Surrender of Roman territory

[prr]

I just read an interesting statement in Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the treaty that Jovian made with the Persians, ending the then-deceased Julian's expedition against them.

 

Nowhere

[caldrail]

I'm struggling to think of an example I must admit. Hadrian returned territory in Dacia and the Middle East, but in those cases, histilities had already been settled and the move was diplomacy aimed at preventing revenge campaigns. There is of course the withdrawals in Caledonia?

[Pompieus]

How about Antony's donations to Cleapatra?

[prr]

Not really the same thing, in that the Donations of Alexandria were a result of love, not war.

 

I'm tempted to think the withdrawal from Scotland was the same as from Germany--as in, not verified by treaty, but done unilaterally by Rome (I'll have to go back and see what Tacitus said about Germany, but I'd be surprised if this was by treaty).

 

How about Antony's donations to Cleapatra?

Edited June 10, 2012 by prr

[caldrail]

You're probably right, but bear in mind that formal treaties weren't quite the same as today, since barbairan tribes didn't adhere to Roman literary standards thus often they established 'friendship' or informal agreements under oath which were binding nionetheless.

[Maty]

The nearest I can think of is Sertorius offering to allow Mithridates control of some areas in Asia Minor that had previously been in the Roman sphere of influence - though he drew the line at offering an actual province. Mithridates had wanted the former Pergamene kingdom that the Romans called Asia as the price for money and support for Sertorius in Spain.

 

This proved a deal breaker, and Sertorius was killed before negotiations could resume.

 

Note that Sertorius was a rebel against Rome at this point, and the deal did not go through, but that's still as close as I can find.

[caldrail]

Strictly speaking Galba in 150BC offered the Lusitanii land that he was fighting over in order to resolve the conflict, although in his case it was nothing more than a ruse to trick the Lusitanii into surrender.

[barca]

In the 3rd century, the entire province of Dacia was left in the hands of the Goths.

[caldrail]

The Romans did indeed desert the area, but it's disputed whether the Goths were left in charge. Some say the Carpi were more likely. In any case Constantine I reconquered Dacia in 336 (and it was again abandoned soon afterward when Constantine died)

[prr]

Was this signed over by treaty, or simply a withdrawal of forces?

 

In the 3rd century, the entire province of Dacia was left in the hands of the Goths.

[caldrail]

A withdrawal.

[prr]

Then looks like Ammianus was right....

 

Very interesting. He went on about how Jovian was selling out the Roman side. He said that Jovian waited four days (at the end of the campaign), waiting for the Persians to reply to his message. Ammianus said that in four days, the Roman forces could have made it to a fortress that was firmly in control of Rome (without having to have given up the crucial fortresses that Jovian did give up--Nisbis and Singara).

 

One might wonder, however, how a four-day retreat in enemy territory might have worked out, though, while the Persians were still trying to harass them....

 

Anyways, thanks. I obviously don't have a list in my back pocket of all the occasions that Roman consuls and emperors have surrendered, and what they gave up, so I had no idea if AM's statement was sheer hyperbole or not.

 

EDIT: Forgot the other point that AM was trying to make. He mentioned a couple of times in this passage that Jovian's reason was the threat of civil war. AM stressed that the Romans had gotten the best of the Persians in the fighting up till this point, but that because of the threat of Procopius (not the writer, but his grandfather), Jovian needed to show up in Constantinople with a large army to press his own claim to the throne.

Edited June 15, 2012 by prr