113Arheološki vestnik 76, 2025, 113–146; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.76.16; CC BY-SA 4.0
The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion
and consolidation of Roman imperial power
in the territory of Slovenia
Vloga rimskih vojsk v rimski osvojitvi ozemlja
današnje Slovenije in utrditvi rimske nadvlade
Janka ISTENIČ
Izvleček
Članek obravnava arheološke vire o rimskem vojaškem delovanju na ozemlju današnje Slovenije v 1. st. pr. n. št. in v 
prvi polovici 1. st. n. št. V tem obdobju je Rim končal osvajanje ozemlja današnje Slovenije in utrdil svojo premoč. Tema 
je aktualna, ker sta se v zadnjih dveh desetletjih in pol količina in kakovost arheoloških podatkov o rimskem vojaškem 
delovanju v obravnavanem prostoru in času močno povečali. Predstavljeni izsledki kažejo rimsko vojsko kot pomembno 
silo, ki je v drugi polovici 1. st. pr. n. št. in v zgodnjem 1. st. n. št. sodelovala pri vzpostavitvi rimske prevlade nad 
obsežnimi območji današnje Slovenije. Približno dve stoletji trajajoče rimsko osvajanje tega za rimsko državo strateško 
pomembnega ozemlja je bilo končano ob začetku vladavine cesarja Tiberija.
Ključne besede: rimska vojska; Slovenija; 1. st. pr. n. št.; julijsko-klavdijska doba; zgodnji principat; bojišča; vojaški tabori
Abstract
This paper provides an overview and synthesis of the archaeology of the Roman military conquest and consolidation 
of Roman imperial power from the 1st century BC to the mid-1st century AD in the territory of present-day Slovenia. 
This focus is timely, as recent decades have seen a significant increase in both the quantity and quality of archaeological 
evidence concerning Roman military activities during this period in the region.
The evidence presented highlights the Roman military as an important force in imposing Roman control over large 
areas of what is now Slovenia during the second half of the 1st century BC and the early 1st century AD. The roughly 
two-century-long process of Roman conquest in this territory, strategically highly significant to the Roman state, was 
concluded in the early reign of Tiberius.
Key words: Roman military; Slovenia; 1st century BC; Early Principate; battlefields; forts; camps
The territory of modern Slovenia held great 
strategic significance to the Romans, as it lies 
between the Apennine Peninsula in the west and 
the Balkans and the Pannonian Plain to the east. 
The Latin colony Aquileia, founded in 181 
BC at the head of the Adriatic Sea, served as a 
military command centre and a logistical base for 
the Roman ambitions eastward. Archaeological 
evidence suggests the Romans relied heavily on 
their armies in their conquest of territories east 
and south-east of Aquileia in the 2nd century BC. 
The earliest known Roman military installations 
114 Janka ISTENIČ
in the region are the forts at S. Rocco/Koromačnik 
and Grociana piccola/Mala Gročanica (Fig. 1).1 
Findings from the hillfort at Grad near Šmihel 
and the pre-Roman settlement at Razdrto/Ocra 
Pass show that by the late 2nd century BC Rome 
employed military force to control this key pass on 
the route from the Apennine Peninsula, through 
the North Italian Plain, to the Danube Basin and 
the Balkans.2 
The area north of Aquileia was inhabited by the 
Carni3 (Fig. 1), and the Romans likely considered 
1  Bernardini et al. 2021; Bernardini, Horvat, Vinci 2023.
2  Horvat 2002; Laharnar 2022, 324–327; Laharnar 2023.
3  Vedaldi Iasbez 2000, 333–336.
western Slovenia also part of their territory.4 Be-
yond the Carni lived the Norici, who formed the 
core of the Norican Kingdom.5 It is assumed that 
by the mid-1st century BC the Norican Kingdom 
expanded into central northern Slovenia, which 
under Emperor Claudius (AD 41–54) became the 
territory of municipium Celeia and the southern-
most part of the Roman province of Noricum.6
4  Božič 1999, 202–203; Laharnar 2024.
5  Šašel Kos 1997a, 24–30; Urban 2000, 332–368. 
6  Šašel Kos 1997a, 32, 37, 40–41. A relatively widespread 
opinion, first proposed by Alföldy (1936, 540–541), sug-
gests that the area of Ptuj/Poetovio or the entire western 
periphery of the later province of Pannonia initially be-
Fig. 1: A map of the territory of Slovenia and its neighbouring regions, indicating sites dated between c. 100 and c. 15 
BC, with earlier site shown in parentheses, as referenced in the text. 
Sl. 1: Zemljevid ozemlja Slovenije in okolice, ki kaže v besedilu omenjena najdišča, datirana približno med letoma 100 
in 15 pr. n. št. V oklepaju je starejše najdišče.
(basemap / podlaga: EuroDEM ©Eurogrographics, EU-Hydro ©EEA, DMV 5 ©GURS, DTK 50V ©GURS; ©NMS).
115The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
Late Iron Age material culture in central and 
eastern Slovenia (Mokronog group) aligns relatively 
well with that of central Europe and is presumably 
related to the Tauriscan tribal confederation.7 Evi-
dence from south-eastern Slovenia suggests a mix 
of interests of the Carni, Taurisci, and Iapodes.8
The late first century BC and the first half of 
the first century AD marked the final and most 
extensive period of Rome’s gradual expansion into 
the territory of modern Slovenia, as well as the 
consolidation of its power. Over the past 25 years, 
there has been a significant increase in the quantity 
and quality of archaeological evidence related to 
Roman military activities in this region during this 
period. This paper aims to provide an up-to-date 
overview and evaluation of this evidence. It also 
briefly summarises the literary and epigraphic 
sources that offer information on Roman military 
activities in the period and territory mentioned. 
A synthesis follows at the end.
LITERARY SOURCES
Ancient literary sources primarily relate to Oc-
tavian’s Illyrian Wars (35–33 BC), the Pannonian 
Wars (14–9 BC), and the Pannonian-Dalmatian 
uprising (AD 6–9).
The two main sources for the Illyrian Wars are 
Appian9 and Cassius Dio.10 They describe the battles 
with the Iapodes, Pannonians and Dalmatae, who 
lived to the south and south-east of Slovenia.11 
Key targets in this area included Segestica or Siscia 
(Sisak, Croatia),12 which occupied a crucial strate-
gic position on the western edge of the River Sava 
longed to Regnum Noricum. Several publications share this 
view (cf. Ragolič 2014, 323–324, notes 2, 5). In contrast, 
Kovács (2008, 243–245; 2018) argues that, aside from the 
broader area of Carnuntum, there is insufficient evidence 
for this claim.
7  Božič 1987; Laharnar 2020.
8  Horvat, Bavdek 2009, 19–22; Laharnar 2022, 356.
9  App. Illyr. 4, 15–28; Šašel Kos 2005, 65–81, 393–471.
10  Cass. Dio 49, 35–38; Šašel Kos 1986, 128–145. 
11  Dzino 2010, 99–116; Džino, Domić Kunić 2013, 
149–158. 
12  Appian mentions Segestica and Segestanoi, and 
Segestica is mentioned on an inscribed lead tessera found 
in the River Kupa in Sisak (Radman Livaja 2007), while 
Dio uses the name Siscia (Džino, Domić Kunić 2018). 
History of research and excavation results: Drnić 2018. 
Topography and other aspects of the Roman conquest of 
Segestica: Drnić, Radman-Livaja 2020, 189–200. Siscia is 
used in the paper, except if related to the Octavianic period. 
plain. Appian’s account lists the Taurisci and the 
Carni among the adversaries Octavian reportedly 
defeated with moderate effort, likely referencing 
the Slovenian territory. Dio mentions the Taurisci 
as one of the peoples who rebelled even before 
the wars began.13 
Ancient writers provide only brief accounts 
of the war against the Pannonians and Dalmatae 
(14–9 BC), with Cassius Dio’s Roman History be-
ing the most informative.14 The conflicts occurred 
between 12 and 9 BC, and Tiberius served as 
the chief military commander. The main Roman 
military base was in Siscia. The zone of military 
conflicts was (largely) located outside Slovenia, 
in the area that later became the south-eastern 
part of the province of Pannonia, encompassing 
roughly modern northern Croatia and Bosnia.15 
Cassius Dio and Velleius Paterculus are the key 
sources for the Pannonian-Dalmatian uprising of 
AD 6–9.16 The Romans and the rebels primarily 
engaged in combat in modern Slavonia (N Croatia) 
and Bosnia. The winter camps, which functioned as 
military bases for the Roman army, were established 
in Sisak/Siscia (Croatia), which also housed the 
headquarters, and in Sremska Mitrovica/Sirmium 
(Serbia). Both sites were located along the River 
Sava.17 The rebels’ plan to invade Italy—likely 
through the Razdrto Pass—directly involved the 
Slovenian territory. However, this plan was thwarted 
because of the Roman military intervention led by 
Valerius Messalina in AD 6, resulting in the defeat 
of the rebels in the broader area around Sisak.18 
According to literary sources, the AD 6–9 war 
marked the final phase of the Roman conquest of 
the (future) provinces Pannonia and Dalmatia.19
13  App. Illyr. 4, 16, 47; Cass. Dio, 49, 34, 2; 50, 28, 4; 
Šašel Kos 1986, 128–129, 148–149; Šašel Kos 2005, 67–68.
14  Cass. Dio 54, 24, 3; 43, 28, 1–2; 54, 31, 2–4; 54, 34, 
3–4; 54, 36, 2; 55, 2, 4; Šašel Kos 1986, 152–162.
15  Šašel Kos 2011, 107–110; Radman-Livaja 2012, 
161–163; Dzino 2010, 129–136; Džino, Domić Kunić 2013, 
162–170; Džino, Domić Kunić 2018. 
16  Cass. Dio 55, 28, 7–34; 56, 11–17; Velleius Pater-
culus 2, 110–116.
17  Džino 2009; Dzino 2010, 137–155; Džino, Domić 
Kunić 2013, 170–179, 184–185; Šašel Kos 2015; Radman-
Livaja 2018, 158–160, note 28. 
18  Velleius Paterculus 2, 110, 112; Cass. Dio 55, 30, 
1; Šašel Kos 1986, 166–167, 182–185; Šašel Kos 2011; 
Radman-Livaja 2012, 165.
19  The territories of Dalmatia and Pannonia originally 
formed the province of Illyricum. During the AD 6–9 wars, 
the Romans established the province of Dalmatia (possibly 
initially named Illyricum Superius), whereas opinions differ 
116 Janka ISTENIČ
From Tacitus’ Annales, we learn that, upon the 
death of Augustus, a mutiny erupted among the 
three Pannonian legions (VIII, IX, and XV), which 
were stationed at a joint summer camp. Further-
more, there is information that several detachments 
of these legions had been dispatched to Vrhnika/
Nauportus before the uprising, to carry out tasks 
that included construction of roads and bridges.20 
EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
Fifteen or sixteen epigraphic monuments that 
mention Roman soldiers date up to c. AD 50. 
Seven tombstones and one votive altar, the latter 
of uncertain authenticity, originate from Ljubljana/
Emona, six tombstones come from Ptuj/Poetovio 
and its surroundings, one tombstone from Most 
na Soči, and another one from Celje/Celeia. 
The earliest example may be a poorly preserved 
tombstone from Most na Soči, commemorating a 
soldier or veteran of Legio XV. Estimates of its date 
range from 51/50 BC to the Late Augustan period.21
Four monuments from the discussed period 
found in Emona mention serving military person-
nel. The earliest is probably the tombstone for 
the high-ranking military Titus Iunius Montanus, 
dating to the Augustan period.22 From the first 
third of the 1st century AD are a tombstone for a 
praetorian,23 and a tombstone put up by a soldier 
of Legio XV for his sister.24 The votive altar dedi-
as to the constitutional position of the N part of Illyricum, 
which may have been called Illyricum Inferius at first and 
later undoubtedly Pannonia. Most authors agree that it be-
came an independent province at the beginning of Tiberius’ 
reign at the latest (Schaub 2001, 300–301; Rollinger 2001; 
Dzino 2010, 159–167; Kovács 2014, 67), while Šašel Kos 
(2010; 2013) suggested this was a military district under 
the command of a legatus excercitus, i.e. commander of 
three Pannonian legions to the reign of Vespasian.
20  Tacitus, Annales I, 16–30; Šašel Kos 1990, 21; Šašel 
Kos 1995, 236–237. The site of the joint summer camp 
of the three Pannonian legions is not known; Šašel Kos 
(1995, 236) and Radman-Livaja (2018, 161) assume it was 
at or near Siscia or Poetovio/Ptuj, while Keppie (1998, 144) 
argues it was around Emona. 
21  Šašel 1985; Wheeler 2000, 261–262, 270; Mosser 
2003, 93–94, 166, Cat. No. 3, Pl. 2: 3; Zaccaria 2010, 108. 
22  Šašel Kos 1997b, 183–184, Cat. No. 36 (= AIJ 173; AE 
1938, 173 = EDR073370 = lupa 3688 = EDCS-12700084).
23  Šašel Kos 1997b, 185–186, Cat. No. 37 (= ILJug 305; 
AE 1950, 42 = EDR073752 = lupa 4190 = EDCS-10000372). 
24  Šašel Kos 1997b, 186–188, Cat. No. 38 (= CIL III 
10769 = EDR129035 = lupa 4227 = EDCS-29000514); 
Mosser 2003, 175, Cat. No. 19. 
cated by a frumentiarius of Legio XV is from the 
first half of the 1st century, if it is genuine.25 Four 
tombstones from the first half of the 1st century 
were erected in memory of veterans: i) three of 
Legio XV26 and one of an unidentified legion.27 
Dating to the same period is probably the fragment 
of a tombstone (the inscription does not survive) 
depicting military decoration phalerae.28
Three inscribed tombstones discovered in 
Ptuj, along with the two from the surrounding 
area, reference Legio VIII;29 at least three of them 
were dedicated to serving soldiers.30 Together 
with Tacitus’ Annales (I.23, 30),31 these inscrip-
tions indicate that by the end of the Augustan 
period Ptuj housed Legio VIII.32 A tombstone for 
a veteran of Legio XI dates to the second quarter 
of the 1st century AD.33 All military tombstones 
from the first half of the 1st century AD, located 
in their original position, come from the area of 
Poetovio’s western cemetery on the west bank of 
the Drava. This cemetery is also the source of all 
serving soldiers’ tombstones from the second half 
of the 1st century AD and the majority of veteran 
tombstones from the 1st and 2nd centuries.34
25  Šašel Kos 1997b, 133–136, Cat. No. 8 (= CIL III 
3835 + p. 2328,188 = AIJ 151 = EDR128830 = lupa 6149 
= EDCS-26600531); Mosser 2003, 266, Cat. No. 200.
26  Šašel Kos 1997b, 189–191, Cat. No. 39 (= CIL III 
3847 = 10757 = AIJ 174 = EDR129059 = lupa 3689 = 
EDCS-26600538); Mosser 2003, 175, Cat. No. 19); Šašel Kos 
1998, 336–337, Cat. No. 6 (= CIL III 3845 + p. 2328,188 = 
ILS 2264 = EDR135194 = lupa 4202 = EDCS-28701001); 
Mosser 2003, 167, Cat. No. 5) – the stone was commis-
sioned by a veteran of Legio VIII; tombstone discovered 
in 2017: https://mgml.si/sl/mestni-muzej/razstave/309/
nagrobni-spomenik-veterana-15-apolonove-legije/.
27  Šašel Kos 1997b, 191–192, Cat. No. 40 (= CIL III 
3848 = EDR129060 = lupa 4193 = EDCS-26600539).
28  Maxfield 1986.
29  Ragolič 2023, 43–44, Cat. No. 7 (= CIL III 10878 + 
p. 2188 = AIJ 371 = EDCS-29000461= lupa 1699), 47, Cat. 
No. 10 (= EDCS-09200411 = lupa 6194), 49–50, Cat. No. 
