EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

XXV
2015
 ROMANIAN ACADEMY
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ART CLUJ‑NAPOCA

EDITORIAL BOARD
Editor: Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu
Members: Sorin Cociş, Vlad‑Andrei Lăzărescu, Ioan Stanciu

ADVISORY BOARD
Alexandru Avram (Le Mans, France); Mihai Bărbulescu (Rome, Italy); Alexander Bursche (Warsaw,
Poland); Falko Daim (Mainz, Germany); Andreas Lippert (Vienna, Austria); Bernd Päffgen (Munich,
Germany); Marius Porumb (Cluj‑Napoca, Romania); Alexander Rubel (Iași, Romania); Peter Scherrer
(Graz, Austria); Alexandru Vulpe (Bucharest, Romania).

Responsible of the volume: Coriolan Horaţiu Opreanu

În ţară revista se poate procura prin poştă, pe bază de abonament la: EDITURA ACADEMIEI
ROMÂNE, Calea 13 Septembrie nr.  13, sector 5, P. O. Box 5–42, Bucureşti, România, RO–76117,
Tel.  021–411.90.08, 021–410.32.00; fax. 021–410.39.83; RODIPET SA, Piaţa Presei Libere nr.  1,
Sector 1, P.  O.  Box 33–57, Fax 021–222.64.07. Tel. 021–618.51.03, 021–222.41.26, Bucureşti,
România; ORION PRESS IMPEX 2000, P. O. Box 77–19, Bucureşti 3 – România, Tel. 021–301.87.86,
021–335.02.96.

EPHEMERIS NAPOCENSIS

Any correspondence will be sent to the editor:

INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEI
Str. M. Kogălniceanu nr. 12–14, 400084 Cluj‑Napoca, RO
e‑mail: choprean@yahoo.com

All responsability for the content, interpretations and opinions

expressed in the volume belongs exclusively to the authors.

DTP şi tipar: MEGA PRINT

Coperta: Roxana Sfârlea

© 2015 EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, Sector 5, Bucureşti 76117
Telefon 021–410.38.46; 021–410.32.00/2107, 2119
 ACADEMIA ROMÂNĂ
INSTITUTUL DE ARHEOLOGIE ŞI ISTORIA ARTEI

EPHEMERIS
NAPOCENSIS
XXV
2015

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMÂNE

 SUMAR – SOMMAIRE – CONTENTS – INHALT

STUDIES
SABIN ADRIAN LUCA, FLORENTINA MĂRCUȚI, VASILE PALAGHIE
Prehistoric Signs and Symbols in Transylvania (2). “The Sacred Pair” and “The Bird
of the Soul”. The Neolithic and Aeneolithic Settlement from Tărtăria-Gura Luncii
(Alba County)  7

MAGDALENA ȘTEFAN, DAN ȘTEFAN, DAN BUZEA

From Sites to Landscapes in Late Second Iron Age Eastern Transylvania. New Perspectives
on the Fortified Sites from Jigodin  21

TOMÁS VEGA AVELAIRA

Aquae Querquennae (Porto Quintela, Ourense. España): un campamento romano en
el NW de Hispania  43

FELIX TEICHNER
Ulpiana – Iustiniana secunda (Kosovo): Das urbane Zentrum des dardanischen
Bergbaubezirks  81

MAREK OLĘDZKI
Marcomanni and Quadi in the System of Client “States” of the Roman Empire 
95

ROXANA GRINDEAN, VLAD-ANDREI LĂZĂRESCU, ANDREI-COSMIN DIACONU,

CORIOLAN HORAȚIU OPREANU, SORINA FĂRCAȘ, IOAN TANȚĂU
The Usefulness of Interdisciplinary Studies: Palaeoecological and Archaeological
Aspects from NW Romania  105

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES

ROMEO CÎRJAN
La nomination des candidats aux magistratures et les sacerdoces municipaux selon
Lex Troesmensium, ch. XXVII 135

EUGENIA BEU-DACHIN, CRISTIAN-AUREL ROMAN, LUCA-PAUL PUPEZĂ

Aurelius Annianus, Procurator in Napoca  147

JUAN JOSÉ PALAO VICENTE

Reburrus Tapori, un centurión auxiliar olvidado 
167

VLADIMIR P. PETROVIĆ
Les bornes milliaires de la Mésie Supérieure : contribution à l'ancienneté des voies et a
l'interprétation des itinéraires romaines  177
ALEXANDRU AVRAM
Un tribun de la Legio XIII Gemina dans une inscription tomitaine presque oubliée 
185

MARIANA PROCIUC, VLAD-ANDREI LĂZĂRESCU

Archaeozoological Data from Suceag Settlement 
189

DÉNES HULLÁM
People under the Dam. Migration Period Sites from the Bakonszeg Section of the
Berettyó River  203

