Discussion:Marcus Ulpius Traianus

Year of the suffect consulate : 70 or 72 ?

If Trajan was consul suffect en 72 (CIL 14, 245), that inscriptio denies Bennett's and Strobel's thesis. Cristiano64 of Wiki.it. --82.88.66.156 (discuter) 14 janvier 2014 à 10:41 (CET) Text: [72] [Imp(erator) Caesar V]espasian[us Aug(ustus) IIII Titus Caesar i]mp(erator) II / [K(alendis) 3] C(aius) Licin[ius Mucian(us) III T(itus) Flavius Sabi]n(us) II / [K(alendis) 3 M(arcus) Ul]pius Tr[aianus // Cristiano64 --94.166.91.99 (discuter) 14 janvier 2014 à 13:35 (CET)

Thank you for your message : There is a priori a doubt about the year ... :

In Françoise Des Boscs-Plateaux, Un parti hispanique à Rome ?, she writes « 70 ? 72 ? ».

In Julian Bennett, Trajan: Optimus Princeps, he writes : « To begin with, in 70 (probably), he was elected consul » and farther « Among them was Traianus, elected consul suffectus for September-October 70 ».

For Strobel, it's a translation of de.wiki ... « Im Jahr 70 wurde der ältere Traianus Suffektkonsul ... (Karl Strobel: Kaiser Traian. Eine Epoche der Weltgeschichte) »

... this inscriptio has not yet been found recently ... ?

— ColdEel (discuter), en ce 14 janvier 2014 à 22:04 (CET)

I don't know if the transcription of the inscription is very accurate. If we remove the bracketed parts, it remains :

   ............ESPASIAN...........................MP II

   ///////////C LICIN..............................N II

   ////////////////////////////////PIVS TR/////////////

It's very fragmented. Maybe it can fit to the year 70 AD too ...

Cassius Ahenobarbus (discuter) 14 janvier 2014 à 23:06 (CET)

But according to this last hypothesis, the date [71] should be false too. Do we have some information about this one ? Quintus Sallinius and Publius Lucilius Gamala ?

Cassius Ahenobarbus (discuter) 14 janvier 2014 à 23:12 (CET)

The first line ends with "MP II" (transcripted in "Titus Caesar Imperator II") but for the line [74], Titus doesn't wore the title "Imperator" anymore, and is just designated as son of Vespasian : "Titus Caesar Augusti Filius". That's strange. Why are they not designated on the same way on the two lines ... Maybe the name of Titus was inscribed first (because it's the first time he is consul) and then was the name of Vespasian, consul for the second time ... in 70 AD.

What is your opinion ? It's late and I think i'm looking for errors where there is no error actually.

Cassius Ahenobarbus (discuter) 14 janvier 2014 à 23:57 (CET)

• Paul M. M. Leunissen, Direct promotions from proconsul to consul under the Principate, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 89, 1991, pp.217-260 :

p. 236 : "the almost universally accepted year of Trajans' consulship (?70)

p. 236 : Thomasson recalls a slightly later date for the consulship (in 71 or 72) has been put forward by some scholars.

• Mireille Corbier, L'aerarium saturni et l'aerarium militare. Administration et prosopographie sénatoriale, École française de Rome, Rome, 1974, 796 p.

p. 80 : M. Ulpius Traianus consul suffect en 70 ... (referred to G. Alfoldy, Fasti Hispanienses)

The CIL XIV 245 corresponds to a fragment of the Fasti Ostienses. It's known by all these scholars. Why do they ignore it (they never refer to it) ? Maybe because the transcription is known as outdated and not sure.

Cassius Ahenobarbus (discuter) 15 janvier 2014 à 00:21 (CET)

In Edward Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1993, 128 p.

• p. 25 : Degrassi (1947 and 1952), Vidman (1975 and 1982) : 68/69 AD.

In an earlier edition of Fasti Ostienses (1947), Degrassi gave 72 AD (maybe our transcription ?)

Syme (1953 et 1979) and Morris (1953) criticised the thesis 68/69 AD and gave 72 AD.

AD 72 widely accepted but become recently an obstacle in settling the chronology of the posts he held (Eck 1982).