13 (= CIL III 10879 + p. 2188 = AIJ 381 = EDCS-29000462 
= lupa 1700), 306–308, Cat. No. 405 (= CIL III 4060 = AIJ 
260 = EDCS-26600462 = lupa 3102), 308–309, Cat. No. 406 
(= AIJ 262 = EDCS-11300990 = lupa 3749).
30  Ragolič 2023, 43–44, Cat. Nos. 13, 405, 406 (cf. 
note 29).
31  Cf. Section Literary sources.
32  Oldenstein-Pferdehirt 1984, 397–400; Reddé 2000, 
120–121.
33  Ragolič 2023, 44–45, Cat. No. 8 (= AIJ 379 = lupa 
3068 = EDCS-11301055).
34  Istenič 2002, 168–169; Ragolič 2023, 43–47, 49–50, 
51–52, 54–56, Cat. Nos 7–10, 13, 15, 17–18.
117The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
The tombstone erected for a veteran of Legio VIII 
at Celje/Celeia suggests he was a serving soldier 
of the legion while it was stationed in Poetovio, 
prior to c. AD 43.35
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
Militaria from the Early Augustan period exhibit 
no marked changes when compared to that of the 
Late Republic; however, changes become apparent 
in the Middle Augustan era. This prompted us 
to discuss the archaeological evidence up to and 
including the Early Augustan period in the first 
paragraph, and the evidence from the later period 
in the second paragraph.
Archaeological evidence
from the early 1st century to the end
of the Early Augustan period 
The Alésia A–D type hobnails, used on Roman 
military footwear from the late 2nd century36 to 
c. 15 BC,37 are the leading pre-Middle Augustan 
military finds in the region (Fig. 2). At Grociana 
piccola/Mala Gročanica and S. Rocco/Koromačnik 
(Italy),38 they were unearthed in contexts associated 
with camps or forts of a rectangular and trapezoid 
plan covering the surface of c. 2 ha and c. 0.7 ha, 
respectively.39 Their rounded corners suggest they 
are not earlier than the Caesarean period.40 
A considerable number of Alésia A–D type 
hobnails comes from Grad above Reka (Fig. 4: 
11–20), Gradišče in Cerkno, and Vrh gradu near 
Pečine, in the mountainous eastern hinterland of 
the Soča valley that was likely the eastern part of 
35  Visočnik 2017, 105–106, Cat. No. 78 (= CIL 03, 
05220 = EDCS-14500532 = lupa 411). 
36  Kielb Zaaraoui 2018.
37  Istenič 2019a, 276–279. For dating up to around 15 
BC, the recently identified 77 Alesia-type hobnails (all of 
the Alesia D type) found at Dangstetten are particularly 
important; they represent approximately 23% of the hob-
nails from the site that can be assigned to specific types 
(Schrempp, J. 2025, Die römischen Schuhnägel aus dem 
Lager Dangstetten. – In: W. Zanier (ed.), Das römische 
Militärlager auf dem Septimerpass in Graubünden (Schweiz) 
3, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 70, to 
be published in 2025).
38  Cf. Introduction.
39  Bernardini et al. 2021; Bernardini, Horvat, Vinci 2023.
40  Reddé 2023. 
the settlement area of the Carni.41 All three sites 
are in poorly accessible, naturally well-protected 
locations. The archaeological evidence found here 
includes numerous artefacts related to the Roman 
army.42 The sites at Gradišče in Cerkno and Vrh 
gradu have been published recently,43 while two 
decades have passed since the short paper on Grad 
above Reka.44 Therefore, a summary of recent 
research on this site complex is provided below.
It is situated above the valley of the River Idrijca 
and comprises the ridge known as Grad along with 
its steep eastern and western slopes, the adjacent 
Ajdovo brdo ridge with its eastern slope, and the 
southeastern edge of the plain of Poliško polje 
(Fig. 3). In addition to c. 110 hobnails, the vast 
majority of artefacts consist of projectiles. Most of 
these are lead slingshot, totalling 34 pieces (Fig. 5: 
27–33).45 The collection of iron projectiles includes 
two tanged pila with single barbs (Fig. 4: 23–24), 
22 tanged catapult bolts (Fig. 5: 1–5), ten socketed 
catapult bolts (Fig. 5: 6–10), nineteen tri-bladed 
arrowheads of the Zanier Ia type (Fig. 5: 11–19), 
ten simple asymmetric tanged arrowheads (Fig. 5: 
23–26), and six tanged single-barbed arrowheads 
(Fig. 5: 20–22). Several projectiles exhibit damage 
consistent with impacts from hitting targets. A 
pure brass chape of a sword scabbard (Fig. 4: 22) 
is notable. Its closest parallel is a scabbard with a 
net-like fitting from the River Ljubljanica, dated to 
between c. 60 and 15 BC.46 Likely also associated 
with Roman soldiers are the three Alésia (Fig. 4: 
1–3) and two Jezerine type brooches (Fig. 4: 4–5), 
five signet rings (Fig. 4: 6–10),47 and a tent peg 
(Fig. 4: 21). Mapping these artefacts has revealed 
that the Roman army probably commenced its 
assault from Poliško polje, first capturing Ajdovo 
brdo and then Grad (Fig. 3).
The finds from Gradišče in Cerkno include moszt 
of the weapon types known from the Grad near 
41  Cf. Introduction. 
42  Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a.
43  Istenič 2015a.
44  Istenič 2005.
45  Two of the 22 lead slingshot found as a group clearly 
exhibit damage from impact (Laharnar 2011, 343–344, 362, 
Nos. 9, 14), which argues against the idea that the group 
constituted unused stock slingshot (cf. o.c.).
The selection of objects in Figures 4 and 5 aims to il-
lustrate the range of shapes and sizes of the various types 
of objects.
46  Istenič 2019b, 34–40, 150–151, 264–267, Fig. A1.1–A 
1.9, Pl. 1: A1 (with references).
47  Nestorović 2005, 34, Cat. No. 56, Pl. 5: 56.
118 Janka ISTENIČ
Fig. 2: Findspots of the Alésia A-D type hobnails. 1 – Grad above Reka; 2 – Gradišče in Cerkno; 3 – Vrh gradu near Pečine; 
4 – Gradec near Sedlo; 5 – Sv. Helena near Podbela; 6 – Gradič in Kobarid; 7 – Tonovcov grad near Kobarid; 8 – Gradišče 
in Polje; 9 – Berlotov rob; 10–12 – Tabor and Strmca above Povir; 13 – Grocciana piccola/Mala Gročanica; 14 – several sites 
in the hinterland of Trieste/Trst; 15 – Kaštelir near Nova vas; 16 – Baba; 17 – Ambroževo gradišče; 18 – Stari grad; 19 – The 
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša; 20 – Grmada above Zagorje; 21 – Gradišče at Čepna; 22 – Žerovnišček; 23 – Nadleški hrib; 
24 – Ulaka – tabor; 25 – Ulaka; 26 – Gobavica above Mengeš; 27 – Straža above Šmartno; 28 – Dunaj near Jereka; 29 – Ravel-
nik near Bovec; 30 – Velike Bukve above Gorenji Logatec; 31 – Stari trg near Višnja gora (Stergar, Porenta 2020); 32 – Pungrt 
(Vojaković 2023b, Nos 6003, 6011, 6040–6041, 6178, 6225); 33 – several nearby sites east of Ajdovščina; 34 – Barda and Roba 
hills. Cf. Istenič 2019a, 275, Fn. 20, List 1; for Nr. 24 cf. also Laharnar, Istenič 2024, and for Nrs 16–25 Laharnar 2022 (basemap: 
cf. Fig. 1; ©NMS).
Sl. 2: Najdišča okovnih žebljičkov tipov Alezija A–D. 1 – najdiščna skupina okoli Gradu nad Reko; 2 – Gradišče v Cerknem; 3 – 
Vrh gradu pri Pečinah; 4 – Gradec pri Sedlu; 5 – Sv. Helena pri Podbeli; 6 – Gradič v Kobaridu; 7 – Tonovcov grad; 8 – Gradišče 
v Polju; 9 – Berlotov rob; 10 – Tabor nad Povirjem; 11 – Strmica nad Povirjem; 12 – Tabor ali Strmca nad Povirjem; 13 – Mala 
Gročanica; 14 – več najdišč v zaledju Trsta; 15 – Kaštelir pri Novi vasi; 16 – Baba; 17 – Ambroževo gradišče; 18 – Stari grad; 
19 – Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši; 20 – Grmada nad Zagorjem; 21 – Gradišče nad Čepno; 22 – Žerovnišček; 23 – Nadleški hrib; 
24 – Ulaka – tabor; 25 – Ulaka; 26 – Gobavica nad Mengšem; 27 – Straža nad Šmartnim; 28 – Dunaj pri Jereki; 29 – Ravelnik pri 
Bovcu; 30 – Velike Bukve nad Gorenjim Logatcem; 31 – Stari trg pri Višnji Gori (Stergar, Porenta 2020); 32 – Pungrt (Vojaković 
2023b, št. 6003, 6011, 6040–6041, 6178, 6225); 33 – več najdišč vzhodno od Ajdovščine; 34 – vzpetini Barda in Roba. Cf. Istenič 
2019a, 275, op. 20, Seznam 1; za št. 24 glej še Laharnar, Istenič 2024, in za št. 16–25 Laharnar 2022 (podlaga: cf. sl. 1; ©NMS).
Fig. 3: The Grad above Reka site complex. The archaeological interpretation of the LiDAR-derived digital elevation mo-
del shows areas where metal-detectorists reported finding Roman projectiles and hobnails of the Alésia types (available 
findspot information for many artefacts are too imprecise to be shown in the figure). 1 – along the path leading to the 
valley of the Soča/Isonzo; 2 – south-eastern edge of Poliško polje; 3 – Ajdovo brdo; 4 – path between Ajdovo brdo and 
Grad above Reka; 5 – Grad above Reka; 6 – southern part of the Ajdovo brdo ridge (basemap: LiDAR©ARSO; ©NMS). 
Sl. 3: Najdiščna skupina okoli Gradu nad Reko. Tridimenzionalni prikaz arheološke interpretacije lidarskih podatkov z 
označenimi območji najdišč rimskih izstrelkov in okovnih žebljičkov tipov Alezija A–D. Vir najdiščnih podatkov: iskalci 
z detektorji kovin; za številne najdbe so najdiščni podatki preveč netočni, da bi jih lahko prikazali na sliki. 1 – vzdolž 
poti proti Soški dolini; 2 – jugovzhodni rob Poliškega polja; 3 – Ajdovo brdo; 4 – pot med Ajdovim brdom in Gradom 
nad Reko; 5 – Grad nad Reko; 6 – južni del grebena Ajdovo brdo (podlaga: LiDAR ©ARSO; ©NMS). 
119The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
Reka site complex; the pila, tanged single-barbed 
arrowheads and particularly a lead slingshot are 
absent.48 In contrast, the Early Roman weapons 
from Vrh gradu consist of 38 slingshot, four ar-
rowheads, and a tanged pilum with single barb, 
similar to Fig. 4: 23.49 
The evidence of Roman military assault at the 
three sites likely stems from the same Roman mili-
tary campaign, dated after Caesar’s Gallic Wars and 
before the Middle Augustan period, as indicated 
by coins, tanged catapult bolts, Jezerine brooches, 
48  Istenič 2015a, 68–70, Pl. 2–4.
49  Arrowheads: Istenič 2015a, 71–73, Pl. 5–7; pilum: 
Mlinar et al. 2018, 76, Cat. No. 76. 
and tanged tri-bladed arrowheads of the Zanier Ia 
type.50 Appian’s reference to the Carni opposing 
Octavian during the Illyrian Wars (35–33 BC)51 
suggests that these conflicts were related to the 
Illyrian Wars. This aligns with the consideration 
that securing the eastern hinterland of the middle 
Soča Valley was crucial for Italy’s safety and for 
Roman campaigning further south-east towards 
Sisak/Siscia.52
At all three sites, the narrow summit plateaus 
and the characteristics of small finds predating 
50  Cf. Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a.
51  Cf. Section Literary sources. 
52  Istenič 2015a, 59–60.
120 Janka ISTENIČ
Fig. 4: The Grad above Reka site complex. Select finds. 1–3,22 pure brass; 4,5 gunmetal; 10 copper alloy; 7 iron and 
chalcedony?; 8 iron and copper alloy; 6,9,11–21,23–24 iron. Scale = 1:2. 
Sl. 4: Najdiščna skupina okoli Gradu nad Reko. Izbor drobnih najdb. 1–3,22 čista medenina; 4,5 zlitina bakra, kositra in 
cinka; 10 bakrova zlitina; 7 železo in kalcedon?; 8 železo in bakrova zlitina; 6,9,11–21,23–24 železo. M. = 1:2.
121The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
Fig. 5: The Grad above Reka site complex. Select finds. 1–26 iron; 27–33 lead. Scale = 1:2.
Sl. 5: Najdiščna skupina okoli Gradu nad Reko. Izbor drobnih najdb. 1–26 železo; 27–33 svinec. M. = 1:2.
122 Janka ISTENIČ
the Roman assaults allow the assumption that 
these places were sacred places significant to the 
identity of the indigenous population.53
The Alésia type hobnails are common finds at 
Ulaka – tabor and Nadleški hrib, two sites linked to 
the Roman military conquest of the hillfort on Ulaka 
(Fig. 6: A–C), situated in a strategically important 
position.54 On Ulaka – tabor, the archaeological 
analysis and interpretation of the LiDAR-derived 
data revealed the remains of presumably more 
than one Roman camp or fort. In addition to 45 
Alésia-type hobnails, the metal-detecting survey 
yielded two pila, catapult bolts, and other Roman 
projectiles; they indicate the armed Roman military 
action in the mid-1st century BC.55 
The LiDAR-derived data from Nadleški hrib 
show two successive camps or forts. The earlier 
53  Istenič 2023.
54  Istenič 2019a, 282–283, Cat. Nos 23–25; Laharnar 
2022, 220–237, 415, Pl. 48: 12–19; Laharnar, Istenič 2024.
55  Laharnar, Istenič 2024, 178–181, Fig. 4: 3–8.
one, dating to before 15 BC, can be inferred from 
the Alésia types hobnails and from a socketed cata-
pult bolt with a pyramidal head; it is presumably 
related to the smaller of the two camps or forts 
(covering c. 2.4 ha).56  
The geopolitical context suggests two specific 
periods for a Roman attack on the Ulaka hillfort: 
Caesar’s proconsulship in Gaul and Illyricum 
(59–49 BC) and Octavian’s Illyrian Wars (35–33 
BC).57 Two arguments appear to support the later 
dating: i) Ulaka’s location on a route leading from 
Italy to the Iapodes and Segestica/Siscia, and ii) 
the hillfort’s position within the territory con-
56  Laharnar 2016, 96, Fig. 6: 1, 11–18; Laharnar 2022, 
234–237, Fig. 3.118–3.120, Pl. 48: 1, 6–10, 12–19; Laharnar, 
Lozić 2016, 65–66; Laharnar, Istenič 2024, 177–178, Fig. 
2, 5. The site also yielded three Late Republican denarii, 
the latest of which being a not much worn coin minted 
in 90 BC (Laharnar 2016, 96).
57  Cf. Section Literary sources.
Fig. 6: The Ulaka site complex. Archaeological interpretation of the LiDAR-derived digital elevation model. A – Ulaka, 
hillfort; B – Nadleški hrib – Roman forts; C – Ulaka-tabor, Roman fort(s); D – linear earthwork (basemap: LiDAR 
©ARSO; ©NMS).
Sl. 6: Najdiščna skupina okoli Ulake. Tridimenzionalni prikaz interpretacije lidarskih podatkov. A – gradišče Ulaka; 
B – Nadleški hrib (rimska tabora); C – Ulaka – tabor (en ali več rimskih taborov); D – linijski okop (podlaga: LiDAR 
©ARSO; ©NMS).