MÁRTA DARÓCZI-SZABÓ
THe Assessment of the Archaeozoological Material of the Migration Period Sites from
Bakonszeg  229

KINGA HORVÁTH, TAMÁS HAJDU

THe Anthropological Material of the Avar Period Grave from Bakonszeg-Kórógy 
233

FERENC GYULAI
Analisys of the Food Remains from the Avarian Age Pot of Bakonszeg-Kórógy 
235

REVIEWS
Marko Dizdar, Zvonimirovo-Veliko polje. Groblje latenske culture 1 – A Cemetery of the La Tène
Culture 1 (Monographiae Instituti Archaeologici 8), Zagreb 2013, 552 p.  239

Matteo Taufer (ed.), Sguardi interdisciplinari sulla religiosità dei Geto-Daci (Rombach
Wissenschaften – Reihe Paradeigmata, Band 23), Rombach Verlag (Freiburg i. Br. / Berlin / Wien
2013), 250 p. 243

Daniela Leggio, Riti e culti ad Akrai. Interpretazione del complesso sacro. Scavi 2005 – 2006,
Siracusa, 2013. XII+73 pp., ISBN: 978-88-909032-0-5 247

Petar Selem, Inga Vilogorac Brčić, ROMIC I. Religionum Orientalum monumenta et inscriptiones
ex Croatia I, Znakovi I Riječi Signa et Litterae vol. V. (Zagreb, 2015), 183 p. 251
 MARCOMANNI AND QUADI IN THE SYSTEM OF CLIENT
“STATES” OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

Marek Olędzki

Abstract: The system of creating client states on Roman borders initially was meant to serve the development
of the Roman states and romanisation of the neighbouring tribes. But in the case of the territories to the east
of Rhene and to the north of Danube it became solely a system protecting the borders and the integrity of
provinces.
The article presents the example of two tribes with cliental status in relation to Rome. They are:
Marcomanni and Quadi. There is presented an outline of their history and particular figures of cliental states
(reges), for instance Vannius, Vangion, Sidon, Italicus, Ballomarius, Furtius and Aistomodius.
The analysed system of cliental states functioned well during the first 150 years of its existence, it began to
show weakness in the period of Marcomannic wars, and during the so called Great Crisis of the 3rd century it
eroded completely. Its main causes were, on the one hand, the lack of effective influence on the border peoples,
on the other hand, weak resistance of the latter with reference to the barbarians living beyond them or “above
them” (superiors barbarii). The latter invaded without hindrance the territories of cliental states and reached
Roman provinces pillaging them and ransacking.
Keywords: the system of client “states”, Marcomanni and Quadi, Roman Empire, the German Kings

Pax Romana regarded to be a phenomenon in the history of Europe and the Mediterranean
region was, like the present global pax Americana, far from being complete and, in the light of
extremely critical evaluation, merely nominal. In the case of the Roman Empire, it was disturbed
most often by raids of the so called barbarian tribes (barbarii) usually motivated by the prospect
of pillage. Moreover, it was disturbed not least by civil wars caused by the election of a successive
ruler as well as usurpations which took place equally often. The reasons last mentioned were due
directly to the fact of the incomplete regulation of the succession to the throne which usually
resulted in the lack of the full legitimization of power1. The reasons signaled in the first place,
that is the barbarian raids had, as already mentioned, another etiological basis. Apart from the
prospect of pillage, it was immigration into the territory of the Empire that came into play with
best negotiated conditions as a matter of course. The picture emerging from sources contem-
porary with events discussed here creates an impression of extraordinary aggression and savagery
of the barbarian tribes. The picture is, to a certain degree, misleading, being an implication of
a definite level of development of these societies, or, in this case, the outcome of their tribal
state-formation. It was characterized by relatively loose connection of the tribe with the territory
it possessed and, due to this feature, its particular mobility and tendency to confrontation. In
1
In connection with the fact that law foundations of the power acquired by emperors were weakly grounded,
they usually aspired to establish esteem and charismatic recognition by their subjects. This aim was pursued by
numerous propaganda and populistic activities, while the most important way was proving oneself to achieve
military successes.
Ephemeris Napocensis, XXV, 2015, p. 95–104
96 Marek Olędzki

