¹ An earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Metropolitan Library of Bucharest's international symposium ‘The Book, Romania, Europe’ held at Mamaia, Romania in September 2012. I thank all those present, especially Adrian Dumitru, for their comments. I am also grateful to Rhiannon Ash, Georgy Kantor, Christopher Pelling and Thom Russell for advice and suggestions. All chapter references are to the Annals unless otherwise stated and all translations are my own.

² This is developed further when Germanicus goes east: at 2.43.2-4 Tacitus asserts that Tiberius dispatched the intractable Gnaeus Piso to replace an associate of Germanicus as governor of Syria, and the emperor is later said to have been displeased by Germanicus' entry into Egypt without permission, in defiance of the rules laid down by Augustus (2.59.2-3). See in general C.B.R. Pelling, ‘Tacitus and Germanicus', in T.J. Luce and A.J. Woodman (edd.), Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition (Princeton, 1993), 59–85, at 67–78. On Tiberius' dissimulatio, see R. Strocchio, Simulatio e Dissimulatio nelle opere di Tacito (Bologna, 2001), 33–85.

³ Tacitus has nothing on the practicalities of Germanicus' journey from Italy to the east, but for other Romans taking similar routes, including Cicero, who went overland from Actium to Athens on his way to Cilicia in 51 b.c., see N. Purcell, ‘The Nicopolitan synoecism and Roman urban policy’, in E. Chrysos (ed.), Nicopolis I (Prebeza, 1987), 71–90, at 74 n. 13, and cf. L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (Baltimore, 1974), 254–6 and Birley, A.R., ‘The life and death of Cornelius Tacitus’, Historia 49 (2000), 230–47Google Scholar, at 245–6.

⁴ Cf. F.R.D. Goodyear, The Annals of Tacitus: Annals 1.55-81 and Annals 2 (Cambridge, 1981), 372–5, and 459–60 for P.Berol. For further discussion of Germanicus' visit to Egypt, which will not be examined in detail here, see D.G. Weingartner, Die Ägyptenreise des Germanicus (Bonn, 1969) and Kelly, B., ‘Tacitus, Germanicus and the kings of Egypt (Tac. Ann. 2.59-61)’, CQ 60 (2010), 221–37Google Scholar.

⁵ Honours were paid to him and his family at Mytilene (IG xii 2,207, 212, 213 and 540), a statue of Agrippina was erected at Sinope (IGR iii 94), the Bithynian city of Caesarea added Germanikē to its name (W. Waddington, Recueil général des monnaies grecques d'Asie Mineure [Paris, 1904], i.281 n. 1), and coins from Nicomedeia, also in Bithynia, with his portrait and name have also been linked to this visit (Waddington [this note], 516 nn. 12 and 13). There were further statues of Germanicus and Agrippina at Samos (IGR iv 979), and the former was elected to the office of stephanephorus at Priene (I.Priene 142 ii, line 9). For full references, see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), 497–8 and 1356–7 nn. 17–18, and N. Kokkinos, Antonia Augusta (London and New York, 1992), 18 and 43–5; cf. H. Halfmann, Itinera principum (Stuttgart, 1986), 168–70.

⁶ Athens and Troy especially were popular stops for Roman travellers (C.C. Vermeule, ‘Neon Ilion and Ilium Novum: kings, soldiers, citizens, and tourists at classical Troy’, in J.P. Carter and S.P. Morris [edd.], The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule [Austin, 1995], 467–82; Sage, M.M., ‘Roman visitors to Ilium in the Roman Imperial and Late Antique period: the symbolic functions of a landscape’, Studia Troica 10 [2000], 212–31Google Scholar, at 213–14; and Birley [n. 3], 245–6). Nevertheless, in the narrative of Germanicus' travels there are repeated references to Rome's recent history and the roles played by his relations Augustus and Mark Antony (see e.g. 2.53.2, 2.55.1, 2.59.1-2), and it is hard not to see him as following in the footsteps of these close predecessors. On Mark Antony in Athens, see App. B Civ. 5.76 and Plut. Ant. 33.7 (with Geagan, D.J., ‘Roman Athens: some aspects of life and culture I. 86 b.c.–a.d. 267’, ANRW 2.7.1 [1979], 371–437 Google Scholar, at 377–9), and on Augustus' visit, Suet. Div. Aug. 17.4-18.1 and Dio 51.16.3-5. Strabo 13.1.27 and Lucan 9.964-99 refer to Julius Caesar's visit to Troy. Germanicus' visit to Alexandria echoes most obviously Antony (Plut. Ant. 28–9 and App. B Civ. 5.11), but he then sails along the Nile, just as Caesar had with Cleopatra (Suet. Div. Iul. 52.1: see Hillard, T.W., ‘The Nile cruise of Caesar and Cleopatra’, CQ 52 (2002), 549–54Google Scholar. To analyse all the associations evoked by Tacitus' narrative and to consider their function in the Tiberian books as a whole would be beyond the scope of this discussion, but see n. 10 for further bibliography, and pp. 234–5 below for the historical significance of Germanicus' links with Antony.

