turbulent 3 rd century. The new particular type of
auxiliary unit bears specific attributes, such as
scutariorum, catafractariorum, and others that
reveal their clear origin in the large-sized lite
groups of imperial body-guards created by
Gallienus (de Blois 1976, 26-31; Hoffmann 1969,
248-250) They functioned in the following period
as significant operational regiments at the
immediate disposal of emperors and were perfect new mobile regiments to fill the losses or
withdrawals from the frontier. The number XII
or eventually XIII of vexillatio catafractariorum from Pirgovo and Histria (IGLR 110) would
suggest the existence of another eleven, or even
twelve such regiments, gradually detached from
the large Gallienic catafractarii force. They
gradually ended by being temporarily set on cer10

tain places in the interior or on the frontier as

operational troops replacing older alae and cohortes. It is significant that the auxiliary forts
were they were dispatched became later headquarters of the Constantinian cunei equitum (Zahariade 1988, 77-79). Vexillationes equitum are
recorded in several strategic places of the
Scythian frontier at Sacidava (IGLR 188) Capidava, (vexillatio equitum scutariorum) (IGLR
220-221) Aegyssus, (vexillatio Egyssesis)
(IGLR 270), Salsovia (IGLR 271b), and Histria.
(vexillatio equitum XII) (IGLR 110).
IV. Conclusions
Good strategists chose good positions and the
complete continuation of the 2nd-3rd century castra and castella system proofs a long and stable
tradition in defending critical points of the province. Although conservative in his conception meaning the preservation of the good old traditions of the Roman Empire - Diocletian proved to
have been also innovative in both military architecture and tactical arrangements. The balance
of power north of the Danube which was most
of the time detrimental to the Lower Danube
frontier, determined a certain so called
globalization of a new architecture to better cope
with the new enemys inroads and tactics. Even
the concept of limes underwent important changes in terms of its extension to the whole territory
of the province. The building effort detected
archaeologically to almost all important forts,
fortresses or towns is reliable evidence for this
new trend. Where tradition was broken for a
variety of reasons, such as the disappearance of
the old ala and cohors types, the innovation
came immediately into being by supplying the
defence of the river with new and mobile cavalry
forces. Traditionally Troesmis and Noviodunum
were legionary garrisons and they were maintained as such in the Tetrarchic period. The demonstration of its bravery on other frontiers must
have been one of the reasons why legio I Iovia
was moved to the northern front were, as it
seems, the pressure was increasing.
The navy was also largely used in the new
tactic scheme, while the old basis were being
maintained functioning (Bounegru/ Zahariade
1996, 22-28; 61-72). There is no indication of
opening new harbors for the Danubian section of
the navy compared to the 2nd -3rd century situation. The active role of the Black Sea cities in

