Government and Diplomacy 219embassiescouldhavedealtwithParthiaexactlyashedealtwithaGreekcity
withintheEmpire.
Butiftherulesandthelanguageofdiplomaticcontactpresentednoprob-
lemsasbetweenaRomanemperorandaGreek-speaking,orGreek-using,
kingdom,whatoftheIazyges,apeopleofIranianorigininhabitingtheter-
ritorybetweenRomanDaciaandthelowercourseoftheDanubebeforeit
reachestheBlackSea?Itisstrikinghowoursourcesrepeatedlydescribever-
balcontactswiththebarbarianpeoplesof Europe,asofAfrica,whileonly
rarelymakingtheslightestallusiontothemechanicsofhowtheseexchanges
wereconducted.
Thefirstthingthathastobemadeclearisthatthereisnosignofanything
that could be described as permanent diplomatic representation on either
side.TheRomansmaintainednoresidentambassadorsorlegationseitherin
‘‘client’’kingdomsoramonganyotherpeopleswithwhomtheyhaddiplo-
maticormilitarycontacts.ThenearesttoaRomanrepresentativethatour
sourcesofferwouldbetheofficersofmilitaryunits,whichareoccasionally
foundstationedinalliedkingdoms.Eventhisisnotcommon;butwedofind
someRomanforcesstationedinthekingdomoftheBosporus,mentioned
above;RomanforcesweresupportingaRomannomineetothethronethere
ina.d.51(Tacitus,Annals12,15);andJosephusrecordsthattherewereasmany
as3,000Romantroopsinthisgeneralareaina.d.66(JewishWar2,16,4,366).
OthersarealsoattestedfromtimetotimeintheCaucasus.AfamousGreek
inscription from Harmozica (Tiflis) ofa.d.75 also showsVespasian,Titus,
andDomitianhavingfortificationsbuilt‘‘forKingMithridatesoftheHiberi,
sonofKingPharasmanesandIamaspos[?]hisson,philokaisarandphilorōmaios,
andforthepeopleoftheHiberi.’’^31 ThisalmostcertainlymeansthatRoman
forceswerepresent.TheyaremoreclearlyattestedinaLatininscriptionput
upbyalegatusofthelegio XII Fulminata,fromnearBakuontheCaspianSea
underDomitian(a.d.81–96)—notableastheeasternmostLatininscription
sofarknown(Ann. Épig.1951,no.263).
However, neither permanent militaryoccupation by Roman forces nor
anyotherstandingRomanpresenceshouldbeassumedasthenormforany
of the ‘‘client’’ or allied states on Rome’s borders. Indeed, as regards mili-
tary relations, the current went the other way. It was extremelycommon
forbarbarianorsemi-barbarianpeoplesonRome’sborderstoprovideaux-
iliaryunitsfortheRomanarmy.Thisisanimportanttopicwhichcannotbe
pursuedhere,thoughwemaynotethatsuchunitsincludedBosporani,and
31.OGIS379M.McCrumandA.G.Woodhead,Select Documents of the Principates of
the Flavian Emperors(Cambridge,1961),no.237.