⁷ The text leaves it strictly unclear whether Germanicus went beyond the junction of the Bosporus and the Black Sea, or even as far as that point: see Harrison, E., ‘Ramsey's Tacitus’, CR 18 (1905), 407–11Google Scholar, at 410 on os Ponticum (I am grateful to Georgy Kantor for this reference).

⁸ Germanicus is shown giving way to his emotions a number of times: e.g. his impetuous threat to commit suicide rather than accept his mutinous soldiers' offer to make him emperor (1.35.4), his somewhat ill-judged desire to visit the scene of Varus' defeat (1.61.1), and his ostentatious grief when he believes much of his fleet has been lost at sea (2.24.2). See Shotter, D.C.A., ‘Tacitus, Tiberius and Germanicus’, Historia 17 (1968), 194–214 Google Scholar, at 197–202.

⁹ When Germanicus himself is in the east, his visits to the Actium memorial and to Athens (2.53.1-3) are also imbued with a sense of history; see further Pelling (n. 2), 72–4. This does not exclude the possibility that the real Germanicus openly evinced an interest in the past (see Goodyear [n. 4], 374 on P.Oxy. 2345 line 19), but it is unlikely to have been as artless and unscripted as Tacitus suggests.

¹⁰ It seems likely that Tacitus took his information about the trip from the positive biographical tradition about Germanicus which presumably also portrayed him as the innocent victim of Tiberius' animosity and seems to have originated in the years after his death: Hurley, D.W., ‘Gaius Caligula in the Germanicus tradition’, AJPh 110 (1989), 316–38Google Scholar, at 328–30. The only other surviving historiographical reference to his presence in the east is the generalized paragraph at Suet. Cal. 3.2, which suggests that Tacitus must have actively chosen to focus on it in detail. Various scholars have discussed the individual visits made by Germanicus and attempted, generally without complete success, to determine why Tacitus singles them out in this order—see Questa, C., ‘Il viaggio di Germanico in Oriente e Tacito’, Maia 9 (1957), 291–321 Google Scholar; Koestermann, E., ‘Die Mission des Germanicus im Orient’, Historia 7 (1958), 331–75Google Scholar; Gissel, J.A.P., ‘Germanicus as an Alexander figure’, C&M 52 (2001), 277–301 Google Scholar, at 290–6; and Kelly (n. 4)—but no detailed interest has been shown in 2.54.1.

¹¹ The text is that of Á. Sánchez-Ostiz, Tabula Siarensis: Edición, Traducción y Comentario (Pamplona, 1999); cf. Vell. Pat. 2.129.3, and Weingartner (n. 4), 33–46 on the legal definition of Germanicus' command.

¹² Magie (n. 5), 368–75; V.F. Gajdukevič, Das Bosporanische Reich (Berlin, 1971), 322-3; and R.D. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC (Toronto, 1990), 155–6.

¹³ H. Heinen, ‘Mithradates von Pergamon und Caesars bosporanische Pläne’, in R. Günther and S. Rebenich (edd.), E fontibus haurire: Beiträge zur römischen Geschichte und zu ihren Hilfswissenschaften (Paderborn, 1994), 63–79; S. Saprykin, ‘Thrace and the Bosporus under the early Roman emperors', in D. Braund (ed.), Scythians and Greeks (Exeter, 2006), 167–75, at 168–9; and A. Primo, ‘The client-kingdom of Pontus between philomithridatism and philoromanism’, in T. Kaizer and M. Facella (edd.), Kingdoms and Principalities in the Roman Near East (Stuttgart, 2010), 159–79, at 159–61.