123The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
trolled by the Taurisci or Carni, peoples defeated 
by Octavian according to Appian.58 
About 20 hobnails (mostly of Alesia Type D) 
discovered east of Ajdovščina (Fig. 2: 33) might 
suggest that the Roman army used the route across 
the Hrušica/Ad pirum Pass prior to the construc-
tion of the Roman road there under Augustus.59 
In addition to the sites discussed above, the 
Alésia-type hobnails occur at indigenous settle-
ments and cult sites, most of which are located 
in prominent strategic positions, e.g. i) along 
the route from Cividale/Forum Iulii area to the 
Soča Valley (Fig. 2: 4–7) and further east60 (Fig. 
2: 8–9) or north (Fig. 2: 29) towards the Predel/
Predil Pass,61 ii) along the routes in south-western 
Slovenia leading to Kvarner Bay or Sisak/Siscia 
(Fig. 2: 16–18, 20–22), and north of Ljubljana in 
the Ljubljana Basin (Fig. 2: 26–27).62 The earlier 
Roman military presence at Žerovnišček,63 and 
the assumed Roman assault at Stari grad above 
Unec64 were likely associated with Octavian’s Illyr-
ian Wars.65 In contrast, Roman military activities 
at Baba near Slavina66 and perhaps also at the 
nearby Ambroževo gradišče67 (Fig. 2: 16, 17) might 
58  Cf. Introduction and Section Literary sources; 
Laharnar, Istenič 2024.
59  Istenič 2019b, 254.
60  Istenič 2015a, 59–60.
61  Horvat 2018.
62  Istenič 2019a, 283–287.
63  The only Roman projectiles (and indeed weapons) 
from Žerovnišček are two slingshot of types Völling Ib and 
IIb that cannot be dated closer than from the end of the 
2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD or later (Laharnar 
2009, 106–107, 118,132, 141, Pl. 5: 5–7). Therefore, con-
trary to Horvat (2015b, Fig. 2) and Bernardini, Duiz (2021, 
30, Fig. 7), we agree with Laharnar (2011, 353, 370) that 
the evidence does not suggest a Roman military assault.  
64  The assault is suggested by numerous slingshot of 
Völling IIb type, comprising several ones that show damage 
inflicted upon impact (Laharnar 2011, 347–348, 365–366, 
369, Fig. 6, Pl 1: 1,2,9,12,15,16,19; the same slingshot: 
Laharnar 2011, 175–177, Fig. 3.90, Pl. 35: 143–178).
65  Istenič 2019a, 284. Information about a coin scatter 
from Stari grad, containing c. 60 denarii, the latest of which 
an Octavian’s denarius in little circulated condition, minted 
in 36 BC (Švajncer, Švajncer 2020, 140, bottom figure in 
the right column) could not be verified. 
66  Numerous slingshot suggest a Roman assault, while 
the absence of later finds indicates the abandonment of 
the hillfort (Laharnar 2022, 54–57, 327–328, Pl. 3: 15–17; 
4: 18–29, Fig. 3.15). 
67  In addition to the hobnails, only a few Roman 
military items from the site date earlier than the Middle 
Augustan period, and they do not suggest a Roman military 
assault. Several militaria from the site date to the Middle 
date to a few decades earlier.68 For the remaining 
sites, the available archaeological evidence does 
not provide sufficient information to refine the 
dating suggested by the hobnails.69
Two hobnails and at least five other pieces of 
Roman militaria were found in the River Lju-
bljanica. They indicate that Roman armies used the 
route along the river before the Middle Augustan 
period.70 The route started in Vrhnika/Nauportus, 
a commercial hub of the Taurisci taken over by 
Roman merchants from Aquileia in the mid-1st 
century BC or in the Octavianic period. Vast 
storehouses were constructed in the Octavianic 
or Early Augustan period.71 Until the road along 
the northern fringes of the marshy Ljubljansko 
barje (Fig. 7: insert) was built, the Ljubljanica was 
the only year-round communication line between 
Nauportus and Emona, forming part of the most 
convenient route from Italy across the Razdrto/
Ocra Pass and the Postojna Gates to the east.72 
Diplomatic (and possibly military) contacts 
between the Roman and the indigenous elites are 
suggested by five swords in scabbards featuring 
brass openwork decoration, dated to c. 40/30 to 
15 BC. They were presumably Roman products 
adapted to Celtic taste; with one exception, they 
were found in graves (Fig. 1: Strmec, Verdun, 
Mihovo). The earliest grave containing Roman 
weapons may date from the Early Augustan period 
(Fig. 1: Reka).73
Middle Augustan
and later archaeological evidence
Roman military finds from the Ljubljanica 
largely date to the Middle and Late Augustan pe-
riod, with only roughly 5% reliably attributed to 
to Late Augustan period; therefore, the same may apply 
to the slingshot, which were presumably unused and were 
found in two distinct groups, possibly caches (Laharnar 
2022, 298–299, 314–316, Pl. 9: 71–75, 78–111).
68  Istenič 2019a, 284–285; Laharnar 2022, 346–347.
69  Istenič 2019a, 238–287.
70  Istenič 2019b, 30–41, 114–115, 208–210, Cat. Nos 
A1, A4, MM A22, MM A23, C1, H7, H8, Fig. 13,17,123, 
Pl. 1,12,19. 
71  Horvat 1990; Mušič, Horvat 2007; Vojaković, Bekljanov 
Zidanšek, Toškan 2019. 
72  Istenič 2019b, 236–238 (with references).
73  Swords in scabbards with brass openwork decoration: 
Istenič 2010; Istenič 2015b; grave with Roman weapons: 
Istenič 2013.
124 Janka ISTENIČ
Fig. 7: A map of the territory of Slovenia and its neighbouring regions showing Middle and Late Augustan sites, as 
mentioned in the text (basemap: cf. Fig. 1; ©NMS).
Sl. 7: Zemljevid ozemlja Slovenije in okolice kaže v članku omenjena najdišča iz srednje in pozne avgustejske dobe 
(podlaga: cf. sl. 1; ©NMS).
the Tiberian era or later.74 The drop in Tiberian 
finds roughly coincides with the construction of 
the land route between Vrhnika/ Nauportus and 
Ljubljana/Emona, presumably completed towards 
the end of Augustus’ reign.75 More importantly, 
this marked decline in the number of finds pre-
sumably reflects the substantially decreased need 
for supplying the Roman army once the conquest 
of northern Illyricum was complete. 
We further presume that the accumulation of 
the finds near Bevke is related to the boundary 
separating the Roman territory under civil admin-
74  Istenič 2019b, 208–210, Fig. 123. 
75  Istenič 2019b, 254–255.
istration (province Gallia Cisalpina/Roman Italy76) 
from the frontier zone under Roman military 
administration.77 We assume it was at the same 
spot as the later boundary between the territories 
of the autonomous towns Aquileia and Emona/
Ljubljana, indicated by the boundary stone found 
at the sharp bend of the Ljubljanica near Bevke 
(fig. 7: insert).78 The boundary between Gallia 
Cisalpina/Roman Italy and the frontier zone prob-
ably existed from the mid-1st century BC (when 
76  Gallia Cisalpina became the far north-eastern part 
of Italy in 42/41 BC (Bandelli 2017, 308).
77  Cf. Roymans 2004, 195. 
78  Istenič 2019b, 246, 248, 250, Fig. 144. The boundary 
stone: Šašel Kos 2002.
125The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
Fig. 8: The Ljubljana Gates, view from the south. 1 – excavation area with the remains of the Middle-Late Augustan forts; 
2 – walled town (colonia Iulia Emona); • – sites where the Late La Tène-Augustan settlement was excavated.
Sl. 8: Ljubljanska vrata, pogled z juga. 1 – območje izkopavanj, ki so odkrila ostanke vojaškega tabora iz srednje in 
pozne avgustejske dobe; 2 – obzidano mesto (colonia Iulia Emona); • – območja, kjer je bilo odkrito poznolatensko in 
avgustejsko civilno naselje.
Nauportus was presumably incorporated into 
Gallia Cisalpina, which was abolished 42 BC and 
its territory administratively included in Italy79) 
and the end of Augustus’ reign.80 The later date is 
indicated by the foundation date of colonia Iulia 
Emona as inferred from the archaeological evidence 
and the building inscription dated to AD 14/15. 
Notably, this date coincides with the significant 
decline in the number of militaria recovered from 
the Ljubljanica near Bevke.81
The concentration of Roman military finds in 
the Ljubljanica at Vrhnika aligns with significant 
port activity, which would be expected in a trans-
shipment and transport hub of vital importance 
to the Roman army, and therefore likely under 
its control.82 
The river route along the Ljubljanica in its 
readily navigable section across the Ljubljansko 
barje (in contrast with the treacherous sections 
further south-east along the Ljubljanica and the 
Sava) ended at the Ljubljana Gates (Fig. 8). Here, 
the route forked, leading north-east overland 
to the Central Danube Basin, and south-east by 
river and land to Sisak/Siscia and further on to 
79  Zaccharia 2023, 133.
80  Istenič 2019b, 246–254.
81  Istenič 2019b, 242, with references.
82  Istenič 2019b, 246–254. 
the Balkans.83 The Ljubljana Gates were of key 
strategic importance for the Roman army during 
the conquest of Illyricum. 
Two successive Roman forts on the left bank 
of the Ljubljanica were investigated in 2008 and 
2018. Their description given below is based on 
the excavation reports,84 published overviews,85 
but also data and information kindly provided by 
Iris Bekljanov Zidanšek (Arhej, d.  o.  o.), who is 
preparing a comprehensive publication of both forts. 
The early fort was built next to the settlement 
of the indigenous inhabitants (likely joined by 
Roman immigrants from the Middle Augustan pe-
riod onwards) on the south-eastern foot of Grajski 
grič (Fig. 8).86 Excavations unearthed 60 m of the 
fortification wall with two parallel V-sectioned 
ditches on the exterior, as well as the remains of 
an earth bank (maximum w. 3.6 m) abutting the 
fortification wall, and a 2.2–2.8-metre-wide pebbled 
surface (via sagularis) in the interior. The wall 
(2.5–2.8 m wide, surviving to a maximum height 
83  Istenič 2019b, 240–245, with references. 
84  Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 27–29; 
Gaspari et al. 2014, 136–146, 151–153.
85  Vojaković et al. 2011; Novšak et al. 2023.
86  Settlement below Grajski grič: Vičič 1993; Vičič 1994; 
Vičič 2002; Vojaković 2014; Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, 
Vojaković 2017; Vojaković 2023a.
126 Janka ISTENIČ
Fig. 9: The earlier fort on the right bank of the Ljubljanica 
in Ljubljana: defensive wall, view to the SW.
Sl. 9: Starejši tabor na desnem bregu Ljubljanice: obrambno 
obzidje, pogled proti jugozahodu. 
of c. half a metre) was built of stone, earth and 
four parallel lines of vertical beams (Figs. 9, 10). 
The fireplaces, small hearths, and other features 
found in the fort’s interior indicate the barracks. 
The available space suggests the fort could not 
have covered more than c. 5 ha. During its use, 
the original defensive ditches underwent modifica-
tions. The outer ditch was first completely filled 
in, and then a new, wider, and deeper ditch was 
dug, while the inner ditch was widened. 
Tableware from the layers directly above the 
barrack floors and from the fills of the defensive 
ditches shows the fort became operative around 
or just before 10 BC87 and continued into the Late 
Augustan period. Invaluable dating evidence came 
from the inner defensive ditch. Part of its first phase 
slope was fortified with beech stakes (Fig. 10), and 
the dendrochronological dating of one of these 
stakes, which lacked final tree rings, indicates it was 
made of a tree felled after AD 3. The first phase of 
the ditches thus ended after AD 3. The numismatic 
evidence does not provide a narrower dating.88 
The earlier fort was abandoned, the area levelled, 
and a new fort was built over it. The tableware 
found in the levelling layer can only be broadly 
dated to the Late Augustan period. The numismatic 
evidence supports this dating.89 
Most of the later fort remains were found east 
of the earlier fort’s fortification wall. In the south-
ern sector, they comprised timber constructions, 
which were likely part of a valetudinarium.90 The 
87  The analysis of the 2008 excavation evidence in-
dicated the fort began ‘after 10 BC’ (Novšak, Bekljanov 
Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 28; Gaspari et al. 2014, 144), 
whereas the discoveries in the 2018 campaign revealed 
several floor levels, of which the earliest were – based on 
the fineware – preliminary dated between 20 and 10 BC 
(Novšak et al. 2023, 110–114, 121, 177).
88  N = 40. Moneyers’ coins (52%; roughly equal 
shares of early coins, minted in 18–15 BC, and later coins, 
minted in 7–6 BC) predominate, and are followed by the 
Republican coins (22%). The coin evidence includes one 
Nemausus I–II coin (RPC 522–524) and two Gaius-Lucius 
denarii (RIC 207), minted from 2 BC onwards (Wolters 
2000, 94–95, 99). 
89  N = 69. Moneyers’ coins, with an early to late coin 
ratio consistent with that in note 88, and Republican coins 
constitute the vast majority of the finds. Two Nemausus I–II 
coins (RPC 522–524), one Nemausus II coin (RPC 524), 
and one Lugdunum I coin (RIC 230) are noteworthy. A 
halved Nemausus III coin (RPC 525) minted between AD 
10 and 14 was presumably originally in the upper-lying 
layer related to the later fort.
90  Sedlmayer 2020, 20–21, Fig. 7.
northern sector revealed a different set of timber 
buildings, as well as a wooden well, the construction 
of which the dendrochronological analysis dates to 
after AD 4. The perimeter of this fort, which was 
likely larger than the earlier one, lay beyond the 
excavation area. Pottery and the coins91 indicate 
a Late Augustan date.
We can conclude that the two forts were in 
function in the Middle and Late Augustan periods, 
and likely succeeded one another either directly or 
within a short time. The earlier fort was probably 
constructed c. 10 BC, and the later one in the sec-
ond half of the first decade AD. Both forts played 
a crucial role in safeguarding the key overland 
91  N = 60. The moneyers’ coins, with an early to late coin 
ratio consistent with that in note 88, and the Republican 
coins greatly predominate. The assemblage also includes 
single examples of Lugdunum I (RIC 230), Nemausus I (RPC 
523), Nemausus II (RPC 524), Gaius-Lucius coins (RIC 
207), and two coins of Nemausus I or II (RPS 522–524). 
The Nemausus III coin (RPC 525) minted in AD 10–14 
is presumably also related to the later fort (note 89). The 
coins of Tiberius are notably absent. 
127The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
Fig. 10: The earlier fort on the right bank of the Ljubljanica in Ljubljana, from left to right: the two defensive ditches, lines of holes indi-
cating the position of vertical beams in the already dismantled defensive wall, and via sagularis; view to the west-southwest.
Sl. 10: Starejši tabor na desnem bregu Ljubljanice: obrambna jarka, vrste lukenj, ki kažejo lego navpičnih lesenih kolov 
v že odstranjenem obzidju, in via sagularis; z leve proti desni, pogled proti zahodu oziroma jugozahodu. 
transport route between the main supply base at 
Aquileia and Illyricum.92
The fineware from the forts primarily consists of 
imports from Italy. The stamps on the terra sigillata 
are rectangular, while the in planta pedis stamps are 
notably absent. The numismatic evidence reveals 
a predominance of moneyers’ coins, alongside 
Republican coins, which form the second-largest 
group. The Nemausus and Lugdunum coins are 
represented by very few specimens. This suggests 
that the Roman armies in the territory of modern 
Slovenia were supplied with money from Italy. In 
contrast, in the Rhineland – probably supplied 
from Gaul – large quantities of moneyers’ coins 
only appear at the beginning of the Tiberius’ reign; 
Nemausus I coins are characteristic of the military 
sites of the Dangstetten-Oberaden horizon, and 
Lugdunum I coins mark the Haltern-Kalkriese 
horizon.93 
92  Egri 2008. Cf. Kehne 2007. 
93  Wigg-Wolf 2007; Wolters 2000; Wolters 2007.
In Ljubljana, traces of the Augustan Roman 
military presence have also been found on the left 
bank of the Ljubljanica. Rescue excavations have 
unearthed a ‘training camp’, V-sectioned ditches 
at several locations, as well as pits and ovens used 
for food preparation, suggesting the existence of 
several successive camps or forts.94 These features 
lie beneath extensive ground levelling conducted 
in the final years of the Augustan period. Early 
Tiberian contexts bear the earliest evidence of 
civilian settlement.95 The ‘training camp’ and most 
of the pits date to the Late Augustan era, while at 
least one of the pits is likely Middle Augustan.96
94  Istenič 2019b, 242, 243, note 905.
95  Gaspari 2010, 25–81, 113–125; Gaspari 2014, 134–141, 
Fig. 143–146; Gaspari et al. 2014, 147–149, 164; Istenič 
2019b, 242, 243, note 905; Praprotnik 2016.