The Tetrarchic Reorganization of the Limes Scythicus

the second half of the 3rd century continued to be

manifestly active by the end of the same period,
especially since the Tetrarchic emperors very
likely deployed, even though temporary, mobile
forces in each of them.
A combination of tradition and innovative solutions adopted during the Tetrarchy made the
Lower Danubian frontier more efficient starting
with the first decades of the 4 th century and
conveyed to the province of Scythia the role of a
true wall (klma) against external pressure, as the
famous passage in Sozomenos (Hist. Eccl. VI
21. 6) proudly states.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
IGLR. Inscriptiones intra fines Dacoromaniae repertae
Graecae et Latinae anno CCLXXXIV recentiores, Aem.
Popescu ed. (Inscripiile greceti i latine din secolele
IV-XIII descoperite pe teritoriul Romniei) Bucureti.
1976.
ISM II. Inscriptiones Scythiae minoris Graecae et
Latinae, volumen secundum. Tomis et territorium.
Collegit, Dacoromanice vertit, commentariisque instruxit
Iorgu Stoian. Indices condidit Al. Suceveanu. Bucureti.
1987.
ISM V. Inscriptiones Scythiae minoris Graecae et
Latinae, volumen quintum. Capidava-Troesmis-Noviodunum. Collegit, Dacoromanice vertit, commentariis indicibusque instruxit Aemilia Doruiu-Boil, Bucureti. 1980.
PLRE I. Jones, A.H.M./ Morris, J. /Martindale, J. R.
The Prosopoghraphy of the Later Roman Empire, vol I A.
D. 260-395. Cambridge. 1971.
SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae edidit Ernestus
Hhl, vol. I-II. Edition Stereotypa correctior addenda
adiecerunt Chi. Samberger et W. Seyfath, Teubner Leipzig .1965.
, . 1976. . - 4, 61-64.
, . 2000. . .
Aricescu, A. 1977. Armata n Dobrogea roman.
Bucureti.
Arnold, W. T. 1971. The Roman System of Provincial
Administration to the Accession of Constantine the
Great, 3rd ed. New York.
Barnea, Al. 1990. Einige Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Limes an der Unteren Donau in Sptrmische
Zeit. -Dacia N.S. XXXIV, 285-290.
Barnea, I. 1977. Noi descoperiri la Noviodunum. Peuce VI, 103-108.
Barnea, I. et Al. 1957. Spturile de salvare de la
Noviodunum. - Materiale i Cercetri arheologice IV, 155172.
Barnea, I./ Barnea, Al. 1984. Spturile de salvare de

la Noviodunum. - Peuce IX, 97-105; 504-518.

Barnea, I./ Mitrea, B. 1959. Spturile de salvare de la
Noviodunum. - Materiale i Cercetri arheologice, 461472.
Barnes, T. D. 1982. The New Empire of Diocletian and
Constantine, Cambridge, Massachussetts/ London.
Bounegru, O./ Zahariade, M. 1996. Les forces navales
du Bas Danube et de la Mer Noire aux I-er VI-me sicles. Oxford.
Cheluta-Georgescu, N. 1977. Contribuii la topografia
Tomisului n sec. VI e.n.. - Pontica X, 253-260.
Chiriac, C. 1987. O inscripie de la Diocleian descoperit la Histria. - Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i
Arheologie 3, 281-284.
Covaceff, Z. 1988-1989. Capidava n secolul VI e.n.
Cteva observaii pe baza cercetrilor din sectorul V al
cetii. Pontica XXI-XXII, 187-196.
de Blois, L. 1976. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus.
Leiden.
Domneanu, C., Sion, A. 1982. Incinta roman trzie
de la Histria. ncercare de cronologie. - Studii i Cercetri
de Istorie Veche i Arheologie 4, 377-394.
Eadie, J. 1967. The Breviarum of Festus. A Critical
Edition with Historical Commentary. London.
Ensslin, W. 1948. Real Encyclopdie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft (Pauly Wissowa Kroll). Stuttgart:
VII A 2 s.v. Valerius (Diocletianus), 2419-2495.
Ensslin, W. 1930 Zum Heermeisteramt des sptromischen Reiches I. Die Titulatur der magistri militum bis auf
Theodosius I. - Klio 23. 2, 306-325; II. Die magistri Militum
des 4 Jahrhunderts. - Klio 24. 1, 102- 147 ; 383-408.
Florescu, Gr./ Florescu,R./ Diaconu, P. 1958. Capidava.
Monografie arheologic I. Bucureti.
Florescu, Gr. et. Al. 1959. Capidava. Raport asupra
activitii arheologice din 1956. Materiale i Cercetri
Arheologice V, 555-559.
Florescu, R. 1975, Date noi cu privire la cronologia
Capidavei.trzii. - Pontica VIII, 361-372.
Hoffmann, D. 1969. Das sptromische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, Teil I-II. Epigraphische
Studien 7/1. 2. Dusseldorf.
Jones, A.H.M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire. 284-602
vol. I-III. Oxford.
Jones, A.H. M. 1954. The Date and Value of the Verona List. - Journal of Roman Studies XLIV, 21-29.
Jones, A.H.M. 1964. The Later Roman Empire. 284-602
vol. I-III. Oxford.
Kienast, D. 1990. Rmische Kaisertabelle. Darmstadt.
Kolb, J. 1995. Chronologie und Ideologie der
Tetrarchie. Antiquit Tardive 3, 21-31.
Kolb, J. 1987. Diokletian und die erste Tetrarchie.
Berlin/ New York.
Mrgineanu-Crstoiu, M./ Adameteanu, M. 1998.
Zidul de incint romano-biznatin de la Argamum. Un
tronson din curtina de est. - Studii i Cercetri de Istorie