¹⁴ Magie (n. 5), 1340 n. 29; Sullivan (n. 12), 161; and Primo (n. 13), 162–4.

¹⁵ Saprykin (n. 13), 169 sees this as part of an attempt to create a barrier against Parthian incursions, and possibly also a base for future offensive operations against Parthia.

¹⁶ D. Braund, ‘Polemo, Pythodoris and Strabo. Friends of Rome in the Black Sea region’, in A. Coşkun (ed.), Roms auswärtige Freunde in der späten Republik und im frühen Prinzipat (Göttingen, 2005), 253–70, at 254.

¹⁷ See Primo (n. 13), 165, who speculates that the Bosporans' resistance to Polemo was derived from the fact that he had no family connection to Mithridates.

¹⁸ In 12-11 b.c., Vologaeses, leader of the Bessi, revolted and killed the Thracian king Rhescuporis I in battle, before chasing his regent and successor Rhoemetalces as far as the Chersonese (Dio 54.34.5-7); on subsequent events in Thrace see pp. 230–1 below. Saprykin (n. 13), 170 is of the view that Augustus was following a broader geopolitical strategy here.

¹⁹ Primo (n. 13), 166. See also Thonemann, P.J., ‘Polemo, son of Polemo (Dio 59.12.2)’, Epigraphica Anatolica 37 (2004), 144–50Google Scholar, at 146–8, who makes the convincing suggestion that Polemo's marriage to Pythodoris occurred a number of years earlier (though Braund [n. 16], 254 emphasizes the imperfect state of modern knowledge about what was going on in the region at this time). See further pp. 230–1 below for Pythodoris and for Zeno and Antonia Tryphaena, two of the children of this marriage.

²⁰ Coins of Dynamis: Rostovtzeff, M., ‘Queen Dynamis of Bosporus’, JHS 39 (1919), 88–109 Google Scholar, at 101. Statues erected by Dynamis: IosPE II 354, IV 201 and 420, and cf. IosPE II 356, a dedication from the people of Phanagoreia to Dynamis which shows that the town was renamed ‘Agrippeia’ in Agrippa's honour. Statues erected by Pythodoris: Boltunova, A.I., ‘Nadpis’ Pifodoridy iz raskopok Germonassy’, VDI 188 (1989), 86–92 Google Scholar. Coins of Pythodoris: see Waddington (n. 5), at 20 nn. 19–21. Pythodoris also changed the name of Cabeira-Diospolis to Sebaste in honour of Augustus (Strabo 12.3.31). See further Gajdukevič (n. 12), 331, Braund (n. 16), 257–9 and Primo (n. 13), 166–7.

²¹ It is not clear if the Asandrochos named as Aspurgus' father at IosPE II 36 is to be identified with Asander: see Gajdukevič (n. 12), 328–9.

²² Primo (n. 13), 167–9 (Aspurgus' parentage is discussed at 168 n. 88). For the older view, see Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 102–6 (and 105–6 for Dynamis' poorly attested immediate successor) and Gajdukevič (n. 12), 328–30. Both also consider what the link between Aspurgus and the near-homonymous Aspurgiani may have been: if Polemo's death and Aspurgus' accession were indeed close to contemporaneous, this question could be fruitfully revisited, though cf. Braund (n. 16), 261.

²³ Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 107 and Gajdukevič (n. 12), 338, and now Makarov, I.A., ‘Bospor, Frakija i Chersones Tavričeskij v pervoj četverti I v. n.e’, VDI 263 (2007 ), 62–9Google Scholar. On Thracian connections with Bosporus, see further p. 231 below.

²⁴ Gajdukevič (n. 12), 337 and Saprykin (n. 13), 171.

²⁵ D. MacDonald, An Introduction to the History and Coinage of the Kingdom of the Bosporus (Lancaster, PA and London, 2005), 54.

²⁶ A recently discovered undated inscription from Phanagoreia also includes this appellation: see Kuznetsov, V.D., ‘Novye nadpisi iz Fanagorii’, VDI 255 (2006), 155–72Google Scholar, at 156–61 and H. Heinen, ‘Romfreunde und Kaiserpriester am Kimmerischen Bosporua. Zu neuen Inschriften aus Phanagoreia’, in A. Coşkun (ed.), Freundschaft und Gefolgschaft in den auswärtigen Beziehungen der Römer (Frankfurt, 2008), 189–208, at 191–3.