Cassius Ahenobarbus (discuter) 15 janvier 2014 à 09:23 (CET)

If you see Wiki.it:Prima guerra giudaica, Trajan was in Giudea with Titus in 68-69, as legatus legionis of X Fretensis. In 70 Titus puts Jerusalem under siege. It is not mentioned the legatus legionis of XII Fulminata (Trajan?). I think that, how is it possible to send an important general as Trajan to Rome during a terrible war as Jewish one? Remember that latin inscription write: "[Imp(erator) Caesar V]espasian[us Aug(ustus) IIII (four consulship) Titus Caesar i]mp(erator) II (two consulship) / [K(alendis) 3] C(aius) Licin[ius Mucian(us) III T(itus) Flavius Sabi]n(us) II / [K(alendis) 3 M(arcus) Ul]pius Tr[aianus //" and the only possible date is 72 A.D. not 70. Trajan will return in Syria as legatus Augusti pro praetore in 73 (and remains till 76). Why? He knows Orient, Parthi and Titus had total trust in him. For me Trajan remains in Orient till 71/72. After Jerusalem (70), he was probably sent to Cappadocia with legio XII Fulminata, to Melitene. He was awarded with consulship in 72 and then he returned in Syria as governor. That inscription is certainly of 72. See the list of consuls in Wiki.de, also Mucianus and Sabinus were consuls suffecti in 72 :-) Cristiano (sorry for my bad english) --87.8.165.234 (discuter) 18 janvier 2014 à 23:29 (CET)

We cannot forget that inscription reminds us, just before: T(itum) C]aesarem V[espasian(um) Au]g(usti) f(ilium) im[p(eratorem) 3]mit / [IIvir(i) c(ensoria) p(otestate) q(uinquennales)] Q(uintus) Sallinius [3 I]I P(ublius) Luci[lius Ga]mala f(ilius) /, that is attributable only to 71 (not to 69). Cristiano64 --87.14.154.189 (discuter) 19 janvier 2014 à 08:50 (CET)

Hi again, Cristiano !

To my mind, we can't determine with precision when Traianus was consul. The inscription of the Fasti Ostienses is the subject of different readings. Above, i'm not trying to convince you that 72 is wrong, but only that it's not sure, as 70. We do not know in what state was found the inscription you quote. The pieces were placed in an order, but it is a hypothesis.

In the document written in italian by Leonardo Gregoratti, Vespasiano, marco Ulpio Traiano padre e la costituzione del Limes Orientale in KASKAL vol. 3, 2006, the author says about the consulate of Traianus (p.265) :

« La discussione degli studiosi si è focalizzata attorno all'anni 70 e 72 d.C. In mancanza di informazioni più precise la questione è destinata a rimanere aperta, malgrado alcune fondate considerazioni sul lasso di tempo che separerebbe il conseguimento del consolato dalla più tarda nomina a proconsole d’Asia, culmine della carriera senatoria, rendano preferibile l’adozione della cronologia più antica. »

The inscription of the Fasti Ostienses is very fragmented, and what we have here is just a possible reading.

« Sulla base di una nuova lettura di un frammento XI dei Fasti Ostienses, il Morris propone la data 70 d.C. » Scholars like Syme (1953-58), Durry (1965), Alföldy (1969-98), Zevi (1973), Modugno Panciera and Nichols (1973), Devreker (1976), Isaac and Roll (1976), Gallivan (1981), Van Berchem (1983), Camodeca (1991) agreed.

Others are convinced that Traianus was consul in 72 : Vidman (1975-82) (sulla base di due nuovi frammenti attribuiti alla medesima iscrizionee), Degrassi (1952), Bengston (1979), Caballos Rufino (1990).

For the chronology of the events of Jewish war, my knowledges on the subject is insufficient to answer you. Just remember he was only suffect for two months (september and october), and maybe was not present in Rome.

« (sorry for my bad english) » No problem, my english is not better ^^.

Cassius Ahenobarbus (discuter) 19 janvier 2014 à 13:02 (CET)

Believe me that your english is much better than mine :-) I think that Wiki.it:Marco Ulpio Traiano (console 70) is wrong, if we are not sure for his consulship (70 or 72?). Thank you for your help. I'll correct the italian article. Best Regards. Cristiano64 --87.8.165.109 (discuter) 19 janvier 2014 à 23:02 (CET)

I've renamed the article in Wiki:it:Marco Ulpio Traiano (padre). Thank you! :-))))) Cristiano64 --87.8.165.109 (discuter) 19 janvier 2014 à 23:21 (CET)