Content area
This thesis reconsiders the value of Roman perspectives to the eastern frontiers during the early principate. The majority of scholarship on these frontiers largely disregards ancient opinions because of their inaccuracy. Yet while Roman texts like Pliny the Younger’s Epistulae to Trajan, Arrian of Nicomedia’s Periplus of the Euxine Sea, and Tacitus’ Annales certainly lack detailed precision, they reveal prevalent concerns that can help to explain the development of imperial borders, even if they contain factual mistakes. Chapter one addresses the significance of rivers and other waterways as a means for the Romans to conceptually outline their territory. Such geographical boundary markers form a large portion of the eastern boundaries, but fail to do so in Armenia. Chapter two turns to Roman military garrisons and fortified encampments as an artificial demarcation of the frontier. These man-made structures supplement natural geography to clearly delineate for the Romans which territories they control, though this again is unsuccessful in Armenia. Lastly, chapter three examines the essential Roman relationships with eastern client states that dictate which regions are supposed to be part of imperial control. These territories then require Roman protection of the natural and artificial frontier markers discussed in the first two chapters. Armenia’s status as an important client state mandates that the Romans uphold the rule of their appointed kings—an impossible task given the confused sense of geographic and man-made boundary markers in the area. These administrative problems have significant bearing on the Romans’ approach to the issues on their frontiers, and are visible only through the subjective depictions in the texts of ancient authors.