²⁷ Heinen (n. 26), 193–8.

²⁸ Heinen, H., ‘Zwei Briefe des bosporanischen Königs Aspurgos (AE 1994, 1538) Übersehene Berichtigungsvorschläge Günther Klaffenbachs und weitere Beobachtungen’, ZPE 124 (1999), 133–42Google Scholar, esp. 136–9; cf. Millar, F., ‘Emperors, kings and subjects: the politics of two-level sovereignty’, SCI 15 (1996), 159–73Google Scholar.

²⁹ Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 106 and Gajdukevič (n. 12), 338–9; cf. D. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King (London, 1984), 41 and Heinen (n. 26), 200–1.

³⁰ Heinen (n. 26), 200: AE 1994, 1538 and CIRB 985 post-date the visit but refer to Aspurgus merely as φιλορώμαιος.

³¹ See n. 5 above for IGR iii 94, although Goodyear (n. 4), 356 is unwilling to conclude that Germanicus actually went that far.

³² Speidel, M.P. and French, D.H., ‘Bithynian troops in the kingdom of the Bosporus’, Epigraphica Anatolica 6 (1985), 97–102 Google Scholar, at 100. It has also been speculated that Roman ships were stationed in the port, if nothing else to guard the Pontic coast from pirates (cf. Strabo 11.2.12): see D. Kienast, Untersuchungen zu den Kriegsflotten der römischen Kaiserzeit (Bonn, 1966), 106–7, and cf. D.B. Saddington, ‘Classes. The evolution of the Roman imperial fleets’, in P. Erdkamp (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Army (Oxford and Malden, 2007), 201–17, at 215 and ILS 2824. Cf. too the importance of the southern Pontic coast later in the first century as a conduit for supplies conveyed to Roman armies in the east, Cappadocia and Syria: see Rostovtzeff, M., ‘Pontus, Bithynia and the Bosporus’, ABSA 22 (1916–18), 1–22 Google Scholar, at 13–14.

³³ The possibility that Germanicus also intervened more directly in a difficult situation in Thrace itself will be considered at p. 231 below, but it is worth noting now that IByz 324 confirms that Byzantium was at one point subject to the Thracian king Rhoemetalces I, who died shortly before a.d. 14 (2.64.3): see A. Lajtar (ed.), Die Inschriften von Byzantion (Bonn, 2001), 229. Byzantine drachmas of c.6-9–12 b.c. with the heads of Augustus and Rhoemetalces also point to this and seem to reflect Roman imperial interest in the region (E. Schönert-Geiss [ed.], Die Münzprägung von Byzantion [Berlin, 1972], 2.1302-5). There is evidence, however, that Byzantium was a free city at subsequent points in the first century (12.62-3, Plin. NH 4.46), although Vespasian reduced it to provincial status (Suet. Vesp. 8.4), and later it was part of Bithynia: see A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 625. Thom Russell has tentatively suggested to me that on the occasion of his visit Germanicus could have granted these ‘Thracian cities’ the status of ciuitates liberae.

³⁴ In any case Moesia did not become a province in its own right, separate from Thrace and Macedonia, until 46 a.d.: J.J. Wilkes, ‘The Danubian and Balkan provinces’, in CAH 10².545–85, at 567.

³⁵ See n. 5 above.

³⁶ Harris, B.F., ‘Bithynia: Roman sovereignty and the survival of Hellenism’, ANRW 2.7.2 (1980), 857–901 Google Scholar, at 876–7.

³⁷ See Robert, L., ‘La titulature de Nicée et de Nicomedie: la gloire et la haine’, HSPh 81 (1977), 1–39 Google Scholar and C.P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, MA, 1978), 83–103 ; cf. J.M. Madsen, Eager to Be Roman (London, 2009), 53–7. Goodyear (n. 4), 356–7 on Ann. 2.54.1 discusses whether Tacitus means that local or Roman magistrates had been misbehaving; he suggests the latter, which might fit the earlier reference at 1.74. See also P.A. Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford, 1990), 56–95, esp. 79–80.

³⁸ Rogers, R.S., ‘Quinti Veranii, pater et filius’, CPh 26 (1931), 172–7Google Scholar, at 173–4.