one way or another, the Roman state had to come to grips with the problem of the frequent
violation of its borders, which fact had repercussions not only of military, social, economic etc.
nature, but, above all, it undermined its authority. One of the attempts of solving that problem
consisted in employing the system of client “states”2 characteristic of the period of principate3.
However, its presupposition was not limited to defensive function only, but it should, first of all,
serve the growth of the Roman Empire. The initial stage of that plan should consist in its control
function and creating economic ties with the state-client; its further stages should concentrate
on incorporation connected with romanisation. The positive examples of realization of such a
scenario have already taken place: there may be indicated Cappadocia and Gallatia here.4 But
as regards the territories behind the Rhein and the Danube, mainly inhabited by Germans, it
failed. In their case, creating the system which assured protection of borders and provinces,
that is the function which was to guarantee security, had to be, of necessity, sufficient. Marc
Antonius5, who is regarded to be the creator of the system itself, but it was developed and
propagated by Octavian Augustus, the proper creator of the principate. As with many other
questions, he used the pattern inscribed in the Roman social model which had been practiced
earlier, namely – the generally occurring phenomenon of patronage. Ever since the earliest
times, it specified relations between the wealthy leaders of patrician families called patroni and
the freedmen dependent on them and pauperized plebeians – clientes. It was a system with
double meaning, on the one hand based on mutual trust and friendship, and on the other hand
on obedience and submitting clientes to patroni. If we were to present it according to a scheme,
it would go as follows: patronus ↔ fides/amicitia ↔ cliens and cliens → obsequium →
patronus. Thus its foundations rested on trust, friendship and obedience of clients, who, in
turn, acquired an assurance of stability, and especially material help. Consequently, this model
was politicized and transferred to the realm of international relations. According to J. Close,
the system of client “states” had, first of all, military-political meaning6 and, in fact, sources
provide numerous proofs of that; for instance Marcomanian king Ballomarius, known from
the period of bellum suspensum preceding the outbreak of Marcomannic wars, spared no pains
in order to prevent those wars. And the fact that they did take place did not depend on him
anymore. There are also known cases of local cliental rulers’ participation in home conflicts
of the Empire: such emperors as Vespasianus or Septimius Severus, for example, owned their
enthronement in a considerable degree to the help of Marcomannian or Quadian kings. That,
from the point of view of the interests of the Roman state, constituted a questionable value.
Rome made a pact foedus iniquum, recognizing his superior authority, with a client “state”, by
I have put the term “state” in between quotation marks because it denotes a tribal formation, in many respects
2

unstable and impermanent, although constituting some kind of a substitute for a state, or some kind of a substitute
for a state, or some kind of its beginnings like yeast leaven starting growth. In my view, the definition of “state”
proposed by Georg JELLINEK, based on three elements: 1) territory, 2) its inhabitants and 3) sovereign power, is
too general and insufficient. I am convinced that the sine qua non condition of the existence of the state consists
in achieving by society the level of civilization with the majority of attributes constituting it. Cf. G. JELLINEK,
Allgemeine Staatslehre, Berlin 1900, The discussion of the topic of civilization. See also: A. PISKOZUB, “Cywilizacje
w czasie i przestrzeni” (“Civilisations in time and space”), Gdańsk, 1998 passim – there is also a reference literature
to be found there.
3
See also; on the problematics of cliental states: J. KLOSE, Roms Klientel – Randstaaten am Rhein and
Donau, Breslau 1934; D.C. BRAUND, Rome and the Friendly Kings: The Character of the Client Kingship,
London 1984; L. F. PITTS, Relations between Rome and the German “Kings” on the middle Danube in the First
to Fourth Centuries A.D., Journal of Roman Studies 79, p. 45 – 58; M.T. SCHMITT, Die römische Aussenpolitik
des 2. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. Friedenssicherung oder expansion?, Stuttgart 1997.
4
With the proviso that romanisation through hellenisation did take place.
5
M. JACZYNOWSKA, Historia starożytnego Rzymu (The history of the ancient Rome), Warsaw 1974,
p. 229.
6
J. KLOSE, op. cit., p. 3.
 Marcomanni and Quadi in the system of client “states” of the Roman Empire 97

