[49] The pungent description of the Syrian army of Trajan in Fronto (p. 206 f. Naber) agrees almost literally with that of the army of Corbulo in Tacitus, _Ann._ xiii. 35. “The Roman troops generally had sadly degenerated (_ad ignaviam redactus_) through being long disused to military service; but the most wretched of the soldiers were the Syrian, insubordinate, refractory, unpunctual at the call to arms, not to be found at their post, drunk from midday onward; unaccustomed even to carry arms and incapable of fatigue, ridding themselves of one piece of armour after another, half naked like the light troops and the archers. Besides they were so demoralised by the defeats they had suffered that they turned their backs at the first sight of the Parthians, and the trumpets were regarded by them, as it were, as giving the signal to run away.” In the contrasting description of Trajan it is said among other things: “He did not pass through the tents without closely concerning himself as to the soldiers, but showed his contempt for the Syrian luxury, and looked closely into the rough doings of the Pannonians (_sed contemnere_--so we must read--_Syrorum munditias, introspicere Pannoniorum inscitias_); so he judged of the serviceableness (_ingenium_) of the man according to his bearing (_cultus_).” In the Oriental army of Severus also the “European” and the Syrian soldiers are distinguished (Dio, lxxv. 12). [50] This is shown by the _mala proelia_ in the passage of Fronto quoted, and by Dio’s statement, lxviii. 19, that Trajan took Samosata without a struggle; thus the 16th legion stationed there had lost it. [51] It may be that at the same time Armenia also revolted. But when Gutschmid (quoted by Dierauer in Büdinger’s _Untersuchungen_, i. 179), makes Meherdotes and Sanatrukios, whom Malalas adduces as kings of Persia in the Trajanic war, into kings of Armenia again in revolt, this result is attained by a series of daring conjectures, which shift the names of persons and peoples as much as they transform the causal nexus of events. There are certainly found in the confused coil of legends of Malalas some historical facts, _e.g._ the installation of Parthamaspates (who is here son of king Chosroes of Armenia) as king of Parthia by Trajan; and so, too, the dates of Trajan’s departure from Rome in October (114), of his landing in Seleucia in December, and of his entrance into Antioch on the 7th Jan. (115) may be correct. But, as this report stands, the historian can only decline to accept it; he cannot rectify it. [52] Fronto, _Princ. hist._ p. 209 Naber: _cum praesens Traianus Euphratis et Tigridis portoria equorum et camelorum trib_[_utaque ordinaret, Ma_]_cer_ (?) _caesus est_. This applies to the moment when Babylonia and Mesopotamia revolted, while Trajan was tarrying at the mouth of the Tigris.