96  The results of the excavation and the pottery analysis 
of the NUK II site in Ljubljana are comprehensively presented 
in an undergraduate thesis (Praprotnik 2016). It reveals 
that the majority of the stratigraphic units (SE) beneath 
the extensive levelling date to either the Late or the Middle 
to Late Augustan period. Notably, Pit SE 2718, one of the 
128 Janka ISTENIČ
Fig. 11: The fort at Obrežje. Its north-eastern part was eroded by the River Sava and the central part destroyed during 
the construction of the Ljubljana-Zagreb road in the 1950s and by the Slovenia-Croatia border crossing in 1991. The 
south-western corner remained unexcavated (from Mason, Kramberger 2022, 28, Fig. 15).
Sl. 11: Tabor na Obrežju. Njegov severovzhodni del je erodirala reka Sava, osrednji del pa je bil uničen med gradnjo 
ceste Ljubljana–Zagreb v petdesetih letih 20. stoletja ter ob gradnji mejnega prehoda med Slovenijo in Hrvaško leta 1991. 
Jugozahodni vogal je ostal neizkopan (po Mason, Kramberger 2022, 28, sl. 15).
Three Roman forts were discovered in the 
Brežice Gates, a strategically important narrow 
passage between Krško polje and the valley of 
the River Sava. 
earliest Roman stratigraphic units at the site, appears to 
date to the Middle Augustan period (Praprotnik 2016, 
21–23, 72, 97: Cat. Nos 4–7, Pl. 1: 4–7; cf. Gaspari 2010, 
32, Pl. 3: SE/SU 2718). 
The site of Vihre – Sv. Urh near Drnovo, on the 
west bank of the Sava and a few kilometres upstream 
from its confluence with the Krka (Fig. 7), is today 
just under two kilometres from the Sava. However, in 
Roman times, it must have been located next to the 
river.97 The 2015 excavations examined a relatively 
97  The Sava no doubt ran past Drnovo near Krško/
municipium Flavium Latobicorum Neviodunum (Verbič, 
Berič 1993, 330).
129The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
small area (105 m2) and revealed four chronological 
phases of one or more Roman forts. The earliest is 
a V-sectioned defensive ditch (Phase I), followed 
by several bread ovens (Phase II), and pits (Phase 
III); sleeper beam slots of wooden barracks and 
contemporary pits constitute the latest phase (Phase 
IV). Scarce small finds associated with Phases I 
and II do not allow a more precise dating than the 
Middle or Late Augustan period, while the later 
two phases date to the Late Augustan era.98 The 
excavations in 2022 unearthed the ground surface 
of wooden barracks.99 In addition, investigations 
in 2003, 2004, and 2009 revealed V-sectioned 
ditches, bread ovens and pits in different parts 
of the site.100 
Another fort (or perhaps camp) came to light 
at Čatež – Sredno polje, also on the right bank 
of the Sava (Fig. 7). The archaeological investiga-
tions revealed the lower sections of two parallel 
V-sectioned ditches and domed ovens. The few 
associated artefacts suggest they date from the 
Middle Augustan to the Tiberian period.101
The most extensively researched is the fort at 
Obrežje, located few km south-east of Brežice, on 
the west bank of the Sava, on the gravel terrace 
formed by its western tributary (Fig. 7). At this spot, 
the Brežice Gates open into the broad valley of the 
Sava. The following description of the archaeologi-
cal evidence from this site is based on the papers 
published shortly after the end of excavations,102 a 
paper that briefly addresses the coins from the site,103 
and the invaluable information kindly provided by 
Maja Janežič, the author of an as yet unpublished 
report on the small finds from the site.
The excavations explored more than half of the 
fort area, which originally covered approximately 6 
ha. They revealed only negative features, as no intact 
occupation layers associated with the Roman fort 
have survived. The fort was built on a rectangular 
plan with rounded corners (Fig. 11). Details of the 
south-western inner clavicula entrance indicate 
98  Leskovar et al. 2019. 
99  Source: FB page Arhos, d. o. o., published on 6 April 
2023 (https://www.facebook.com/arhos.arhos.71).
100  Vičič, Predan 2003; Vičič, Predan 2004; Štular, Tica 
2004; Olić 2009. Guštin (2015, 224) includes incorrect in-
formation by discussing Vihre and Sv. Urh as two separate 
sites and stating that a piece of a lorica squamata (rather 
than lorica segmentata) was found there.
101  Tomaž 2022, 109–114, 183–187, 798–803, Fig. 8b, 
58–64. 
102  Mason 2006; Mason 2008.
103  Miškec 2009.
that, in its first phase, the fort featured a single 
ditch that enclosed an area of 290 m × 210im. 
A later ditch, visible in the excavated ground 
plan as the outer ditch, enclosed a slightly larger 
area (300 m × 215 m) and was probably associ-
ated with an earth-and-timber rampart, erected 
on the backfilled inner ditch. Another ditch was 
subsequently added to the north-east end of the 
fort to enclose a 215 m × 25 m annex.
The fort’s interior contained numerous pits and 
postholes, three beehive-shaped clay bread ovens 
with access pits, and a single well, while the annex 
was nearly empty. A series of large pits, intersected 
by others, suggests intensive activity and at least 
two occupation phases. 
Compared to the forts from Ljubljana, the fort 
at Obrežje yielded few small finds.104 Nevertheless, 
they suggest it was in use in the Late Augustan 
period. Stratigraphic evidence reveals that the two 
phases of the fort succeeded each other in a short 
time. The earliest of a small group of cremation 
burials found within the fort area is of Tiberian 
date,105 indicating that the fort was no longer in 
use in that time. 
The larger camp or fort (c. 4 ha) on Nadleški 
hrib (Fig. 6: B) is likely from the Middle or Late 
Augustan period.106 The trenching at the nearby 
site Ulaka – tabor (Fig. 6: C) revealed a rampart 
that suggests a Middle or Late Augustan camp or 
fort also existed there.107 
The only Early Principate fortress in Slovenia 
was situated at Ptuj (Fig. 7). During the Roman 
conquest period, the site was strategically signifi-
cant for several reasons: i) situated along the River 
Drava, it was well connected with Moesia and 
the eastern part of the Roman state, ii) it was the 
location where the main pre-Roman route crossed 
the Drava to continue towards the Middle Danube 
104  Predominating among the pottery is thin-walled 
ware (c. 120 pieces), around 20 pieces belong to terra 
sigillata. The numismatic evidence is similar to that from 
the forts in Ljubljana; of 34 coins, three quarters are 
moneyers’ coins, c. 17% are Republican coins, and two 
are Lugdunum I bronze coins (RIC 230) that mark the 
Haltern-Kalkriese horizon in the Rhineland (Wigg-Wolf 
2007; Wolters 2000, 93).
105  The grave goods include a Celtic silver coin, four 
Roman coins (latest one minted in AD 11–12) and an 
Almgren 236a brooch with two knobs (cf. Demetz 1999, 
49–51, 55–56; Sedlmayer 2009, 26). Other three cremations 
are either later or cannot be precisely dated.
106  Laharnar 2016, 94–95, Fig. 4, 7: 19, 20, 23.
107  Laharnar, Istenič 2024.
130 Janka ISTENIČ
Fig. 12: Ptuj/Poetovio, 1st century AD. 1 – defensive wall of a Roman fort(ress) (geophysical and trenching evidence); 
2 – presumed military barracks (geophysical evidence); 3–4 – sites where the remains of wooden buildings and militaria 
were excavated (archaeological data source: Horvat 2024; basemap: LiDAR ©ARSO). 
Sl. 12: Zemljevid območja Ptuja s prikazom v članku omenjenih najdišč iz 1. st. n. št. 1 – obrambno obzidje rimskega 
tabora (vir: geofizikalne raziskave in arheološka izkopavanja); 2 – verjetne vojaške barake (vir: geofizikalne raziskave); 3–4 
– najdišča lesenih stavb in rimskih vojaških predmetov (vir arheoloških podatkov: Horvat 2024; podlaga: LiDAR ©ARSO). 
region,108 iii) to the west, it was protected by the 
territory of the Norican Kingdom, annexed to the 
Roman state around 15 BC.109
Ever since the research of the Roman military 
presence at Ptuj has begun, it has been widely 
accepted that it hosted a fortress from the Au-
gustan period to the end of the 1st century AD.110 
The two main arguments for its existence in the 
Augustan period provide the tombstones of the 
soldiers of Legio VIII found in and around Ptuj,111 
and Tacitus who mentions this legion among the 
three Pannonian legions that mutinied on the 
death of Augustus.112 The fortress of Legio VIII 
must therefore have existed at Ptuj by AD 14.113 
There is no clear evidence of an earlier presence 
108  Evidence for a prehistoric route underlying the Ro-
man road: Tomanič Jevremov 1985, 289; Jevremov 1978, 59.
109  Šašel Kos 1997b, 32–33; Urban 2000, 368.
110  Ritterling 1924–1925, 1645; Saria 1951, 1170–1172.
111  Cf. Section Epigraphic evidence.
112  Tacitus, Annales I, 23, 30 (cf. Section Literary sources).
113  Oldenstein-Pferdehirt 1984, 397–400; Reddé 2000, 
120–121.
of the Roman army at Ptuj. Historians nevertheless 
often propose that Ptuj hosted a fortress from the 
Pannonian Wars in 12–9 BC onwards.114 Between 
AD 43 and 45, Legio VIII was replaced by Legio 
XIII, which arrived to Poetovio from Vindonissa.115 
The former is credited with opening the marble 
quarries in the eastern Pohorje Hills.116
Until recently, it was widely believed that the 
fortress was located on the right bank of the Drava, 
north of Spodnja Hajdina, in an area eroded by 
the Drava after the Roman period.117 However, 
the geophysical survey on the hill of Panorama 
on the left bank of the Drava suggested a defensive 
wall and barracks of a Roman fort(ress) (Fig. 12: 
114  Saria 1951, 1170; Radman-Livaja 2012, 164 (with 
references). 
115  Ritterling 1924–1925, 1713; Saria 1951, 1171; 
Oldenstein Pferdehirt 1984, 398–400; Reddé 2000, 121. 
Tombstones of serving soldiers and veterans of Legio XIII 
in and around Ptuj: Ragolič 2023, 16, Cat. Nos 2, 9, 14, 
15, 16?, 17–20, 359.
116  Djurić 2008, 161, 163–164.
117  Klemenc, Saria 1936, 50; Saria 1951, 1169; Wolff 2000. 
131The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
1–2).118 The subsequent trial trenching in 2020 
unearthed the defensive features of two phases that 
can only be dated broadly, to the 1st century AD. 
Phase 1 comprises a wooden palisade and an almost 
completely destroyed earth-and-timber rampart, 
while Phase 2 is represented by a stone-built de-
fence wall with an inner tower, and a V-sectioned 
ditch. The finding gave rise to the hypothesis that 
the structures discovered on Panorama relate to a 
fortress covering c. 20 ha, situated on two levels: 
on the summit of Panorama and below it, in the 
plain between Panorama and the Drava (Fig. 12),119 
where Roman military presence in the 1st century 
AD is suggested by several pieces of military and 
horse equipment and perhaps also by the evidence 
of timber structures (military barracks?; Fig. 12: 
3–4).120 
The use of stone for the second phase of the 
defensive wall on Panorama suggests its dating 
to the last third of the 1st century AD.121 The re-
placement of the earth-and-timber rampart with 
the stone defensive wall is, therefore, attributed 
to Legio XIII. However, there is currently no 
evidence to suggest whether this legion also built 
the earth-and-timber rampart on Panorama, e.g. 
upon its arrival to Ptuj c. AD 43, or if it was built 
earlier, by Legio VIII. For now, it remains unclear 
whether the fortress of Legio VIII was on Panorama 
or elsewhere, perhaps on the right bank. 
A small number of metal objects, characteristic 
of the Roman army in the Early Principate, have 
been discovered at several prehistoric hillforts 
in south-western Slovenia and north of Ljublja-
na.122 However, with the exception of Ambroževo 
gradišče,123 there is no information about their 
find context or the pottery from the sites, allow-
ing for various interpretations. These include the 
possible presence of Roman troops in local set-
tlements or auxiliary soldiers returning to their 
home communities.124 
118  Horvat et al. 2020, 13–53, 65–70.
119  Horvat 2023; Horvat 2024.
120  Janežič, Lazar 2015; Schindler-Kaudelka, Janežič 
2019; Istenič et al. 2020; Horvat 2024, notes 25, 33, Fig. 3).
121  Cf. Reddé et al. 2006, 85–86; Hanel 2007, 399; 
Fischer 2012, 257. 
122  On most of these sites, earlier militaria were also 
found (cf. Fig. 2). Sites at Gobavica and Straža: Horvat 2015a, 
189–190, Fig. 7: 5, 10, Pl. 1: 20, Pl. 2: 3; site Žerovnišček: 
Laharnar 2009; various sites in south-eastern Slovenia: 
Laharnar 2022, 298–302.
123  Horvat 1995, 183–188, Pl. 7–12. 
124  Laharnar 2022, 327–330, 360–365.
The Roman military metalwork items from Kranj 
are associated with the Middle to Late Augustan 
settlement enclosed by a stone wall with towers 
that are not of a military character. The settlement 
is situated on a naturally well-protected promon-
tory overlooking the confluence of the Rivers 
Kokra and Sava, along the northbound road from 
Ljubljana/Emona.125 
We should also note the graves containing 
Early Roman weapons, which are concentrated in 
north-west and south-east Slovenia, with sporadic 
occurrences in central Slovenia (Fig. 7: Reka, 
Strmec, Mihovo, Verdun, Ljubljana). These graves 
likely represent the burials of indigenous men who 
served in Roman auxiliary units. The custom of 
placing weapons in graves ceased after the first 
half of the first century AD.126
CONCLUSION
The archaeological evidence on the Roman 
military presence between the late 2nd century BC 
and the beginning of the Middle Augustan period 
in Slovenia is limited to its western half. At several 
sites, it only consists of the caligae hobnails. 
Dating evidence provided for the sites Grad 
near Reka, Gradišče in Cerkno, and Vrh gradu is 
likely related to a Roman assault during Octavian’s 
Illyrian Wars (35–33 BC). Presumably also associ-
ated to the same wars is the evidence of Roman 
military presence at several sites in southwestern 
and northern Slovenia (Figs 1, 2). After the Illyrian 
Wars, the Romans presumably controlled roughly 
the western half of the territory of Slovenia, which 
included the Sava plain north of Ljubljana and the 
areas up to the Sava east of Ljubljana. 
The intensive Roman military actions that the 
territory of Slovenia witnessed during the Illyr-
ian Wars were the result of the need to secure the 
overland communication between Italy and the 
areas of the fiercest fighting with the Iapodes and 
Segestani (N Croatia).127 An important part of this 
communication ran along the River Ljubljanica 
between Vrhnika/Nauportus and Ljubljana/Emona. 
125  Sagadin 2015; Sagadin 2020, 204–208, 210, Fig. 2.
126  Istenič 2013. Grave from Ljubljana: Gaspari et al. 
2015; graves from Verdun: Breščak 2015. 
127  Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a. The Roman army presum-
ably entered the land of the Iapodes and Segestani (N Croatia) 
mainly from the Kvarner Bay (Šašel Kos 2005, 429–430).