³⁹ See n. 19 for Pythodoris’ earlier Roman connections. Braund (n. 16), 256–9 surveys the evidence for her reign and its length.

⁴⁰ An inscription from Cyzicus (IGRom IV 145; see Braund [n. 16], 259 n. 28) commemorates the links between the emperor Caligula—Germanicus' son—and Antonia Tryphaena, Polemo and Pythodoris' daughter. Was this connection strengthened by a meeting between Germanicus and Pythodoris?

⁴¹ Tacitus is silent about the journey of at least 2000 km undertaken by Germanicus between his last recorded stop on the coast, Colophon (2.54.3), and Artaxata (2.56.2-3). It is likely that for at least part of the way he took the Koine Hodos (Strabo 14.2.29); cf. Levick, B., ‘Pliny in Bithynia – and what followed’, G&R 26 (1979), 119–31Google Scholar, at 127–8, and n. 5 above for other evidence for his route.

⁴² See further Sullivan, R.D., ‘Thrace in the eastern dynastic network’, ANRW 2.7.1 (1979), 186–211 Google Scholar, at 200–4.

⁴³ See PIR ² A 900.

⁴⁴ AE 1998, 1333 provides further evidence of contact between Rhescuporis and Rome at this time.

⁴⁵ SEG LVII 701, a dedication from Chersonesos in Tauris on behalf of Cotys VIII, is probably connected to the marriage of Aspurgus and Gepaepyris: Makarov (n. 23). See also Rostovtzeff (n. 20), 107–8.

⁴⁶ See e.g. 2.26.2-4 and 2.64.2. Cf. too n. 33 above: if Perinthus and Byzantium were converted into free cities, could the decision to do so have been linked to the situation in Thrace?

⁴⁷ Cf. nn. 5 and 9 above.

⁴⁸ P.S. Swan, The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio's Roman History, Books 55-56 (9 BC – AD 14) (Oxford, 2004), 116 discusses evidence for the dating of his departure.

⁴⁹ G.W. Bowersock, ‘Augustus and the East: the problem of the succession’, in F. Millar and E. Segal (edd.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984), 169–88, at 170 and R. Syme, ‘The crisis of 2 b.c.’, in A.R. Birley (ed.), Roman Papers III (Oxford, 1984) [originally published 1974], 912–36, at 913–14.

⁵⁰ Bowersock (n. 49), 176–82 for full discussion and references; cf. Halfmann (n. 5), 168 and Koestermann (n. 10), 333–4.

⁵¹ Bowersock (n. 49), 171–3; Syme (n. 49), 921–3; and Rich, J.W., ‘Augustus's Parthian honours, the temple of Mars Ultor, and the arch in the Forum Romanum’, PBSR 66 (1998), 71–128 Google Scholar, at 79–97 on the temple's dedication and Ov. Ars am. 1.171-82.

⁵² See in general Suet. Div. Aug. 64.1 and Vell. Pat. 2.101.1 and, for full discussion and references, Romer, F.E., ‘A numismatic date for the departure of C. Caesar?’, TAPhA 108 (1978), 187–202 Google Scholar, at 201–2, id., ‘Gaius Caesar's military diplomacy in the east’, TAPhA 109 (1979), 199–214 Google Scholar, at 203–5, Bowersock (n. 49), 172–4 and Halfmann (n. 5), 166–7. See also Vell. Pat. 2.101.3 on the author's own travels (Achaia Asiaque et omnibus ad Orientem uisis prouinciis et ore atque utroque maris Pontici latere (‘after seeing Achaea and Asia and all the provinces towards the east, and the mouth of the Black Sea and both its shores’), mentioned shortly after the meeting between Gaius and Phrataces. A.J. Woodman, Velleius Paterculus: The Tiberian Narrative (2.94-131) (Cambridge, 1977), 127 is not convinced that Gaius was present with Velleius at these places, but if Gaius did reach the Black Sea, this would create a further parallel between him and Germanicus.

⁵³ Not certain: see Romer (n. 52 [1978]), 201 n. 34.

⁵⁴ IG ii² 3250 with Romer (n. 52 [1978]), 201–2 n. 35 and Bowersock (n. 49), 173–4, who also notes the honours paid to Gaius and Augustus at Messene: SEG xxiii 206 and 207.