which means he could claim military help (auxilium), when such a need arose. In return the
rulers of the clientele received monetary gratification – stipendia and, together with their people,
they had the advantage of ius commercii i.e. freedom of trade possessing Roman legal security.
Moreover, some of these reges (and maybe all of them), were endowed with Roman citizenship
usually acquired through ceasar’s adoption. That procedure was best exemplified by the figure
of king Aistomodius with a full name Septimius Aistomodius7, whose gentilicium “Septimius”
reveals the fact that he was adopted by Septimius Severus. Apart from that, one more trait of
Roman policy is worth mentioning here. It is, namely, the fact that Romans rarely interfered
with quarrels and conflicts which took place within the client “states”. Leaders who were losers
deprived of power did not gain Roman military support as a rule, but asylum on the Roman
territory was offered to them without hindrance. And that was what, for instance, Marbod,
Catvalda, Vannius and Aistomodius mentioned earlier, experienced.
Now that the introduction has come to an end, I shall attempt to present briefly in the
following part of the paper the over two hundred years long history of clientelism of Marcomanni
and Quadi, i.e. two twin Suebian tribes. It should begin at the time of their arrival in Bohemian,
Moravian and Slovakian territories (partially also Austrian) that is where their history was to
develop for over four centuries8. Where the two tribes came from remains an unresolved, polemic
question. Earlier authors were convinced that it was from the Maine9 riverside area while today
it is the middle and lower Elbian10 territories that are taken into consideration. However, this
divergence of opinions is not vitally important from the viewpoint of the discourse of the present
paper; what does matter much more is that both tribes were introduced by Marbod, whose
figure is outlined by historiography best of all Svebian kings. It took place most probably soon
after the year 8 B.C., that is when (after the victorious German campaign) Tiberius made peace
with Suebians and he, in the name of ceasar, created Marbod their ruler.11 In his youth, Marbod
was kept as a hostage in Rome, where he acquired thorough education and gained favour and
protection of Augustus12 himself. It is fairly obvious that there had been made plans to make
him an obedient cliental ruler loyal to the empire. Soon, however, it became evident that he
abandoned his protectors and began creating an independent and strong state. That enterprise
was inspired by Roman patterns, which he skillfully and creatively used.13 Acting in this way he
created a strong and well trained army (putatively numbering 74 thousands), owing to which he
imposed his rule on the peoples in vicinity, among other Semnones, Longobards and Lugians14
7
A. BETZ, Septimius Aistomodius Rex Germanorum, “Archeol. Vestnik 19”, (1968), p. 13 – 17.
8
The archeological data indicate that Marcomanian – Quadian settlement took position of Bohemian
Lowland, Southern Moravia, South-Western Slovakia and the northern part (beyond the Danube) of the territory
of the present Austria. It is assumed that the borderline between the Marcomanni and the Quadi went along the
river Morava or, which is most probable, along the chain of the Small Carpathians. Naturally, it is blurred and to
considerable degree conventional, for instance in the material culture of both the tribes no tangible differences can
be seen. Generally, their situation is an outcome of relations at hand, both with Rome and other barbarian peoples,
among other Hermunduri (in the west), Lugii and Cotini (in the north) or Sarmatians-Jazygi (from the east). The
above considerations, and the fact that both these tribes usually appeared together on the political arena and were
ruled quite often by one and the same ruler, jointly justify the use of the term “twin tribes”.
9
J. KLOSE, op. cit., p. 67; P. KEHNE, Marcomannis, [in:] “Reallexicon der Germanishen Altertunskunde
19”, Berlin – New York 2001, p. 321 – 324.
10
V. SALAČ, 2000 Jahre seit dem römischen Feldzug gegen Marbod und methodische Probleme der
Erforschung der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen und Mitteleuropa, [in:] Mitteleuropa zur Zeit Marbodus,
Praha-Bonn 2009, p. 113 – 120.
11
TAC. ann. II, 26,3.
12
STRAB.  Geogr. VII, 1,3 – 4; Vell.  II, 108 – 109.
13
Ibidem.
14
STRAB. VII, 1,3; Tac. ann. II, 45 – 46; as for Lugii, lugiorum nomen, they are indetified with Przeworsk
culture or at least part of it.
98 Marek Olędzki

then inhabiting the present territory of Poland. Demonstrated independence from the Empire
and the fact of accepting various kinds of fugitives and renegates in the Marcomannian-Quadian
territory caused the Roman reaction and retaliatory military action against Marbod.15 In the 6th
year A.D. two armies of the total power of 12 legions (one from the south, the other from
the west) marched against him. Their task was to flank Marbod’s refugium in the Bohemian
Lowland. But then Fortuna smiled at the German emperor, or, maybe, his diplomatic endeavors
bore fruit because just at that time there broke out in the Roman hinterland in Pannonia and
Dalmatia, a Roman uprising of the people led by Pines and Baton16 It was very difficult to
suppress it. Attempts to defeat the insurgents continued the whole three years and absorbed
the attention of the Romans totally. And when the uprising was finally stifled (the year 9 A.D.)
there came, in turn, the news of the defeat of Varus in Teutoburgian Forest and his loss of
three Roman legions.17 These circumstances jointly contributed to the fact that foedus pacis was
made with Marbod and he was left in peace. Interestingly enough, it was, at the same time,
the moment which marked the beginning of the end of this ruler and his ephemeral “empire”,
because from that time on the authority of Marbod in the Germanic world gradually dimin-
ished in favour of the “liberator” of this world Arminius. Clades Variana made it possible for the
king of Cherusci, radiant in the glory of his victory, to be joined by former allies or subjects of
Marbod: Longobards and Semnones18. The downfall of Marbod was speeded up by the retreat
from Arminius and his troops in the year 17 A.D.19 After a year or somewhat less than two
years he was completely debarred from wielding power by the young Marcomannian aristocrat
Catvalda who stayed with Goths for some time and it was probably with their help that he made
the coup d’état.20 It was Romans who delivered Marbod from inevitable death from the hands
of rebels and made it possible for him to cross the Danube and to reach the provice of Noricum.
Finally, he received an asylum in Ravenna, where he probably, according to Tacitus, lived until
he was very old.21 Soon the same path was followed by Catvalda driven out of his homeland by
the troops of the neighbouring Hermunduri with king Vibilius in the lead. This time, the place
of his asylum was Forum Iulium in the territory of Narbonic Gallia.
The question of whether Marbod should be counted among the clients of Rome or not
has not been resolved and continues to be disputed. For instance, Marbod’s cliental status was
stressed by J. Klose,22 while, according to L. F. Pitts23, Marbod was no client at all. In the similar
manner there recently spoke B. Józefów-Czerwińska concluding that “The alliance of Marbod
made with Rome is similar to the pact based rather on principles of equality (at least in the
domain of official contacts) than subjection and dependence characteristic of later cliental
rulers”24. In my opinion, the matter is more complex. I believe that at the very beginning of the
rule that is immediately after caming to the throne, Marbod did fulfil the function of a Roman