132 Janka ISTENIČ
A correlation of archaeological and historical 
sources reveals that a military base was located in 
Ljubljana from the Pannonian War (12–9 BC), when 
the early fort on the right bank of the Ljubljanica 
became active, to roughly the end of the Augustan 
period, when the later fort was abandoned. The 
abandonment of the early fort and the construction 
of the later and larger one may be related to the 
beginning of the Pannonian-Dalmatian uprising in 
AD 6, when the rebels threatened to invade Italy 
via land routes. Before the end of the Augustan 
period, Roman military use of the left bank also 
came to an end or was severely reduced, and ex-
tensive ground levelling prepared the terrain for 
the construction of the colony of Emona.
One tombstone and the votive altar (if genu-
ine) related to the serving personnel of Legio XV, 
supported by three tombstones erected in the 
memory of veterans of the same legion,128 lead 
to a conjecture that one or more detachments of 
this legion were among the forces active in Emona. 
The fortress of Legio XV was located within the 
territory that subsequently became the province 
of Pannonia.129 
The concentration of archaeological and epi-
graphic evidence associated with the Roman army 
in Ljubljana mirrors the vital importance of Lju-
bljana Gates for safeguarding Italy and supplying 
the Roman armies deployed to Illyricum. Emona 
was one of the key points on the main line of com-
munication between the Roman hinterland, with 
the operational base in Aquileia, and the conflict 
zones on the Balkan Peninsula; in the northern 
Balkans, the main Roman base after the end of the 
war in 35–33 BC was at Sisak/Siscia.130 
Another concentration of Roman forces was in 
the area of the Brežice Gates. The available evidence 
indicates that the Late Augustan forts were situated 
at three sites on the right bank of the River Sava 
(Obrežje, Čatež – Sredno polje, Vihre – Sv. Urh). 
It seems reasonable to assume they are related to 
the AD 6–9 uprising. At that time, it was vital for 
the Roman army to secure the passages leading 
to Italy from the Balkans, and, viewed from the 
east, the Brežice Gates was the first area where it 
128  Cf. Section Literary sources.
129  Šašel Kos 1995, 123–237; Mosser 2003, 167; Wheeler 
2000, 270–274; Dzino 2010, 168; Radman-Livaja 2018, 
160–161.
130  Radman-Livaja 2018, 153–154, 155–158. Archaeo-
logical evidence on an Augustan-Tiberian fort on the left 
bank of the Kupa: Drnić 2018, 10, 12, 14–15, 18–20, Fig. 1.
was possible to control the military movements 
towards Italy on the main road along the Sava. 
The later camps or forts on Nadleški hrib and 
Ulaka – tabor may be associated with the wars in 
12–9 BC and/or AD 6–9. Their primary function 
was probably to control the side road connecting 
Illyricum to Italy. As discussed above, this control 
was of paramount importance at the onset of the 
uprising in AD 6–9. 
The literary and epigraphic evidence indicates 
that a fortress was built at Ptuj on the River Drava 
by AD 14, but we lack archaeological evidence on 
the Roman military presence there during either 
the Augustan or Tiberian periods. The Ptuj area 
likely became significant for the Roman army in 
the war of 12–9 BC or not long thereafter, as its 
geostrategic location made it an ideal base for mili-
tary conquests further north and east, into areas 
that would later become part of the province of 
Pannonia. As for the view that Ptuj served as the 
headquarters of the Pannonian army and the seat 
of the provincial governor in the first half of the 
1st century AD,131 it is, for now, not supported by 
either literary or archaeological evidence. It seems 
reasonable to infer a military supply base at Ptuj, 
though neither archaeological,132 epigraphic or other 
written evidence provides any indications of this. 
The Roman military protection was likely provided 
for those civilian settlements where inhabitants 
from Italy played the leading role and which were 
situated along major roads. One such settlement 
was established either by or during the Octavian’s 
era at Vrhnika/Nauportus, an important stop on 
the Roman army’s supply line during the wars in 
35–33 BC and in the Augustan period. A similar 
Middle to Late Augustan settlement may have 
existed at Kranj, located on the road leading from 
Ljubljana/Emona133 to Magdalensberg (Austria), 
which served as the political and economic hub 
of Roman Noricum, annexed around 15 BC.134  
Archaeological evidence of military camps, 
forts, fortresses, and battle sites is much easier 
to recognise than material traces of other, often 
brutal practices—such as massacres of both com-
batant and non-combatant populations, scorched-
131  Saria 1951, 1178; Šašel Kos 2014, 139. The main 
Balkan base of operations in the wars of 12–9 BC and AD 
6–9 was in Siscia, where the fortress persisted at least to 
AD 43 (Radman-Livaja 2018, 166–168).
132  The arguments that Egri (2008) states in support 
of storehouses at Ptuj are highly unreliable.
133  Sagadin 2020, 210.
134  Dolenz et al. 2024.
133The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
earth campaigns, plundering, deportations, and 
mass enslavement – that Roman imperial power 
employed to acquire new territories and assert 
control over conquered peoples.135 The use of 
such or similar means could be related to the 
abandonment of several indigenous hilltop settle-
ments during the last decades of the 1st century 
BC and the beginning of the 1st century AD, as 
indicated by archaeological evidence in regions 
presumably inhabited by the Taurisci136 or under 
their political influence.137 Hilltop settlements 
exhibiting continuity of occupation into the Ro-
man period indicate that, even within the rela-
tively small territory of southwestern Slovenia, 
interactions between indigenous populations and 
the Romans were manifold and not uniformly 
characterised by hostility.138 
Drafting indigenous men into the Roman army, 
during and in the immediate aftermath of wars 
of conquest was a less overtly violent means of 
controlling and exploiting conquered popula-
tions, although the primary aim was to ensure 
an adequate number of soldiers.139 This practice 
is reflected in graves containing Roman weapons 
and in epigraphic sources, most of which come 
from north-west and especially south-east Slove-
nia. The evidence suggests that indigenous men 
began joining the Roman auxilia soon after the 
war in 35–33 BC. The recruitment of indigenous 
men in south-western Slovenia is also suggested 
by three very small fragments of inscribed bronze 
plates, likely Roman military diplomas, found at 
hillfort settlements.140 Roman recruitment among 
the Latobici, who lived in south-eastern Slovenia 
135  Roymans 2018; Roymans 2019a; Roymans 2019b; 
Fernández-Götz, Roymans 2024.
136  Sites Gobavica above Mengeš and Straža above 
Šmartno (Fig. 2: 26–27; Horvat 2015a), Cvinger above Vir 
near Stična (Laharnar 2011, 350, 368, No. 18) and presum-
ably several other sites, mostly in south-eastern Slovenia 
(Laharnar 2011, 350, 368, Nos 17, 19–22).
137  Laharnar 2022, 360–365.
138  Laharnar 2022, 364.
139  Indication of drafting among indigenous popula-
tions in the territory of the later province of Dalmatia: 
Cass. Dio 55, 29; cf. Šašel Kos 1986, 166, 182–183. Various 
aspects of Roman recruitment among indigenous popula-
tions: Hirt 2018, 1–2, 14–18; Roymans et al 2020, 275–277.
140  Laharnar 2022, 327–328, 330, Pl. 22: 35, 29: 15, 49: 
13. A detailed analysis of the fragments has not yet been 
conducted and is unlikely to yield precise dates. Therefore, 
regarding the date of the diplomas, it can only be stated 
that they are not earlier than the beginning of the second 
half of the 1st century. 
(in areas where urban settlements later developed 
at Drnovo near Krško/Municipium Flavium La-
tobicorum Neviodunum, and Trebnje/Praetorium 
Latobicorum) and who were presumably subjected 
to the Taurisci prior to the Roman rule, can be 
inferred from two military diplomas mentioning 
ala I Latobicorum et Varcianorum.141 
In eastern Slovenia north of the Sava, there 
are no archaeological traces of Roman military 
activities in the period under discussion. This 
aligns with the evidence that in the second half of 
the 1st century BC, most of this area was part of 
the Norican Kingdom, a traditional ally of Rome 
which became a Roman protectorate around 15 
BC, without the need for military intervention. To 
manage and govern this area, the Roman authori-
ties relied heavily on the Norican elite.142 
It is uncertain if the Norican Kingdom en-
compassed the wider area of Ptuj.143 Regardless 
of that, literary and epigraphic evidence suggests 
that the absence of archaeological evidence for the 
early Roman military activities there mirrors the 
state of research, as well as the extent to which 
archaeological evidence survives.
The mutiny in Nauportus following the death 
of Augustus is the latest literary reference to the 
activities of Roman soldiers in the territory of 
Slovenia during the first half of the 1st century. 
Archaeological evidence indicates that the fort at 
Emona was abandoned at the end of the Augus-
tan period. Extensive military operations in the 
western Balkans came to an end, and the focus 
of diplomatic and military efforts shifted to the 
frontier on the Danube. In the hinterland of 
the limes developing along the middle Danube, 
the fortress in Ptuj protected the main corridor 
between Italy and the Central Danube Basin, as 
well as the northern Balkans until the end of the 
1st century AD.144 
141  Lovenjak 2003, 95. The diplomas date to the reign 
of Vespasian (CIL 16 Suppl. No. 158) and Traian (Roxan 
1978, No. 52).
142  Šašel 1954; Šašel Kos 1997a, 24–32; Urban 2000, 
332–368. 
143  Cf. note 6. 
144  Sedlmayer 2020, 20–26. In relation to the hypothesis 
on a line of fortresses running from the hinterland of the 
eastern Adriatic in Dalmatia across Siscia and Poetovio to 
Carnuntum on the Danube and established either during 
the war in 35–33 or in the Augustan period with the aim of 
controlling Illyricum and protecting Italy (Šašel 1974), we 
should mention the study in which Periša (2008) showed 
134 Janka ISTENIČ
AE = L’Année épigraphique (prim.npr. op. 22, 23).
AIJ = V. Hoffiller, B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslavien, 
Heft I: Noricum und Pannonia Superior, Zagreb 1938.
CIL = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum.
EDCS = Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby. https://
db.edcs.eu/epigr/hinweise/hinweis-en.html
EDR = Epigraphic Database Roma, DigiLab Centro inter-
dipartimentale di ricerca e servizi, Sapienza Università 
di Roma. http://www.edr-edr.it 
ILJug = A. Šašel, J. Šašel, Inscriptiones Latinae, quae in 
Iugoslavia inter annos MCMLX et MCMLXX repertae 
et editae sunt (Situla 19), Ljubljana 1978; A. Šašel, J. 
Šašel, Inscriptiones Latinae, quae in Iugoslavia inter 
annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt (Situla 
25), Ljubljana 1986. 
ILS = H. Dessau (ur. / ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 
Berlin 1892-1916.
lupa = UBI ERAT LUPA – Bilddatenbank zu antiken Stein-
denkmälern, CHC – Archäometrie und Cultural Heritage 
Computing, Universität Salzburg). http://www.lupa.at
ALFÖLDY, A. 1936, The central Danubian provinces. – 
In: S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, M. P. Charlesworth (ed.), 
The Cambridge Ancient History XI. The imperial peace 
: A.D. 70–192, 540–554, Cambridge.
BANDELLI, G. 2017, Roma e la Gallia Cisalpina dal “do-
poguerra annibalico” alla guerra sociale (201 a.C. –89 
a.C.). – In: Celti d’Italia. I Celti dell’età di La Tène a 
sud delle Alpi, Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma 
16–17 dicembre 2010, 291–316, Roma.
BERNARDINI, F., A. DUIZ 2021, Oltre Aquileia. La 
conquista romana del Carso (II–I secolo a.C.) / Onkraj 
Akvileje. Rimsko osvajanje Krasa (2. in 1. stoletje pr. n. 
št.) / Beyond Aquileia (The Roman conquest of the Karst 
(2nd–1st century BC). – Trieste/Trst. 
BERNARDINI, F, J. HORVAT, G. VINCI 2023, San Rocco/
Koromačnik military camps (2nd–1st centuries BC). – 
In: J. Horvat, F. Bernardini, M. Belak (ed.), The Roman 
conquest beyond Aquileia : II−I centuries BC, Opera 
Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 45, 21–48. https://doi.
org/10.3986/9789610507116-2
BERNARDINI et al. 2021 = F. Bernardini, J. Horvat, G. 
Vinci, T. Berden, L. Lavrenčič, L. Liccioli, C. Lubritto 
2021, Grociana piccola: a rare example of Republican 
military fortifications in Italy. – Journal of Roman 
archaeology 34/2, 695–712. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1047759421000453 
BOŽIČ, D. 1987, Zapadna grupa. Izvori za istoriju Tauri-
ska. – In: Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5. Željezno 
doba, 855–897, Sarajevo.
BOŽIČ, D. 1999, Die Erforschung der Latènezeit in Slowenien 
seit Jahr 1964 / Raziskovanje latenske dobe na Sloven-
skem po letu 1964. – Arheološki vestnik 50, 189–213.
BREŠČAK, D. 2015, Graves with weapons from Verdun 
near Stopiče / Grobovi z orožjem z Verduna pri Stopičah. 
– In: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat (ed.), Evidence 
of the Roman army in Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske 
na Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 41, 75–123. 
DEMETZ, S. 1999, Fibeln der Spätlatène- und frühen römi-
schen Kaiserzeit in den Alpenländern. – Frühgeschicht-
liche und Provinzialrömische Archäologie, Materialien 
und Forschungen 4.
DJURIĆ, B. 2008, Early stelae from Poetovio and the 
marble studies. – In: S. Lamm et al. (ed.), Thiasos. 
Festschrift für Erwin Pochmarski zum 65. Geburtstag, 
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Archäologie der 
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz 10, 159–165.
DOLENZ et al. 2024 = H. Dolenz, D. Ebner-Baur, E. 
Schindler Kaudelka (mit Beiträgen von A. Kall, S. Kasic, 
Upon the foundation of colonia Iulia Emona, 
likely at the end of the Augustan period, the ter-
ritory of the colony passed from military145 to 
civil administration. Life in the walled town of 
rectangular layout on the left bank of the Lju-
bljanica began in the Early Tiberian period.146 The 
prevailing view is that the Tiberian period is also 
when the province of Pannonia (Illyricum Inferior) 
that the Roman forts in Dalmatia were closely linked with 
the Roman battles against the Delmatae.
145  In contrast, Šašel (1989) and Šašel Kos (1995; 2005, 
341, Fig. 81; 2012, 80–84, Fig. 2) argue that the Emona area 
was part of the province Gallia Cisalpina from the mid-1st 
century BC or, after 42/41 BC, part of Italy.
146  This dating is supported by the archaeological evi-
dence and the imperial building inscription published in 
Šašel Kos 1997b, 177–181, Cat. Nos 34, 35 (= CIL III 10768 
+ p. 2328,26 = CIL 03, 10768 = AIJ 303, 304 = lupa 9246). 
Šašel Kos (e.g. 2012) advocates that the Roman colony was 
established around 30 BC. Summarised history of research 
with references: Istenič 2019b, Chapter 19.2.3, 240–244. 
was established.147 Consequently, the territory of 
Slovenia belonged to three administrative units: 
the province of Pannonia, regio X of Italy, and 
the protectorate (which became a province under 
Claudius) of Noricum. 
From the evidence discussed in this paper, the 
Roman military emerges as an important factor 
in imposing Roman imperial power over large 
parts of what is now Slovenia during the second 
half of the 1st century BC and the beginning of 
the 1st century AD, thereby concluding the process 
of Roman conquest in this territory, which took 
nearly two centuries. 
Acknowledgement
The author thanks Boštjan Laharnar (National Museum 
of Slovenia) for his valuable comments on the manuscript.
147  Cf. note 19.
135The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
J. Leitold, N. Schranz-Prodinger) 2024, Forschungen 
im norisch-römischen Zentralraum Magdalensberg-
Zollfeld 2002–2022. – In: J. Horvat, S. Groh, K. Strobel, 
M. Belak (ed.), Roman urban landscape. Towns and 
minor settlements form Aquileia to the Danube, Opera 
Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 47, 183–224. https://
doi.org/10.3986/9789610508281_10
DRNIĆ, I. 2018, Segestica and Sisica – from the periphery 
of the Empire to a provincial center. – In: I. Drnić (ed.), 
Segestica and Sisica – from the periphery of the Empire to 
a provincial center, Katalozi i monografije Arheološkog 
muzeja u Zagrebu 16, 7–20.