⁵⁵ Dio 55.10.17. Swan (n. 48), 112 argues that Dio presents Gaius' Danube frontier tour as preliminary to his eastern expedition rather than a part of it, but Velleius' phrasing (C. Caesar ante aliis prouinciis ad uisendum obitis in Syriam missus [‘Gaius Caesar, after previously going round other provinces to visit them, [was] sent to Syria’], 2.101.1) surely suggests the two phases of his travels were connected, and it hardly seems likely that his halts in Greece and Asia Minor were not made on the way to the east.

⁵⁶ IGR iv 205; see Romer (n. 52 [1979]), 203 n. 14.

⁵⁷ IGR iv 248; see Romer (n. 52 [1978]), 202 n. 37 and id. (n. 52 [1979]), 203 n. 14.

⁵⁸ Suetonius (Tib. 14.4) says Gaius met Tiberius on Samos, Dio (55.10.19) on Chios.

⁵⁹ Romer (n. 52 [1979]), 200–2 and Swan (n. 48), 113–15.

⁶⁰ Swan (n. 48), 117–18.

⁶¹ For additional discussion and references, see J.B. Campbell, ‘War and diplomacy: Rome and Parthia, 31 b.c. – a.d. 235’, in J.W. Rich and G. Shipley (edd.), War and Society in the Roman World (London and New York, 1993), 213–40, at 222–5 and Swan (n. 48), 125–34.

⁶² For an overview of events in Parthia and Armenia, and of Roman involvement in both kingdoms, in the years prior to a.d. 18, see 2.1-4 with Goodyear (n. 4), 187–98. Apart from a brief usurpation in 35 Artabanus retained his throne until 38 (6.31-7, 41.2-44): see Olbrycht, M.J., ‘The political-military strategy of Artabanos/Ardawān II in a.d. 34–37’, Anabasis 3 (2012), 215–37Google Scholar. I am grateful to the anonymous referee for this reference.

⁶³ Germanicus seems to have made a good impression. Zeno enjoyed a long reign in Armenia (see p. 230 above, and 6.31.1 for his death in 35) and Tacitus also asserts at 6.31.1 that Artabanus had initially been metu Germanici fidus Romanis (‘loyal to the Romans through fear of Germanicus’) and a just ruler, before he changed for the worse. While this may simply serve to explain why there was no further trouble in Parthia in that period, it is tempting to see this somewhat unlikely claim about Germanicus’ posthumous influence as a sly echo of Tiberius, who is said to have moderated his own behaviour during the lifetime of Germanicus (and his own son Drusus) (6.51.3; cf. 4.1.1).

⁶⁴ 1.3.5 and Suet. Tib. 15.3 report Germanicus' adoption by Tiberius in a.d. 4.

⁶⁵ Cf. how Dio at 55.10.7 presents Gaius' visit to the Danube troops as part of his apprenticeship as a ruler.

⁶⁶ Such journeys became an imperial habit that lasted for several centuries, as emperors sought to indulge their own interests, engage in diplomacy, and ensure support for their regimes: in general, Halfmann (n. 5). The kind of route taken by Gaius and Germanicus also became popular with tourists: Casson (n. 3), 253–61.

⁶⁷ There is not the space to discuss these in detail here, but see Halfmann (n. 5), 21–9, 156–7 for references.

⁶⁸ Bowersock (n. 49), 173.

⁶⁹ Indeed, his journey echoes a similar voyage undertaken by Antony in the aftermath of Philippi: Plut. Ant. 23–4.

⁷⁰ For references, see n. 6 above.

⁷¹ Cf. again n. 6, and p. 223 above for the papyrological evidence for the visit to Alexandria.

⁷² As indeed it was not: both Caligula (Suet. Cal. 23.1) and particularly Claudius (Suet. Div. Claud. 11.3) made honourable mention of their ancestor. Cf. Tac. Ann. 3.18.1 and D.W. Hurley, Suetonius Divus Claudius (Cambridge, 2001), 105.

⁷³ The disapproval of Piso (whom Tiberius sent to govern Syria in full knowledge of his antipathy towards Germanicus: 2.43.2-4) in Athens is telling.

⁷⁴ Cf. p. 222 above and p. 238 below.

⁷⁵ Pelling (n. 2), 69.