11

Mihail Zahariade
Veche i Arheologie 3-4, 233-258.
Margineanu-Carstoiu, M./ Barnea, Al. 1979. Aspecte
ale urbanismului n cetatea Tropaeum Traiani. In: Tropaeum Traiani Tropaeum Traiani I: Cetatea. Barnea A.
Barnea I. (eds). Bucureti.
Papuc, Gh./ Lungu, V. 1998. Poarta mare a cetii Tomi.
- Pontica XXXI, 201-208.
Petolescu, C. C./ Popovici, D. 1989. O inscripie
inedit de la Carsium. - Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche
i Arheologie 3, 241-247.
Popescu, Em. 1977. Praesides, Duces et Episcopatus
provinciae Scythiae im Lichte einiger Inschriften aus dem
4 bis 6 Jh. In: Epigraphica. Travaux dedis au VIIe Congrs dpigraphie grecque et latine. Constantza. 255-284.
Popescu, Em. 1994. Saints Epictete et Astion, martyres Halmyris. In: Christianitas Daco-Romana. Florilegium Studiorum. Bucureti, 92-99.
Scorpan, C. 1980. Limes Scythiae. Topographical and
Stratigraphical Research on the Late Roman Fortifications
on the Lower Danube. British Archaeological Reports 88.
Oxford.
Seston, W. 1946. Diocltien et la Ttrarchie. Paris.
Stefan Al. S. 1974. Recherches de photo-interpretation archologique sur le limes de la Scythie Mineure
lpoque de Bas-Empire. In: Actes du IXe Congres international dEtudes sur les Frontires Romaines, Mamaia
1972. Bucharest. Koln. 95-108.
tefan, Al. S. 1971, Troesmis. Consideraii topografice. - Buletinul Monumentelor Istorice XL 4, 43-52.
tefan, Gh. 1955. La legio I Iovia et la dfense de la
frontiere danubienne au IVe sicle de notre re. - Nouvelles tudes dHistoire 1, 161-167.

12

tefan, Gh. 1944. Scythica. - Balcanica VII 2, 344-348.

Stein, E. 1948-1959. Histoire du Bas-Empire. De ltat
romain a letat byzantin (284-476) tome I-II. Paris/ Bruxelles.
Tocilescu, Gr. C. 1903. Fouilles dAxiopolis In: Festschrift zu Otto Hirschfelds sechzigstem Geburstag. Berlin. 354-359.
Todd, R. A. 1973. Note on the Legion I Iovia at
Noviodunum. - Dacia N.S. XVII, 335-336.
Williams, St. 1985. Diocletian and the Roman
Recovery. London.
Zahariade, M. 2003. Poarta de nord. In: Suceveanu,
Al./ Zahariade, M./ Topoleanu, F./ Poenaru Bordea, Gh.
Halmyris I 2003. Monografie arheologic. Cluj Napocae,
43-64.
Zahariade, M. 1999. The Tetrarchic building inscriptions and the Lower Danubian limes. In: XI Congresso
Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina, Roma 18-24
settembre 1997, Atti, Roma 1999, 553-561.
Zahariade, M. 1997. The Halmyris Tetrarchic Inscription. - Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 119,
228-236.
Zahariade, M. 1988. Moesia Secunda, Scythia i
Notitia Dignitatum. Bucureti.
Zahariade, M. 1983. Legio II Herculia. - Revue des
tudes Sud Est Europenes 21, 247-259.
Dr. Mihail Zahariade
Arhaeological Institute
11, Henri Coanda St.
RO-010667 Bucarest
zahariade@yahoo.com