DRNIĆ, I., I. RADMAN-LIVAJA 2020, The Roman conquest 
of Segestica/Siscia. – In: I. Drnić (ed.), Segestica and Siscia 
– a settlement from the beginning of history, 183–200.
DŽINO, D. 2009, The Bellum Batonianum in contempo-
rary historiographical narratives. In a search for the 
post-modern Bato the Daesitiate. – Arheološki radovi 
i rasprave 16, 29–46.
DZINO, D. 2010, Illyricum in Roman Politics 229 BC–AD 
68. – Cambridge.
DŽINO, D., A. DOMIĆ KUNIĆ 2013, Rimski ratovi u 
Iliriku. Povijesni antinarativ. – Zagreb.
DŽINO, D., A. DOMIĆ KUNIĆ 2018, A view from the 
frontier zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum. – In: M. 
Milićević Bradač, D. Demicheli (ed.), The century of 
the brave. Roman conquest and indigenous resistance 
in Illyricum during the time of Augustus and his heirs, 
Proceedings of the International conference Zagreb 22. 
–26. 9. 2014, 77–83.
EGRI, M. 2008, Roman campaigns in the Danube region. 
The Olive oil supply from Augustus to Trajan. – Ephem-
eris Napocensis 18, 45–56.
FERNÁNDEZ-GÖTZ, M., N. ROYMANS 2024, Archaeology 
of the Roman conquest. Tracing the legions, reclaiming 
the conquered. – Cambridge.
FISCHER, T. 2012, Die Armee der Caesaren. – Regensburg.
GASPARI, A. 2010, “Apud horridas gentis ...”. Začetki 
rimskega mesta Colonia Iulia Emona / Beginnings of 
the Roman town of Colonia Iulia Emona. – Ljubljana.
GASPARI, A. 2014, Prazgodovinska in rimska Emona. 
Vodnik skozi arheološko preteklost predhodnice Ljubljane 
/ Prehistoric and Roman Emona. A guide through the 
archaeological past of Ljubljana’s predecessor. – Ljubljana.
GASPARI et al. 2014 = A. Gaspari, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek, 
J. Krajšek, R. Masaryk, A. Miškec, M. Novšak 2014, 
Novejša arheološka spoznanja o Emoni med zatonom 
prazgodovinske skupnosti in gradnjo rimskega mesta 
(druga polovica 1. stol. pr. n. št. in začetek 1. stol. n. 
št.) / New archaeological insights about Emona between 
the decline of the prehistoric community and the con-
struction of the Roman town (second half of the 1st 
century BC and early 1st century AD). – In: M. Ferle 
(ed.), Emona. Mesto v imperiju / A city of the Empire, 
135–165, Ljubljana. 
GASPARI et al. 2015 = A. Gaspari, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek, 
R. Masaryk, M. Novšak 2015, Augustan military graves 
from the area of Kongresni trg in Ljubljana / Avguste-
jska vojaška grobova s Kongresnega trga v Ljubljani. 
– In: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat (ed.), Evidence 
of the Roman army in Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske 
na Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 41, 125–169.
GUŠTIN, M. 2015, Roman camps following the route to 
Segestica and the western Balkans / Rimski vojaški tabori 
v smeri proti Segestiki in zahodnemu delu Balkanskega 
polotoka. – In: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat (ed.), 
Evidence of the Roman army in Slovenija / Sledovi 
rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 
41, 221–233.
HANEL, N. 2007, Military Camps, Canabae, and Vici. 
The Archaeological Evidence. – In: P. Erdkamp (ed.), A 
companion to the Roman army, 395–416, Hong Kong/
Singapore.
HIRT, A. 2019, Dalmatians and Dacians—forms of belon-
ging and displacement in the Roman Empire. – In: E. 
Isayev, E. Jewell (eds), Displacement and the humanities: 
manifestos from the ancient to the present, Humanities 
8/1, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/h8010001
HORVAT, J. 1990, Nauportus (Vrhnika). – Dela 1. Razreda 
SAZU 33, Ljubljana. 
HORVAT, J. 1995, Notranjska na začetku rimske dobe: 
Parti pri Stari Sušici, Ambroževo gradišče in Baba pri 
Slavini (Notranjska [Inner Carniola] at the Beginning of 
the Roman Period: Parti near Stara Sušica, Ambroževo 
gradišče and Baba near Slavina). – Arheološki vestnik 
46, 177–216.
HORVAT, J. 2002, The Hoard of Roman Republican 
Weapons from Grad near Šmihel / Zaklad rimskega 
republikanskega orožja z Gradu pri Šmihelu pod Na-
nosom. – Arheološki vestnik 53, 117–192.
HORVAT, J. 2015a, Early Roman military finds from 
prehistoric settlements in the Gorenjska region / Zgo-
dnjerimske vojaške najdbe s prazgodovinskih naselbin 
na Gorenjskem. – In: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat 
(ed.), Evidence of the Roman army in Slovenia / Sledovi 
rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 
41, 171–209. 
HORVAT, J. 2015b, The consolidation of Roman autho-
rity in the hinterland of the northern Adriatic. – In: 
Y. Marion, F. Tassaux (ed.), AdriAtlas et l’histoire de 
l’espace adriatique du VIe s. a.C. au VIIIe s. p.C., Actes 
du colloque international de Rome (4–6 novembre 2013), 
Ausonius Scripta Antiqua 79, 27–291.
HORVAT, J. 2018, Statuettes from Ravelnik near Bovec 
in the Soča Valley (Slovenia). – In: A. Bouet, C. Petit-
Aupert (ed.), Bibere, ridere, gaudere, studere, hoc est 
vivere : hommages à Francis Tassaux, Aquitania Supp. 
40, Mémoires 53, 337–351.
HORVAT, J. 2023, The legionary camp of Poetovio. – 
In: From Germania Inferior to Arabia Petraea. New 
perspectives on Roman legionary camps, 11.–12. Mai 
2023, Bonn, 19–20 (conference contribution abstract). 
https://www.iak.uni-bonn.de/de/institut/abteilungen/
vor-und-fruehgeschichtliche-archaeologie/projekte-1/
tagungsheft_a5_03052023.pdf
HORVAT, J. 2024, Latest research in Poetovio. – In: J. Horvat, 
S. Groh, K. Strobel, M. Belak (ed.), Roman urban land-
scape. Towns and secondary settlements from Aquileia to 
the Danube River, Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 
47, 429–446. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610508281_22
HORVAT, J., A. BAVDEK 2009, Ocra. Vrata med Sredozemljem 
in Srednjo Evropo / The gateway between the Mediterra-
nean and Central Europe. – Opera Instituti Archaeologici 
Sloveniae 17. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789612545635
136 Janka ISTENIČ
HORVAT et al. 2020 = J. Horvat, B. Marušič, A. Dolenc 
Vičič, A. Ragolič 2020, Arheološka najdišča Ptuja – 
Panorama / Archaeological sites of Ptuj – Panorama. 
– Opera Instituti Archaerologici Sloveniae 41. https://
doi.org/10.3986/9789610502722
ISTENIČ, J. 2002, The western cemetery of Poetovio: 
burial evidence and cultural identity. – Histria Antiqua 
8, 165–173.
ISTENIČ, J. 2005, Evidence for a very late Republican siege 
at Grad near Reka in Western Slovenia. – Carnuntum 
Jahrbuch 2005, 77–87.
ISTENIČ, J. 2010, Late La Tène scabbards with non-ferrous 
openwork plates / Poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim 
okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra. – Arheološki 
vestnik 61, 121–164.
ISTENIČ, J. 2013, Early roman graves with weapons in 
Slovenia: an overview. – In: M. Sanader, A. Rendić-
Miočević, D. Tončinić, I. Radman-Livaja (ed.), Weap-
ons and Military Equipment in a Funerary Context. 
Proceedings of the XVIIth Roman Military Equipment 
Conference Zagreb, 24th–27th May, Dissertationes et 
Monographie 7, 23–36.
ISTENIČ, J. 2015a, Traces of Octavian’s military activities 
at Gradišče in Cerkno and Vrh gradu near Pečine / 
Sledovi oktavijanovega vojaškega delovanja na Gradišču 
v Cerknem in Vrh gradu pri Pečinah. – In: J. Istenič, B. 
Laharnar, J. Horvat (ed.), Evidence of the Roman Army in 
Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi 
in monografije 41, 43–74.
ISTENIČ, J. 2015b, Celtic or Roman?: late La Tène-style 
scabbards with copper-alloy or silver openwork plates. 
– In: L. Vagalinski, N. Sharankov (ed.), Limes XXII, 
Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman 
Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012, Bulletin 
of the National Archaeological Institute 42, 755–762.
ISTENIČ, J, 2019a, Caligati in the eastern hinterland of 
Aquileia up to the Early Augustan period. – In: H. 
Dolenz, K. Strobel (ed.), Chronologie und vergleichende 
Chronologien zum Ausgang der Römischen Republik und 
zur Frühen Kaiserzeit, Kärntner Museumsschriften 87, 
271–295.
ISTENIČ, J. 2019b, Roman military equipment from the 
river Ljubljanica. Typology, chronology and technology 
/ Vojaška oprema iz reke Ljubljanice. Arheološke in 
naravoslovne raziskave. – Katalogi in monografije 43. 
ISTENIČ, J. 2023, Grad near Reka, Gradišče in Cerkno, 
and Vrh gradu near Pečine – pre-Roman places of 
worship? –In: J. Horvat, F. Bernardini, M. Belak (ed.), 
The Roman conquest beyond Aquileia (II-I century BC), 
Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 45, 111–125. 
https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610507116-6
ISTENIČ et al. 2020 = J. Istenič, M. Janežič, E. Lazar, Ž. 
Šmit 2020, Roman cavalry equipment and other militaria 
from the 2010 and 2011 excavations at Ptuj (Slovenia). 
– In: J. C. N. Coulston (ed.), Cavalry in the Roman 
world, Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Ro-
man Military Equipment Conference held in St Andrews, 
Scotland, 6th-11th June 2016, Journal of Roman military 
equipment studies 19, 163–177.
JANEŽIČ, M., E. LAZAR 2015, Roman military equipment 
from the town centre of Poetovio / Rimska vojaška 
oprema iz središča Petovione. – In: J. Istenič, B. La-
harnar, J. Horvat (ed.), Evidence of the Roman army in 
Slovenija / Sledovi rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi 
in monografije 41, 257–268.
JEVREMOV, B. 1978, Ptuj, antični Poetovium. – Arheološki 
pregled 20, 59–66.
KEHNE, P. 2007, War- and Peacetime Logistics: Supplying 
Imperial Armies in East and West. – In: P. Erdkamp (ed.), 
A Companion to the Roman Army, 323–338, Oxford. 
KEPPIE, L. 1998, The making of the Roman army. From 
Republic to Empire – London.
KIELB ZAARAOUI, M. 2018, Les clous de chaussure. – 
In: Y. Zaaraoui, C. Bottalico, L. Buffat, M. Gagnol, N. 
Giovannetti, M. Kielb Zaaraoui, M.-L. Le Brazidec, A. 
Renaud, A. Roumégous, Occupation militaire tardo-
-républicaine sur la colline du Lampourdier, Orange 
(Vaucluse). Rapport final d’opération., 210–236.
KLEMENC, J., B. SARIA 1936, Archaeologische Karte von 
Jugoslavien: Blatt Ptuj. – Beograd-Zagreb.
KOVÁCS, P. 2008, Some notes on the devision of Illyricum. 
– In: I. Piso (ed.), Die römische Provinzen. Begriff und 
Gründung, 2008, 237–247, Cluj, Napoca.
KOVÁCS, P. 2014, A history of Pannonia during the Prin-
cipate. – Antiquitas I 65.
KOVÁCS, P. 2018, Northern Pannonia and the Roman 
conquest. – In: M. Milićević Bradač, D. Demicheli (ed.), 
The century of the brave. Roman conquest and indigenous 
resistance in Illyricum during the time of Augustus and 
his heirs, Proceedings of the International conference 
Zagreb 22.–26. 9. 2014, 163–174, Zagreb.
LAHARNAR, B. 2009, The Žerovnišček Iron Age hillfort 
near Bločice in the Notranjska region / Železnodobno 
gradišče Žerovnišček pri Bločicah na Notranjskem. – 
Arheološki vestnik 60, 97–157.
LAHARNAR, B. 2011, Roman lead slingshots (glandes 
plumbeae) in Slovenia / Rimski svinčeni izstrelki za 
pračo (glandes plumbeae) iz Slovenije. – Arheološki 
vestnik 62, 339–374.
LAHARNAR, B. 2016, Small finds from the Roman fort 
at Nadleški hrib, the Notranjska region (SW Slovenia). 
– In: J. Horvat, M. Guštin, I. Lazar (ed.), The Roman 
army between the Alps and the Adriatic, Opera Insti-
tuti Archaeologici Sloveniae 31, 85–97. https://doi.
org/10.3986/9789612549275
LAHARNAR, B. 2020, The Mokronog group as part of 
the Celtic world: the current state of research. – In: G. 
Pierrevelcin, J. Kysela, S. Fichtl (ed.), Unité et diversité 
du monde celtique / Unity and diversity in the Celtic 
World, Actes du 42e colloque international de l’Association 
française pour l’étude de l’âge du fer, Prague, 10-13 mai 
2018, Collection AFEAF 2, 413–423, Paris, Prague.
LAHARNAR, B. 2022, From Ocra to Albion. Notranjska 
between prehistory and antiquity / Od Okre do Albijske 
gore. Notranjska med prazgodovino in antiko. – Katalogi 
in monografije 45.
LAHARNAR, B. 2023, The end of Grad near Šmihel 
pod Nanosom (Notranjska, Slovenia). The Roman 
army and the indigenous community. – In: J. Horvat, 
F. Bernardini, M. Belak (ed.), The Roman conquest 
beyond Aquileia (II–I century BC), Opera Instituti 
Archaeologici Sloveniae 45, 93–110. https://doi.
org/10.3986/9789610507116-5
137The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
LAHARNAR, B. 2024, New evidence for the Late Iron 
Age in the Posočje region, Slovenia. – Studia Hercynia 
27/2, 77–97.
LAHARNAR, B., J. ISTENIČ 2024, Ulaka site complex. Late 
Republican and Augustan Roman military earthworks 
and small finds. – In: H. van Enckevort, M. Driessen, E. 
Graafstal, T. Hazenberg, T. Ivleva, C. van Driel-Murray 
(ed.), Strategy and structures along the Roman frontier, 
Limes XXV/2, 175–184. 
LAHARNAR, B., E. LOZIĆ 2016, Roman battlefield ar-
chaeology. Case study Grad near Šmihel pod Nanosom 
and Nadleški hrib (SW Slovenia). – Schild von Steier 
27, 60–71.
LESKOVAR et al. 2019 = T. Leskovar, M. Novšak, T. 
Verbič, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek, N. Ciglar 2019, Poročilo o 
arheoloških raziskavah in odstranitvi arheoloških ostalin 
na območju izgradnje hidrološke merilne postaje 248 – 
Vihre (unpublished report / neobjavljeno poročilo; kept 
by / hrani: Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije). 
– Ljubljana.
LOVENJAK, M. 2003, Municipium Flavium Latobicorum 
Neviodunum. – In: M. Šašel Kos, P. Scherrer (ed.), The 
autonomous towns of Noricum and Pannonia, Pannonia 
1 / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum und Pannonien, 
Pannonia I, Situla 41, 93–105.
MASON, P. 2006, The Augustan fort at Obrežje, Slovenija. 
– In: D. Davison, V. Gaffney, E. Marin (ed.), Dalmatia. 
Research in the Roman Province 1970–2001. Papers in 
honour of J.J. Wilkes, British Archaeological Reports 
International Series 1576, 67–71.