VELL.  II, 109; CASS. DIO 55, 28, 6 – 7.

15

VELL.  II, 110 – 111: II, 114.

16

17
Ibidem, II, 117.
18
TAC. ann. II, 62.
19
Idem, II, 46, 4.
20
Idem, II, 62, 4; for the broader commentary see M. OLĘDZKI, Catualda and the Goths, [in:] Archeologie
barbrů 2006, Česke Budějovice 2007, p. 295 – 300.
21
TAC. ann. II, 62.
22
J. KLOSE, op. cit., p. 70 – 73.
23
L. F. PITTS, op. cit., p. 46.
24
B. JÓZEFÓW – CZERWIŃSKA, Przemiany zachodzące pod wpływem interakcji środkowoeuropejskiego
Barbaricum z Imperium Rzymskim w I wieku naszej ery (The changes taking place as a result of interaction of middle
European Barbaricum with the Roman Empire in the 1st century of our era), [in:] Kultura Przeworska. Odkrycia-
interpretacje-hipotezy (Przeworsk culture. The discoveries-interpretations-hypotheses.), ed. M. OLĘDZKI, vol. 3,
p. 182.
 Marcomanni and Quadi in the system of client “states” of the Roman Empire 99

client. The only guarantors of his rule were then the Romans. When Marbod gained power he
tried to become independent from his protectors and, basically he reached this aim. Another
situation was bred by events of 6 – 9 years of our era, that is when the Romans were forced to
leave Marbod in peace. The new quality of mutual relationships was then described by foedus
and made on “partnership” conditions, in result of which the Marcomannian ruler became,
and from then on continued to be “rex sociusque et amicus”. The above thesis is supported by
an indirect argument in the form of the lack of mutual military aid. Marbod did not give it to
Rome when it fought against Arminius and the Romans did not support Marbod in the final
game played to get the throne. Why was then asylum given to him? The answer to this question
is found in Tacitus, who formulates it in the following words: “So, Maroboduus was kept in
Ravenna and he was shown to the Suebians, threatening them with his return to the throne if
they were to grow insolent”25. Besides, the Romans handled Catvalda in a similar way, although
he was a person of incomparably slighter importance.
It was Vannius then who became a Roman client in the strict meaning of this world, but
the “state” governed by him (Regnum Vannianum) included only the tribe of Quadi, which
was testified by its situation – to the east of the river Morava26 – and by the fact the “state” was
headed by a representative of this very nation, which is firmly stressed by Tacitus 27. The relations
of Rome with the king-client were quite correct, which is testified by, among other things, his
relatively long, thirty years rule (until the year 50). The matter of the internal policy of Vannius,
who at the end of his rule bred reluctance of his subjects and hostility of nearby tribes28, turned
out to be in worse shape. Vannius based his rule mainly on the power of the army who consisted
of the Suebian footmen and the Sarmatian infantry that were recruited from the befriended
tribe of Jazyges. However, this too did not help him to keep power; it was taken away from him
as a result of an all-German plot. The initiator of the plot was Vibilius, the very same king of
Hermunduri – who removed Catvalda, acting together with the Lugii and the anti-Vanniusian
fraction within the Quadi. It was headed by Vangion and Sidon, nota bene, nephews of Vanius
himself.29 Vanius defended himself valiantly, at first besieged in one of his strongholds, later in
a field where he was devotedly supported by the Jazyges (he was even wounded in the battle),
but he could not cope with the overwhelming forces of the enemy. Eventually, he retreated and
submitted himself to the help of the Romans, from whom he received asylum in Pannonia,
whereas Vibilius, with the quiet approval from emperor Claudius led Vangion and Sidon to the
throne, so they took over the duties of Roman kings-clients.
Vangio and Sido, who ruled Quadians also did not cause any trouble for the Romans and,
moreover, were characterized by exemplary obedience30. When Vangio ended his life, which
most probably took place during Nero’s reign, he was replaced in his duties of co-ruler of the
tribe, by Italicus, presumably his son. In the battle of Cremona (the year 69), Sido and Italicus
fought, in defense of Vespasian interests, against Vitelius. Tacitus mentions that the Suebian
infantry commanded by them fought in the first line of the Flavian army and heroically clashed
with the enemy31. What was their further lot remains unknown unfortunately.
During the times of Domitian the cliental system of Suebians ceased to function because
of the wars against the Dacians whose allies were Marcomanni and Quadi. It was much later
that the system was reactivated by emperor Nerva, but from the period of his rule there did
25
TAC. ann. II, 63.
26
PLIN. nat. hist. IV, 80.
27
TAC. ann. II, 63: “…dato rege Vannio gentis Quadorum”.
28
Ibidem, XII, 29.
29
Ibidem, XII, 30.
30
Ibidem.
31
TAC. hist. III, 21.
100 Marek Olędzki

