[41] In what connection he refused to Vespasian the title of emperor (Dio, lxvi. 11) is not clear; possibly immediately after his insurrection, before he had perceived that the Flavians were the stronger. His intercession for the princes of Commagene (Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ vii. 7, 3) was attended by success, and so was purely personal, by no means a protest against the conversion of the kingdom into a province. [42] The four Syrian legions were the 3d _Gallica_, the 6th _ferrata_ (both hitherto in Syria), the 4th _Scythica_ (hitherto in Moesia, but having already taken part in the Parthian as in the Jewish war), and the 16th _Flavia_ (new). The one legion of Palestine was the 10th _fretensis_ (hitherto in Syria). The two of Cappadocia were the 12th _fulminata_ (hitherto in Syria, moved by Titus to Melitene, Josephus, _Bell. Jud._ vii. 1, 3), and the 15th _Apollinaris_ (hitherto in Pannonia, but having taken part, like the 4th _Scythica_, in the Parthian as in the Jewish war). The garrisons were thus changed as little as possible, only two of the legions already called earlier to Syria received fixed stations there, and one newly instituted was moved thither.--After the Jewish war under Hadrian the 6th _ferrata_ was despatched from Syria to Palestine. [43] At this time (comp. _C. I. L._ v. 6988), probably falls also the Cappadocian governorship of C. Rutilius Gallicus, of which it is said (Statius, i. 4, 78): _hunc ... timuit ... Armenia et patiens Latii iam pontis Araxes_, with reference presumably to a bridge-structure executed by this Roman garrison. That Gallicus served under Corbulo, is from the silence of Tacitus not probable. [44] That war threatened to break out under Vespasian in the year 75 on the Euphrates, while M. Ulpius Trajanus, the father of the emperor, was governor of Syria, is stated by Pliny in his panegyric on the son, c. 14, probably with strong exaggeration; the cause is unknown. [45] There are coins dated, and provided with the individual names of the kings, of (V)ologasus from the years 389 and 390 = 77-78; of Pacorus from the years 389-394 = 77-82 (and again 404-407 = 92-95); of Artabanus from the year 392 = 80-1. The corresponding historical dates are lost, with the exception of the notice connecting Titus and Artabanus in Zonaras, xi. 18 (comp. Suetonius, _Ner._ 57; Tacitus, _Hist._ i. 2), but the coins point to an epoch of rapid changes on the throne, and, apparently, of simultaneous coinage by rival pretenders.