MASON, P. 2008, The Roman fort at Obrežje and Augustan 
military activity in the Sava valley in Slovenia. – In: J.-
S. Kühlborn (ed.), Rom auf dem Weg nach Germanien. 
Geostrategie, Vormarschtrassen und Logistik, Internati-
onales Kolloquium in Delbrück-Anreppen vom 4. bis 6. 
November 2004, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 45, 187–198.
MASON, P., B. KRAMBERGER 2022, Obrežje. Prazgo-
dovina. – Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije 105/1. 
https://www.zvkds.si/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/
aas_105_obrezje_splet.pdf
MLINAR et al. 2018 = M. Mlinar, B. Laharnar, M. Vidulli, 
A. Chrismani 2018, Stari bogovi obmolknejo. Šentviška 
planota v arheoloških dobah. – Tolmin.
MAXFIELD, V. A. 1986, A Soldier’s tombstone from 
Emona. – Arheološki vestnik 37, 279–286. 
MIŠKEC, A. 2009, The Augustan conquest of southeastern 
Alpine and western Pannonian areas: coins and hoards 
/ Avgustejska zasedba jugovzhodnoalpskega prostora 
in zahodne Panonije: posamične in zakladne novčne 
najdbe. – Arheološki vestnik 60, 283–296.
MOSSER, M. 2003, Die Steindenkmäler der legio XV Apol-
linaris. – Wien.
MUŠIČ, B., J. HORVAT 2007, Nauportus – an Early Roman 
trading post at Dolge njive in Vrhnika. The results of 
geophysical prospecting using a variety of independent 
methods / Nauportus – zgodnjerimska trgovska postojan-
ka na Dolgih njivah na Vrhniki. Rezultati geofizikalne 
raziskave z več neodvisnimi metodami. – Arheološki 
vestnik 58, 219–283.
NESTOROVIĆ, A. 2005, Images of the world engraved in 
jewels. – Ljubljana.
NOVŠAK, M., I. BEKLJANOV ZIDANŠEK, P. VOJAKOVIĆ 
2017, Zaton predrimske naselbine na Tribuni. Ra-
zumevanje morebitne diskontinuitete poselitve med 
zadnjo fazo latenskega naselja in rimskim vojaškim 
taborom / The decline of the pre-Roman settlement at 
Tribuna: deliberations on the possibility of settlement 
discontinuity between the final phase of the La Téne 
settlement and the Roman military camp. – In: B. Vičič, 
B. Županek (ed.), Emona MM. Urbanizacija prostora – 
nastanek mesta / Urbanisation of space – beginning of 
a town, 9–52, Ljubljana.
NOVŠAK et al. 2023 = M. Novšak, I. Bekljanov Zidanšek, 
J. Brečić, N. Žitko, P. Vojaković, T. Žerjal, R. Erjavec 
2023, Arheološke raziskave za objekt “Intervencijska 
pot, Zvonarska cesta, zunanja ureditev objekta Pirnat 
(delno) ob Karlovški cesti v Ljubljani – nova gradnja 
in investicijsko vzdrževalna dela”, TRIBUNA 2 – Zvo-
narska in Tesarska ulica, Končno strokovno poročilo o 
predhodni arheološki raziskavi – arheološka izkopavanja 
in arheološka raziskava ob gradnji (unpublished report 
/ neobjavljeno poročilo; kept by / hrani: Ministrstvo za 
kulturo Republike Slovenije). – Ljubljana.
OLDENSTEIN-PFERDEHIRT, B. 1984, Die Geschichte der 
legio VIII Augusta. – Jahrbuch des Römisch-germanischen 
Zentralmuseums Mainz 31, 397–433. 
OLIĆ, S. 2009, Poročilo o arheoloških izkopavanjih na odseku 
trase za kanalizacijo Vihre – faza I (EŠD: 9817) (unpu-
blished report / neobjavljeno poročilo; kept by / hrani: 
Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije). – Brežice.
PERIŠA, D. 2008, Je li delmatsko područje presjekao rimski 
limes? – Archaeologia Adriatica 11, 507–517.
PRAPROTNIK, T. 2016, Tipološko-kronološka analiza 
zgodnjerimskih keramičnih najdb z arheološkega najdišča 
NUK II v Ljubljani (2008). – Diploma thesis / Diplomsko 
delo, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani (unpu-
blished / neobjavljeno). 
RADMAN LIVAJA, I. 2007, In Segestica ... – Prilozi instituta 
za arheologiju u Zagrebu 24, 153–172.
RADMAN-LIVAJA, I. 2012, The Roman army. – In: B. 
Migotti (ed.), The Archaeology of Roman Southern 
Pannonia, British Archaeological Reports International 
Series 2393, 159–189.
RADMAN-LIVAJA, I. 2018, Rimske legije u Sisciji tijekom 
julijevsko-klaudijevskog razdoblja. – In: I. Drnić (ed.), 
Segestica and Siscia – from the periphery of the Empire 
to a provincial center, Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis 
Catalogi et Monographiae 16, 151–171. 
RAGOLIČ, A. 2014, The territory of Poetovio and the 
boundary between Noricum and Pannonia / Upravno 
območje Petovione in meja med Norikom in Panonijo. 
– Arheološki vestnik 65, 323–351. 
RAGOLIČ, A. 2023, Poetovio. Römische Grabdenkmäler. 
– Situla 46.
REDDÉ, M. 2000, Legio VIII Augusta. – In: Y. Le Bohec, 
C. Wolff (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire 
1. Actes du Congrès de Lyon 17-19 septembre 1998, Col-
lection de Centre d‘Études Romaines et Gallo-Romaines 
20, 119–126.
REDDÉ, M. 2023, Die Gliederung römischer Legionsla-
ger. Von der Republik zum frühen Prinzipat. – From 
Germania Inferior to Arabia Petraea. New perspectives 
on Roman legionary camps, 11.–12. Mai 2023, Bonn 
138 Janka ISTENIČ
(conference talk). https://www.iak.uni-bonn.de/de/
institut/abteilungen/vor-und-fruehgeschichtliche-ar-
chaeologie/projekte-1/tagungsheft_a5_03052023.pdf
REDDÉ et al. 2006 = M. Reddé, R. Brulet, R. Fellmann, J. 
K. Haalebos, S. von Schnurbein 2006 (ed.), L’architec-
ture de la Gaule romaine. Les fortifications militaires. 
– Documents d’archéologie française 100.
RITTERLING, E. 1924–1925. Legio. – In: G. Wissowa et 
al. (ed.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Alter-
tumswissenschaft 12, 1186–1836.
ROLLINGER, R. 2001, Raetiam autem Vindelicos ac 
Noricos Pannoniamque et Scordiscos novas imperio 
nostro subiunxit provincias. Oder: Wann wurde Raetien 
(einschließlich Noricums und Pannoniens) als römische 
Provinz eingerichtet? – In: P.W. Haider, R. Rollinger 
(ed.), Althistorische Studien im Spannungsfeld zwischen 
Universal- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Festschrift für 
Franz Hampl zum 90. Geburtstag am 8. Dezember 2000, 
267–315, Stuttgart.
ROXAN, M. M. 1978, Roman military diplomas 1954–1977. 
– London.
ROYMANS, N. 2004, Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power. 
The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire. – Amsterdam 
Archaeological Studies 10.
ROYMANS, N. 2018, A Roman massacre in the far north: 
Caesar’s annihilation of the Tencteri and Usipetes in the 
Dutch river area. – In: M. Fernández-Götz, N. Roymans 
(ed.), Conflict Archaeology. Materialities of Collective 
Violence from Prehistory to Late Antiquity, Themes in 
Contemporary Archaeology 5, New York, 167–181.
ROYMANS, N. 2019a, Caesar’s conquest and the archaeology 
of mass violence in the Germanic frontier zone. – In: 
A. P. Fitzpatrick, C. Haselgrove (ed.), Julius Caesar’s 
battle for Gaul. New archaeological perspectives, Oxford, 
Havertown, 113–133.
ROYMANS, N. 2019b, Conquest, mass violence and ethnic 
stereotyping: investigating Caesar’s actions in the Ger-
manic frontier zone. – Journal of Roman Archaeology 
32, 439–458.
ROYMANS, N., DERKS, T., S. HEEREN 2020, Roman 
imperialism and the transformation of rural society in a 
frontier province: diversifying the narrative. – Britannia 
51, 265–294.
SAGADIN, M. 2015, Evidence of the Roman army in 
Early Roman Kranj / Sledovi rimske vojske v zgodnje-
antičnem Kranju. – In: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat 
(ed.), Evidence of the Roman Army in Slovenia / Sledovi 
rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 
41, 209–220.
SAGADIN, M. 2020, Carnium – Kranj. – In: J. Horvat, I. 
Lazar, A. Gaspari (ed.). Manjša rimska naselja na slo-
venskem prostoru / Minor Roman settlements in Slovenia, 
Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 40, 201–212. 
https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610502586 
SARIA, B. 1951, Poetovio. – In: G. Wissowa et al. (ed.), Paulys 
Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft 
21/1, 1167–1184.
SCHAUB, A. 2001, Die förmliche Provinzkonstitution 
Raetiens unter Tiberius nach dem Zeugnis des Velleius 
Paterculus. – Germania 79, 391–400.
SCHINDLER-KAUDELKA, E., M. JANEŽIČ 2019, The 
Pottery Finds from Excavations in Vičava in Roman 
Poetovio (Slovenia). – In: M. Auer (ed.), Roman Settle-
ments along the Drava River, Ager Aguntinus 3, 115–130.
SEDLMAYER, H. 2009, Die Fibeln vom Magdalensberg. 
Funde der Grabungsjahre 1948–2002 und Altfunde des 
19. Jahrhunderts. – Kärntner Museumsschriften 79.
SEDLMAYER, H. 2020, Ad metalla! Zum Militärplatz 
Strebersdorf in den pannonischen Eisenrevieren an der 
Bernsteinstraβe. – Monographies Instrumentum 68.
SPEIDEL, M. A. 2017, Recruitment and identity. Explo-
ring the meanings of Roman soldiers‘ homes. – Revue 
internationale d’histoire militaire ancienne 6, 35–50.
STERGAR, P., PORENTA, S. 2020, Stari trg pri Višnji 
Gori – prvi rezultati raziskav. – In: A. Gaspari (ed.), 
Arheologija v letu 2019, dediščina za javnost. Zbornik 
prispevkov, 44–45, Ljubljana.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1954, C. Iulius Vepo (CIL III 5232 Celeia, Nor.). 
– Živa antika 4, 346–363 (= Opera selecta, Situla 30, 
31–43, Ljubljana 1992).
ŠAŠEL, J. 1974, Die Limes-Entwicklung in Illyricum. – Actes 
du IXe Congrès International d‘Etudes sur les Frontières 
Romaines, 193–199, Bucharest, Cologne, Vienna (= Opera 
selecta, Situla 30, 397–199, Ljubljana 1992).
ŠAŠEL, J. 1985, Zur Frühgeschichte der XV. Legion und 
zur Nordostgrenze der Cisalpina zur Zeit Caesars. – In: 
E. Weber, G. Dobesch (ed.), Römische Geschichte, Al-
tertumskunde und Epigraphik. Festschrift für Artur Betz 
zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres, Archäologisch-
epigraphische Studien 1, 547–555 (= Opera selecta, Situla 
30, 469–477, Ljubljana 1992). 
ŠAŠEL, J. 1989, Zur verwaltungstechnischen Zugehörigkeit 
Emonas. – Acta Archaeologica Academiae scientiarum 
Hungaricae 41, 169–174 (= Opera selecta, Situla 30, 
707–714, Ljubljana 1992).
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1986, Zgodovinska podoba prostora med 
Akvilejo, Jadranom in Sirmijem pri Kasiju Dionu in 
Herodijanu / A historical outline of the region between 
Aquileia, the Adriatic, and Sirmium in Cassius Dio and 
Herodian. – Ljubljana.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1990, Nauportus: antični literarni in epi-
grafski viri. – In: J. Horvat, Nauportus (Vrhnika), Dela 
1. razreda SAZU 33, 17–33.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1995, The 15th legion at Emona – some 
thoughts. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 
109, 227–244.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1997a, The end of the Norican Kingdom 
and the formation of the provinces Noricum and 
Pannonia. – In: B. Djurić, I. Lazar (ed.), Akten des IV. 
Internationalen Kolloquiums über Probleme des provin-
zialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Situla 36, 21–42.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1997b, The Roman inscriptions in the 
National Museum of Slovenia. – Situla 35. 
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1998, Dolničarjev lapidarij / The Thal-
nitscher Lapidarium. – Arheološki vestnik 49, 329–353.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2002, The boundary stone between Aquileia 
and Emona / Mejnik med Akvilejo in Emono. – Arhe-
ološki vestnik 53, 373–382.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2005, Appian and Illyricum. – Situla 43.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2010, Pannonia or Lower Illyricum? – 
Tyche 25, 123–130.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2011, The Roman conquest of Dalmatia and 
Pannonia under Augustus – some of the latest research 
results. – In: G. Moosbauer, R. Wiegels (ed.), Fines im-
139The role of Roman armies in the territorial expansion and consolidation of Roman imperial power ...
perii – imperium sine fine? Römische Okkupations- und 
Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat, Beiträge zum Kongress 
“Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?”, Osnabrück vom 
14. bis 18. September 2009, Osnabrücker Forschungen 
zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14, 107–117.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2012, Colonia Iulia Emona – the genesis 
of the Roman city. – Arheološki vestnik 63, 79–104. 
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2013, The Roman conquest of Illyricum 
(Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the problem of the 
northeastern border of Italy. – Studia Europaea Gne-
snensia 7, 169–200. 
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2014, Poetovio before the Marcomannic 
Wars: from Legionary Camp to Colonia Ulpia. – In: I. 
Piso, R. Varga (ed.), Trajan und seine Städte, Colloquium 
Cluj-Napoca, 29. September–2. Oktober 2013, 139–165, 
Cluj-Napoca.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2015, The final phase of the Augustan 
conquest of Illyricum. – In: G. Cuscito (ed.). ll bimil-
lenario Augusteo. Atti della XLV Settimana di Studi 
Aquileiesi, Aquileia (12–14 giugno 2014), Antichità 
Altoadriatiche 81, 65–87. 
ŠTULAR, B., G. TICA 2004, Poročilo o arheoloških izkopava-
njih na najdišču Sv. Urh (trasa AC Krška vas – Smednik) 
(unpublished report / neobjavljeno poročilo; kept by 
/ hrani: Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije).
ŠVAJNCER, J. J., J. ŠVAJNCER 2020, Gradišče in stari grad 
Hasberg. Hrib nad Planinskim poljem skozi tisočletja. 
– Logatec.
TOMAŽ, A. 2022, Čatež – Sredno polje. – Arheologija na 
avtocestah Slovenije 98. https://www.zvkds.si/wp-con-
tent/uploads/2024/03/aas_98_catez_sredno_polje_s.pdf
TOMANIČ JEVREMOV, M. 1985, Poselitev Ptuja in njegove 
okolice v prazgodovini. – Ptujski zbornik, 387–398.
URBAN, O. 2000, Der lange Weg zur Geschichte. Die Ur-
geschichte Österreichs. – Wien.
VEDALDI IASBEZ,V. 2000, Caesare, Forum Iulii e il confine 
nord-orientale dell’Italia. – In: G. Urso (ed.), L’ultimo 
Cesare, Scritti, riforme, progetti, poteri, congiure, Atti 
del convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 16–18 
settembre 1999, Centro ricerche e documentazione 
sull’antichità classica, Monographie 20, 329–352.
VERBIČ, T., B. BERIČ 1993, Struge reke Save med Krškim in 
Brežicami v 19. stoletju. – Proteus 56, 327–333, Ljubljana.
VIČIČ, B. 1993, Zgodnjerimsko naselje pod Grajskim 
gričem v Ljubljani. Gornji trg 15 (Frührömische Sie-
dlung unter dem Schlossberg in Ljubljana. Gornji trg 
15). – Arheološki vestnik 44, 153–201.