not survive any concrete data concerning the Suebian rulers32. Not much more premises are
provided by sources connected with Hadrian’s rule. We learn from them only that this emperor
“proclaimed the king for the Germans”33, which may suggest that only one Suebian king ruled
over the Marcomanni and the Quadi. Information concerning the times of Antoninus Pius
is only slightly more precise. It is revealed in the shape of inscription on coins emitted by the
senate “REX QUADIS DATUS”34. In this case, there can be no doubt that the king in question
was imposed on the Quadians only35.
The condition of the sources improves in relation to the period of Marcomannic wars,
which were such an important event (or rather the series of events), that it focused the attention
of Greek and Roman historians, and among others, of Cassius Dio. It is to him that we owe the
possibility of getting aquainted with the cliental ruler of Marcomannic Ballomarius36, who, on
the eve of above mentioned wars tried to restrain the inevitable conflict.37 When Longobards
with Obii, supported by other tribes, invaded upper Pannonia (the turn of the year 166/167),
and then were defeated and repelled by Roman troops, he went to M. Iallius Bassus, the governor
of the province which suffered damage with a diplomatic conciliation mission, which led to
concluding peace. Soon, however, i.e. in the year 168 or 169, there followed another attack
of the barbarians on the northern borders of the empire38 in the context of which Ballomarius
was not mentioned anymore by the sources. This acquires a certain degree of significance when
connected with the fact that Marcomanni and the Quadi participated in that attack. Thus we
may presume that Ballomarius was no longer alive then, or – which is less probable – he was
deprived of power. If he had turned with his people against the then protectors, he would have
been, undoubtedly proclaimed traitor in Rome, which Cassius Dio would not have omitted to
write about. This, of course, is only a hypothesis, just like the hypothesis construed by associ-
ating the Marcomannian king with the magnificent tomb discovered in Mušov in Moravia in
198839. It still remains a hypothesis, too. However, it is made more real by the dating of the
burial: at the third quarter of the 2nd century and its equipment containing a large number of
valuable objects, mainly of the Roman provenience. One of grave gifts of considerable value and
undoubtedly of diplomatic character is a bronze kettle specially used by a Suebian prominent
person. It has four round handles, each of which was fixed to a sculptured bust of the German
with a hair style presenting the so called Suebian knot (fig. 1).
From the year 170 on the Marcomannic wars took an exceptionally bloody turn. The
year 170 itself constituted a series of Roman defeats and was rightly called annus horribilis. The
time was ripe for the Roman counteroffensive in the year 171 and in the next year, 172 both
Marcomanni and Quadi were defeated. It was then that Marcus Aurelius appointed the new
king Furtius40 for the latter tribe. Furtius was to be, according to the design of the emperor,

Idem, Germ. 42; CIL V 7425; ILS 2720.

32

H.A., Hadr. 12, 7.

33

34
F. KŘIŘEK, Limitni paralipomena, Daciče 1986, p. 16.
35
It is in more or less at the same time that cliental ruler was imposed on Armenia, too. That event was also
commemorated by the emission of sestertius with the inscription “REX ARMENIIS DATUS” in this case.
36
CASS. DIO 71, 3, 1.
37
M. OLĘDZKI, The causes of the Outburst of Marcomannic wars, [in:] Column of Marcus Aurelius and the
Middle Danube Area Studies, Bratislava 2014, p. 101 – 106.
38
H.A., Aur. 14,11.
39
J. PEŠKA, J. TEJRAL, Das germanische Königsgrab von Mušov in Mähren, “Monographien des Römisch.
Germ. Zentralmuseums Mainz 55/1 – 3”, 2002, p. 512; A. KOKOWSKI, Polska starożytna (Ancient Poland),
Warsaw 2005, p. 241 – 244; M. OLĘDZKI, Czas przemian. Barbaricum między Bałtykiem a środkowym Dunajem
w dobie wojen markomańskich (The time of transformations. Barbaricum between the Baltic Sea and the middle
Danube in the period of Marcomannic wars), Łódź 2008, p. 107.
40
CASS. DIO 71, 13, 4.
 Marcomanni and Quadi in the system of client “states” of the Roman Empire 101

