APA 6th Edition Parat, J. (2016). Seditio i στάσις : Tacit i Kasije Dion o pobuni panonskih legija 14. g. Scrinia Slavonica, 16 (1), 9-33. Preuzeto s https://hrcak.srce.hr/177027
MLA 8th Edition Parat, Josip. "Seditio i στάσις : Tacit i Kasije Dion o pobuni panonskih legija 14. g." Scrinia Slavonica, vol. 16, br. 1, 2016, str. 9-33. https://hrcak.srce.hr/177027. Citirano 16.02.2020.
Chicago 17th Edition Parat, Josip. "Seditio i στάσις : Tacit i Kasije Dion o pobuni panonskih legija 14. g." Scrinia Slavonica 16, br. 1 (2016): 9-33. https://hrcak.srce.hr/177027
Harvard Parat, J. (2016). 'Seditio i στάσις : Tacit i Kasije Dion o pobuni panonskih legija 14. g', Scrinia Slavonica, 16(1), str. 9-33. Preuzeto s: https://hrcak.srce.hr/177027 (Datum pristupa: 16.02.2020.)
Vancouver Parat J. Seditio i στάσις : Tacit i Kasije Dion o pobuni panonskih legija 14. g. Scrinia Slavonica [Internet]. 2016 [pristupljeno 16.02.2020.];16(1):9-33. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/177027
IEEE J. Parat, "Seditio i στάσις : Tacit i Kasije Dion o pobuni panonskih legija 14. g", Scrinia Slavonica, vol.16, br. 1, str. 9-33, 2016. [Online]. Dostupno na: https://hrcak.srce.hr/177027. [Citirano: 16.02.2020.]
Sažetak Several ancient writers mentioned the revolt of the Pannonian legions that broke out almost immediately upon Augustus' death in AD 14. The evidence is best attested in Tacitus' Annals and, to some extant, in Dio's Roman History. Placed whithin the broader context of Tiberius' ascension to the imperial throne, the two narratives vividly depict army's mutinous acts. This paper relies on Tacitus' and Dio's data and discusses the similarities or differences between the two sources. More precisely, it examines the way in which their own thoughts influenced the accounts on the Pannoninan revolt. The purpose is to sketch out a coherent picture of what shaped the data attested in Tacitus' and Dio's writings.
Unusually extended and elaborated, Tacitus' account implies that both earlier authors and his previous works left a strong mark on his views on the military disobedience. Despite the pessimistic tone, there is no reason to assume that Tacitus questioned the very foundations of the Principate nor that he accused troops for such deeds. On the other hand, Dio's condensed chapter seemingly fails to offer additional informaton. However, the Greek author provides a number of comparative examples elsewhere in the Roman history. If carefully scritinized, they show that Dio's views were shaped by his personal experience and by contemporary Greek culture. Even in this short paragraph one can discern following features: Dio avoids details, but preferes accuracy; he is ironic, but well-aware of the threat of military unrest; he offers no comment, but infers conclusions. The similarities between the two narratives are insufficient to assess that Dio relied mainly on Tacitus' data. It seems that the two authors drew from a variety of sources, and that at least some of them were known exclusively to Dio.