[33] The report in Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii. 34-41, embraces beyond doubt the campaigns of 58 and 59, since Tacitus under the year 59 is silent as to the Armenian campaign, while under the year 60, _Ann._ xiv. 23 joins on immediately to xiii. 41, and evidently describes merely a single campaign; generally, where he condenses in this way, he as a rule anticipates. That the war cannot have begun only in 59, is further confirmed by the fact that Corbulo observed the solar eclipse of 30th April 59 on Armenian soil (Plin. _H. N._ ii. 70, 180); had he not entered the country till 59, he could hardly have crossed the enemy’s frontier so early in the year. The narrative of Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii, 34-41, does not in itself show an intercalation of a year, but with his mode of narrating it admits the possibility that the first year was spent in the crossing of the Euphrates and the settling in Armenia, and so the winter mentioned in _c._ 35 is that of the year 58-9, especially as in view of the character of the army such a beginning to the war would be quite in place, and in view of the short Armenian summer it was militarily convenient thus to separate the marching into the country and the conduct proper of the war. [34] From the representation of Tacitus, _Ann._ xv. 6, the partiality and the perplexity are clearly seen. He does not venture to express the surrender of Armenia to Tiridates, and only leaves the reader to infer it. [35] This is said by Tacitus himself, _Ann._ xv. 10: _nec a Corbulone properatum, quo gliscentibus periculis etiam subsidii laus augeretur_, in naive unconcern at the severe censure which this praise involves. How partial is the tone of the whole account resting on Corbulo’s despatches, is shown among other things by the circumstance that Paetus is reproached in one breath with the inadequate provisioning of the camp (xv. 8) and with the surrender of it in spite of copious supplies (xv. 16), and the latter fact is inferred from this, that the retiring Romans preferred to destroy the stores which, according to the capitulation, were to be delivered to the Parthians. As the exasperation against Tiberius found its expression in the painting of Germanicus in fine colours, so did the exasperation against Nero in the picture of Corbulo. [36] The statement of Corbulo that Paetus bound himself on oath in presence of his soldiers and of the Parthian deputies to send no troops to Armenia till the arrival of Nero’s answer, is declared by Tacitus, _Ann._ xv. 16, unworthy of credit; it is in keeping with the state of the case, and nothing was done to the contrary.