Figure 1. A bronze kettle decorated with images of Suebians whose hairdresses include Suebian knot
(“Nodus”). The find comes from the so-called royal tomb discovered in Mušov in Moravia,
after PESKA/TEJRAL 2002.
102 Marek Olędzki

another client ruler guaranteeing security for the interests of the Empire. Soon, however, he
was ousted by Quadi (we know nothing about further fate of the unfortunate ruler) after they
had chosen anti-Roman Ariagaesus, whose views were anti-Roman, to replace Furtius. It was,
obviously casus belli which ended with the defeat of Ariagaesus and then his deportation to
Egypt41. During the consecutive phases of struggle against Marcomanni and Quadi, which
ended in the year 180, there appeared no names of Suebian kings. The analogical situation
took place also during the reign of Commodus (the years 180 – 192). Its reason was the fact that
after the peace treaty concluded by this ruler (the year 180) Marcomanni and Quadi fell under
direct control by Roman militaries who strictly fulfilled their duties of supervision. The above
description follows from the words of Cassius Dio, who said that at the order of the emperor,
Suebians were allowed to gather only once in a month and only under strict supervision carried
out by a Roman centurion.42
The cliental system fully returned during the rule of the Severians dynasty. It was signaled
by the fact that its creator Septimius Severus chose king Aistomodius for Germans (see above),
which is made known by the commemorative inscription discovered in Carnuntum.43 The grave
with the said inscription was founded for Aistimodius by his brothers, Philip and Heliodor.
Nota bene the sound of both the names constitutes yet another example (see above: Italicus)
of the romanisation of the Suebian aristocracy. The names themselves are, of course, purely
Greek. The inscription contains information that Aistimodius was a German king44 and thus,
most probably, either of Marcomanni or of Quadi, but it is less probable that he ruled over
the former and the latter. The fact that the king died and was buried in Carnuntum means
in practice, that he was one more asylum seeker, earlier removed from power. Another one of
the Severians, Caracalla (incidentally known for his philogermanic sympathies)45 had to face
personally difficult challenges connected with middle Danube territory. In the first year of his
independent rule already there appeared hordes of the Quadi and Sarmatian Jazygi in the terri-
tories of Dacia and both Pannonians. Soon Carpians and Hasdings joined them. The unrest
continued the whole year 213, during which time Marcomanni and Quadi, having broken the
limes near Arrabona, moved towards the Lower Pannonia. The turmoil subsided and settled
down as late as the year 213 when the emperor himself arrived in the territory of the middle
Danube. The actions taken by him had both diplomatic and military character. They resulted
in, among others, setting Hasdings against free Dacians (“Dakrings”) and Vandals-Victovalians
against Marcomanni, in accordance with the often practiced principle divide et impera. At the
same time, Caracalla called the Quadi into order; he pacified them by removing their king
Gaiobomarus46. Gaiobomarus was accused by Caracalla (of what is not mentioned by Cassius
Dio, but we may suspect that unloyalty or treason came into play), and then he was killed on
Caracalla’s order. We do not know whether the emperor established a new ruler for Quadi, but
since he could easily remove the former one, this means that the cliental system still functioned.
It was, however, to be its last stage. Soon, i.e. beginning with the rule of Maximin Trax, there
begins a Major Crisis of the third century which nearly brings about a breakup of the Roman
state. Civil wars and external ones made it impossible for the Empire to lead any rational foreign
policy, and the grappling with barbarians, despite short lived, although often quite spectacular
success, was, as a rule, only of defensive character. The fact that the tribes of Marcomanni and
Quadi effectively evaded Roman tutelage is evidenced by nearly continual fights led against
41
Idem, 71, 13, 5
42
Idem, 72, 2,3 – 4
43
A. BETZ, op.cit., p.13 – 14
44
CIL III 4453.
45
HERODIANUS IV,7,3 – 4.
46
CASS. DIO 78, 20, 3 – 4.
 Marcomanni and Quadi in the system of client “states” of the Roman Empire 103