⁷⁶ Within the extant Annals, Bosporus recurs only at 12.15-21, where Tacitus (following on from a lost passage) describes in detail the efforts of its King Mithridates to regain his throne from his brother Cotys, and his journey to Rome to request help, where he is said to have spoken ferocius quam pro fortuna (‘more fiercely than suited his fortunes’) (15.21.1). It is possible that more information was available about this episode than about Germanicus' trip and that the narrative reflects this, but to suggest that the role of the compellingly defiant Mithridates and the resonance of a narrative of fraternal strife for Rome particularly appealed to him may be nearer the mark: cf. Keitel, E., ‘The role of Parthia and Armenia in Tacitus Annals 11 and 12’, AJPh 99 (1978), 462–73Google Scholar and n. 80 below.

⁷⁷ See nn. 3 and 4 above.

⁷⁸ Cf. Braund (n. 16), 253–4 and Heinen (n. 26), 192.

⁷⁹ T.J. Cornell, ‘The end of Roman imperial expansion’, in J.W. Rich and G. Shipley (edd.), War and Society in the Roman World (London and New York, 1993), 139–70, at 152–3, who also points out that official accounts may, for example, have downplayed campaigns in which an emperor was not personally involved.

⁸⁰ Within the extant account of Tiberius' reign these are found at 1.50-71, 2.6.2-26 (Germanicus' German campaigns); 2.1-4, 6.31-7, 6.41-4 (events in and around Parthia and Armenia); 2.52, 3.20-1, 3.73-4, 4.23-6 (fighting against Tacfarinas in north Africa); 2.64.2-67, 3.38.3-39, 4.46-51 (events in Thrace, including two revolts against Rome); 3.40-7 (the Gallic revolt); 4.72-3 (the Frisian revolt). Traditionally such passages, in the Annals and Tacitus' other works, were seen as mere distractions from the Roman narrative, but in recent years more thoughtful approaches have been adopted, and the notion that foreigners' experience of Roman imperialism is analogous to Romans' experience of the Principate is particularly insightful: see e.g. Roberts, M., ‘The revolt of Boudicca (Tacitus, Annals 14.29-39) and the assertion of libertas in Neronian Rome’, AJPh 109 (1988), 118–32Google Scholar; Clarke, K., ‘An island nation: re-reading Tacitus' Agricola ’, JRS 91 (2001), 94–112 Google Scholar; and M. Lavan, Slaves to Rome (Cambridge, 2013), 124–55.

⁸¹ A.J. Woodman and R. Martin, The Annals of Tacitus Book 3 (Cambridge, 1996), 321–2.

⁸² An interesting comparandum is offered by Strabo's Geography. Even though its author was born in Pontus and had links to Pythodoris, he refers to her (without mentioning the personal relationship) on two separate occasions, in the context of her position as widow first of Polemo and then of Archelaus (11.2.18, 12.3.29), with very minimal cross-referencing: the region-by-region structure of his work wins out, even though the two passages overlap somewhat in their geographical subject-matter. See Braund (n. 16), esp. 256–7.

⁸³ See again Halfmann (n. 5).

⁸⁴ Cf. the remarks of A.J. Woodman, ‘Self-imitation and history’, in id. (ed.), Tacitus Reviewed (Oxford, 1998), 70–85, at 80–5 on Tacitus' elaboration of episodes for which he would have had very little source material on the basis of what was likely to have happened.

⁸⁵ See Pelling (n. 2), 78–81, as well as A. Malissard, ‘Germanicus, Alexandre et le début des Annales de Tacite. A propos de Tacite, Annales, 2, 73’, in J.M. Croisille (ed.), Neronia IV. Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos (Brussels, 1990), 328–38, at 333–8. Tacitus' Germanicus is not an unsympathetic figure, but the historian makes it difficult to judge him in a wholly positive manner. In addition to the periodic emphasis on Germanicus' lack of self-control (see n. 8 above), Tiberius' justification at 2.26.2-4 for leaving the Germans to fight amongst themselves, in response to Germanicus' eager desire to continue campaigning, is borne out by subsequent events (as 2.44.2 shows; cf. Pelling [n. 2], 76). Moreover, Tacitus does not endorse the high praise and in particular the comparison with Alexander the Great of which Germanicus was reportedly the subject after his death (2.72.2-2.73.3: see Gissel [n. 10], 286), and the terms of this are contradicted by details in the narrative (Goodyear [n. 4], 415–16).