them. They took place during the rule of Valerianus and his son Gallienus, during the rule of
Probus and of Carinus and later Numerianus.
When the Roman state came out of the crisis and partially regenerated its forces, it did
not return to the model of earlier practiced cliental policy. There were several reasons why this
happened; two of them were of greatest importance. First of all, on the Roman side, there disap-
peared possibility of imposing Romans’ conditions on neighbouring tribes and barbarian peoples.
Social, economic and military potential of the Empire began to show constant tendency to head
for a downfall and collapse. At least, such was the situation of western part of the state. As for the
other cardinal cause of erosion of the cliental system, it is connected with external conditions.
From the 3rd century A.D. on, it was not particular barbarian tribes that constituted the greatest
threat for the Empire, but powerful tribal alliances, which formed near the borders, e.g. the feder-
ation of Francs, Alamanni or Goths. Besides, the symptoms of the crisis in cliental state could be
observed earlier, i.e. in the 2nd part of the 2nd century, vide Marcomannic wars. In turned out then
that cliental “states” could not withstand the pressure of the tribes living “above them”, i.e. the so
called “superiores barbarii”47, who, had no serious problems with forcing their ways into the terri-
tories of cliental “states” and reaching Roman provinces (for instance the invasion of Longobards
and Obii in the year 166/167). Therefore, the discussed system ceased to be effective at a certain
point in time and it was not worth keeping it up whatever the cost. In the later Roman period, that
is in 4th and 5th century Rome found another political solution, which was to guarantee defense,
not only of its borders now, but mainly of its integrity. It consisted in forming an alliance with an
important barbarian tribe and its leader (rex foederatae). What is more, such a treaty was drawn on
the principle of equality (foedus aequum). Basing on it the allies (gentes foederatae) offered military
service to the Empire, and Rome rewarded them with money paid to them, as well as donations,
and, from a certain point in time also by allowing them to quarter in their own Roman territory
(the principle hospitalitas). I shall not develop further the question signaled here since it would go
beyond the limits of the thematic range pointed out by the title of the present article.

MAREK OLĘDZKI
Institute of Archaeology
University of Łodź 90–137
Łodź
marek.oledzki@interia.pl

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BETZ Septimius Aistomodius Rex Germanorum, “Arheološki vestnik”, v. 19, 1968, p. 13–17.
BRAUND 1984
D. C. BRAUND, Rome and the Friendly Kings: The Character of the Client Kingship, London 1984.
JACZYNOWSKA 1974
M. JACZYNOWSKA, Historia starożytnego Rzymu, Warszawa 1974.
JELLINEK 1900
G. JELLINEK, Algemaine Staatslehre, Berlin 1900.
JÓZEFÓW-CZERWIŃSKA 2014
B. JÓZEFÓW-CZERWIŃSKA, Przemiany zachodzące pod wpływem interakcji środkowoeuropejskiego
Barbaricum z Imperium Rzymskim w I wieku naszej ery, [in:] Kultura przeworska. Odkrycia-
interpretacje-hipotezy, v. 3, Zielona Góra 2014, p. 179–195.
47
M. OLĘDZKI, The causes…, p. 101 – 102; it is also where earlier literature is to be found.
104 Marek Olędzki

KEHNE 2001
P. KEHNE, Marcomannis, [in:] “Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde”, v. 19, Berlin –
New York 2001, p. 321–324.
KLOSE 1934
J. KLOSE, Roms Klientel – Randstaaten am Rhein und an der Donau, Breslau 1934.
KOKOWSKI 2005
A. KOKOWSKI, Starożytna Polska, Warszawa 2005.
KŘIŘEK 1986
F. KŘIŘEK, Limitni paralipomena, Dačice 1986.
OLĘDZKI 2007
M. OLĘDZKI, Catualda and the Goths, [in:] Archeologie barbaroů 2006, Česke Budějovice
2007, p. 295–300.
OLĘDZKI 2008
M. OLĘDZKI, Czas przemian. Barbaricum między Bałtykiem a środkowym Dunajem w dobie
wojen markomańskich, Łódź 2008.
OLĘDZKI 2014
M. OLĘDZKI, The Causes of the Outburst of Marcomannic Wars, [in:] Annales Musei Nationalis
Slovaci, Bratislava 2014, p. 101–106.
PEŠKA/TEJRAL 2002
J.  PEŠKA / J. TEJRAL, Das germanische Königsgrab von Mušov in Mären, “Monographien des
Römisch. Germ. Zentralmuseums Mainz”, Mainz 2002.
PITTS 1989
L. F. PITTS, Relations between Rome and the German “Kings” on the Middle Danube in the First to
Fourth Centuries A.D., “The Journal of Roman Studies”, v. 79, London 1989, p. 45–58.
PISKOZUB 1998
A. PISKOZUB, Cywilizacje w czasie i przestrzeni, Gdańsk 1998.
SALAČ 2009
V. SALAČ, 2000 Jahre seit dem römischen Feldzug gegen Marbod und methodische Probleme der
Erforschung der älteren römischen Kaiserzeit in Böhmen und Mitteleuropa, [in:] Mitteleuropa zur
Zeit Marbods, Praha – Bonn 2009, p. 107–138.
SCHMITT 1997
M. T. SCHMITT, Die römische Aussenpolitik des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Friedenssicherung oder
Expansion?, Stutgart 1997.