VIČIČ, B. 1994, Zgodnjerimsko naselje pod Grajskim 
gričem v Ljubljani. Gornji trg 30, Stari trg 17 in 32 (Die 
frührömische Siedlung unterhalb des Schlossbergs in 
Ljubljana. Gornji trg 30, Stari trg 17 und 32). – Arheološki 
vestnik 45, 25–80. 
VIČIČ, B. 2002, Zgodnjerimsko naselje pod Grajskim gričem 
v Ljubljani. Gornji trg 3 (Frührömische Siedlung unter 
dem Schlossberg in Ljubljana. Gornji trg 3). – Arheološki 
vestnik 53, 193–221.
VIČIČ, B., P. PREDAN 2003, Poročilo o zaščitnem arheološkem 
izkopavanju na lokaciji Vihre – Polanci na trasi AC 
Smednik – Krška vas (unpublished report / neobjavlje-
no poročilo; kept by / hrani: Ministrstvo za kulturo 
Republike Slovenije).
VIČIČ, B., P. PREDAN 2004, Poročilo o zaščitnem arheološkem 
izkopavanju na lokaciji Sveti urh 2 na trasi AC Smednik – 
Krška vas  (unpublished report / neobjavljeno oročilo; kept 
by / hrani: Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije).
VISOČNIK, J. 2017, The Roman inscriptions from Celeia 
and its ager. – Celje, Ljubljana. 
VOJAKOVIĆ, P. 2014, Predrimska Emona v luči novih 
arheoloških odkritij / Pre-Roman Emona in the Light 
of New Archaeological Discoveries. – In: M. Ferle 
(ed.), Emona. Mesto v imperiju / A city of the Empire, 
65–78, Ljubljana.
VOJAKOVIĆ, P. 2023a, Prazgodovinska Ljubljana: urbano 
trgovsko središče na stičišču poti / Prehistoric settlement 
in Ljubljana: an urban trading centre at the crossroads. 
– Arheološki vestnik 74, 531–590.
VOJAKOVIĆ, P. 2023b, Končno poročilo o arheoloških 
raziskavah “Objekt za reševanje prostorske problematike 
Zavoda za prestajanje kazni zapora Ig – nova gradnja, 
rekonstrukcija, odstranitev objekta” faza III. (unpubli-
shed report / neobjavljeno poročilo; kept by / hrani: 
Ministrstvo za kulturo Republike Slovenije).
VOJAKOVIĆ, P., I. BEKLJANOV ZIDANŠEK, B. TOŠKAN 
2019, Poznorepublikanski Navport: območje Stare pošte 
/ Late Republican Nauportus: the Stara Pošta Site. – 
Arheološki vestnik 70, 93–126.
VOJAKOVIĆ et al. 2011 = P. Vojaković, M. Novšak, T. 
Žerjal, T. Verbič, J. Krajšek, J. Hrustel 2011, Poročilo o 
predhodnih arheoloških raziskavah na lokaciji Ljubljana 
– stanovanjska soseska Tribuna (unpublished report / 
neobjavljeno oročilo; kept by / hrani: Ministrstvo za 
kulturo Republike Slovenije).
WHEELER, E. L. 2000, Legio XV Apollinaris: From Car-
nuntum to Satala – and beyond. – In: Y. Le Bohec, C. 
Wolff (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire 
1, Actes du Congrès de Lyon 17–19 septembre 1998, 
Collection de Centre d‘Études Romaines et Gallo-Ro-
maines 20, 259–308.
WIGG-WOLF, D. 2007, Dating Kalkriese: the numismatic 
evidence. – In: G. A. Lehmann, R. Wiegels (ed.), Römische 
Präsenz und Herrschaft im Germanien der augusteischen 
Zeit. Der Fundplatz von Kalkriese im Kontext neuerer 
Forschungen und Ausgrabungsbefunde. Beiträge zu der 
Tagung des Fachs Alte Geschichte der Universität Osna-
brück und der Kommission “Imperium und Barbaricum” 
der Göttinger Akademie der Wissenschaften in Osnabrück 
vom 10. bis 12. Juni 2004, Abhandlungen der Akademie 
der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. Folge 
3, 279, 119–134.
WOLFF, C. 2000, La legio XIII Gemina au 1er siècle. – In: 
Y. Le Bohec, C. Wolff (ed.), Les légions de Rome sous 
le Haut-Empire 1, Actes du Congrès de Lyon 17–19 sep-
tembre 1998, Collection de Centre d‘Études Romaines 
et Gallo-Romaines 20, 203–204.
WOLTERS, R. 2000, Anmerkungen zur Münzdatierung 
spätagusteischer Fundplätze. – In: R. Wiegels (ed.), Die 
Fundmünzen von Kalkriese und die frühkaiserzeitliche 
Münzprägung, Akten des wissenschaftlichen Symposions in 
Kalkriese, 15.–16. April 1999, Osnabrücker Forschungen 
zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 3, 81–117.
WOLTERS, R. 2007, Kalkriese und die Datierung okku-
pationszeitlicher Militäranlagen. – In: G. A. Lehmann, 
R. Wiegels (ed.), Römische Präsenz und Herrschaft im 
140 Janka ISTENIČ
Germanien der augusteischen Zeit, Der Fundplatz von 
Kalkriese im Kontext neuerer Forschungen und Ausgra-
bungsbefunde, Beiträge zu der Tagung des Fachs Alte 
Geschichte der Universität Osnabrück und der Kommission 
“Imperium und Barbaricum” der Göttinger Akademie 
der Wissenschaften in Osnabrück vom 10. bis 12. Juni 
2004, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften 
zu Göttingen, Phil.-Hist. Kl. Folge 3, 279, 135–160.
ZACCARIA, C. 2010, Tribù e confini dei territori delle città 
dell’Italia nordorientale. – In: M. Silvestrini (ed.), Le 
tribù romane. Atti della XVIe Rencontre sur l’épigraphie 
(Bari 8–10 ottobre 2009), 103–112, Bari.
ZACCARIA, C. 2023, La conquista romana a est di Aquileia. 
L’evidenza delle iscrizioni. – In: J. Horvat, F. Bernardini, 
M. Belak (ed.), The Roman conquest beyond Aquileia 
(II–I century BC), Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 
45, 127–145. https://doi.org/10.3986/9789610507116-7
Arheološki podatki kažejo, da je bila rimska 
vojska pomemben dejavnik pri rimskem osvaja-
nju ozemelj vzhodno in jugovzhodno od kolonije 
Akvileje v 2. st. pr. n. št. (sl. 1).1 
Severno od Akvileje so živeli Karni2 (sl. 1) in 
severno od njih Noriki, ki so bili jedro Noriškega 
kraljestva.3 Zdi se, da se je do sredine 1. st. pr. n. 
št. to kraljestvo razširilo na ozemlje osrednje se-
verne Slovenije, ki je bilo pod cesarjem Klavdijem 
(41–54 n. št.) vključeno v upravno območje mesta 
municipium Celeia.4
Materialna kultura pozne železne dobe v srednji 
in vzhodni Sloveniji (mokronoška skupina) je 
verjetno povezana s plemensko zvezo Tavriskov.5 
Arheološki podatki iz Notranjske kažejo, da so 
se tu križali interesi in vplivi Karnov, Tavriskov 
in Japodov.6
V zadnjih približno 25 letih sta se močno po-
večali količina in kakovost arheoloških virov o 
sklepnem in najintenzivnejšem obdobju rimske 
širitve na ozemlje današnje Slovenije ter utrditve 
rimske prevlade v 1. st. pr. n. št. in v prvi polovi-
ci 1. st. n. št. V prispevku podajamo pregled teh 
virov ter kratko povzemamo podatke o rimskih 
vojaških dejavnostih v pisnih in epigrafskih virih. 
Na koncu sledi sinteza.
1  Bernardini et al. 2021; Bernardini, Horvat, Vinci 
2023; Horvat 2002; Laharnar 2022, 324–327; Laharnar 2023.
2  Vedaldi Iasbez 2000, 333–336; Božič 1999, 202–203; 
Laharnar 2024.
3  Šašel Kos 1997a, 24–30; Urban 2000, 332–368.
4  Šašel Kos 1997a, 32, 37, 40–41.
5  Božič 1987; Laharnar 2020.
6  Horvat, Bavdek 2009, 19–22; Laharnar 2022, 356.
ANTIČNI LITERARNI VIRI
Viri, ki zadevajo ozemlje današnje Slovenije, se 
nanašajo predvsem na Oktavijanove ilirske vojne 
(35–33 pr. n. št.), panonske vojne (14–9 pr. n. št.) 
in panonsko-delmatski upor (6–9 pr. n. št.).
Glavna vira za ilirske vojne sta Apijan7 in Kasij 
Dion.8 Opisujeta vojno z Japodi, Panonci in Delmati, 
ki so živeli južno od ozemlja današnje Slovenije.9 
Ključni rimski cilj na tem območju je bila Segestika 
oziroma Siscija (Sisak, Hrvaška).10 Apijan navaja 
Tavriske in Karne med tistimi nasprotniki, ki jih 
je Oktavijan premagal z zmernim naporom, Dion 
pa omenja Tavriske med ljudstvi, ki so se uprla še 
pred začetkom vojn.11
Med skopimi podatki o vojni proti Panoncem 
in Delmatom so najbolj povedni tisti v Dionovi 
Rimski zgodovini.12 Navajajo spopade med letoma 
12 in 9 pr. n. št., ko je bil Tiberij glavni rimski 
vojaški poveljnik. Glavno rimsko vojaško oporišče 
je bilo v Sisciji. Območje vojaških spopadov je bilo 
7  App. Illyr. 4, 15–28; Šašel Kos 2005, 65–81, 393–471.
8  Cass. Dio 49, 35–38; Šašel Kos 1986, 128–145.
9  Dzino 2010, 99–116; Džino, Domić Kunić 2013, 149–158.
10  Apijan omenja pojme Segestica in Segestanoi, Segestica 
je omenjena tudi na napisu na teseri, najdeni v reki Kolpi 
v Sisku (Radman Livaja 2007); Dio uporablja ime Siscia 
(Džino, Domić Kunić 2018). Zgodovina raziskav in izsledki 
izkopavanj: Drnić 2018. Topografija in drugi vidiki rimske 
osvojitve: Drnić, Radman-Livaja 2020, 189–200. V članku 
uporabljamo ime Siscia, razen v povezavi z oktavijanskim 
obdobjem, ko uporabljamo ime Segestika.
11  App. Illyr. 4, 16, 47; Cass. Dio 49, 34, 2; 50, 28, 4; 
Šašel Kos 1986, 128–129, 148–149; Šašel Kos 2005, 67–68.
12  Cass. Dio 54, 24, 3; 43, 28, 1–2; 54, 31, 2–4; 54, 34, 
3–4; 54, 36, 2; 55, 2, 4; Šašel Kos 1986, 152–162.
Vloga rimskih vojsk v rimski osvojitvi ozemlja
današnje Slovenije in utrditvi rimske nadvlade
Povzetek
141Vloga rimskih vojsk v rimski osvojitvi ozemlja današnje Slovenije in utrditvi rimske nadvlade
(večinoma) zunaj ozemlja današnje Slovenije, na 
območju, ki je pozneje postalo jugovzhodni del 
province Panonije.13 
Najpomembnejša vira za panonsko-delmatski 
upor (6–9 n. št.) sta Dion in Velej Paterkul.14 
Rimljani in uporniki so se borili predvsem v Sla-
voniji in Bosni. Glavni rimski oporišči sta bili ob 
reki Savi, v Sisciji in Sirmiju (Sremska Mitrovica, 
Srbija).15 Načrt upornikov za invazijo na Italijo 
– verjetno čez prelaz Razdrto – je neposredno 
zadeval slovensko ozemlje, vendar so ga Rimljani 
preprečili.16 Po literarnih virih sodeč je bila vojna 
6–9 n. št. zadnja faza rimskega osvajanja (priho-
dnjih) provinc Panonije in Dalmacije.17
Po Avgustovi smrti je izbruhnil upor treh pa-
nonskih legij (8., 9. in 15.), ki so bile nameščene v 
skupnem poletnem taboru. Še pred začetkom upora 
so v Navport (Nauportus/Vrhnika) napotili več od-
delkov teh legij, da bi gradili ceste in mostove ter 
opravili druge naloge; tudi ti oddelki so se uprli.18
EPIGRAFSKI VIRI
Iz obdobja do okoli leta 50 n. št. je 15 ali 16 
epigrafskih spomenikov. Iz Ljubljane izvira sedem 
nagrobnikov in votivni oltar, ki morda ni pristen. 
13  Šašel Kos 2011, 107–110; Radman-Livaja 2012, 
161–163; Dzino 2010, 129–136; Džino, Domić Kunić 2013, 
162–170; Džino, Domić Kunić 2018.
14  Cass. Dio 55, 28, 7–34; 56, 11–17; Velleius Pater-
culus 2, 110–116.
15  Džino 2009; Dzino 2010, 137–155; Džino, Domić 
Kunić 2013, 170–179, 184–185; Šašel Kos 2015; Radman-Li-
vaja 2018, 158–160, op. 28.
16  Velleius Paterculus 2, 110, 112; Cass. Dio 55, 30, 
1; Šašel Kos 1986, 166–167, 182–185; Šašel Kos 2011; 
Radman-Livaja 2012, 165.
17  Ozemlji poznejših provinc Dalmatia in Pannonia 
sta prvotno sestavljali provinco Ilirik. Med vojnami v letih 
6–9 n. št. so Rimljani ustanovili provinco Dalmatia (ki je 
bila morda sprva imenovana Illyricum Superius). Mnenja 
o upravnem položaju severnega dela Ilirika v tem času so 
različna. Večina avtorjev se strinja, da je Panonija postala 
samostojna provinca najpozneje na začetku vladavine Ti-
berija (Schaub 2001, 300–301; Rollinger 2001; Dzino 2010, 
159–167; Kovács 2014, 67), medtem ko Šašel Kos (2010; 
2013) meni, da je bilo vse do vladavine Vespazijana vojaško 
območje pod poveljstvom poveljnika treh panonskih legij.
18  Tacitus, Annales I, 16–30; Šašel Kos 1990, 21; Šašel 
Kos 1995, 236–237. Kraj skupnega poletnega tabora treh 
panonskih legij ni znan; Šašel Kos (1995, 236) in Rad-
man-Livaja (2018, 161) domnevata, da je bil v Sisciji ali 
njeni bližini oziroma pri Poetovioni, medtem ko Keppie 
(1998, 144) meni, da je bil v okolici Emone.
Šest nagrobnikov je s Ptuja z okolico ter po eden 
z Mosta na Soči in iz Celja.
Najstarejši je verjetno nagrobnik vojaka ali 
veterana 15. legije z Mosta na Soči. Mnenja o 
njegovi dataciji segajo od leta 51/50 pr. n. št. do 
pozne avgustejske dobe.19
Štirje nagrobniki iz Ljubljane omenjajo aktivno 
vojaško osebje. Iz avgustejske dobe je nagrobnik Tita 
Junija Montana, ki je imel visok vojaški položaj.20 
V prvo tretjino 1. st. n. št. sta datirana nagrobnik 
pretorijanca21 in nagrobnik, ki ga je dal postaviti 
vojak 15. legije za svojo sestro.22 Če je votivni oltar 
iz Ljubljane pristen, ga je dal postaviti frumentarij 
15. legije v prvi polovici 1. st. n. št.23 Enako so 
datirani trije nagrobniki veteranov 15. legije24 in 
nagrobnik veterana neznane legije25 ter nagrobnik 
z upodobitvijo rimskega odlikovanja phalerae brez 
ohranjenega napisa.26
Trije nagrobniki s Ptuja in dva iz njegove oko-
lice omenjajo 8. legijo.27 Najmanj trije med njimi 
so bili postavljeni za aktivne vojake te legije,28 
kar – skupaj s Tacitovim podatkom (Annales I.23, 
30)29 – govori, da je bil zimski tabor 8. legije na 
19  Šašel 1985; Wheeler 2000, 261–262, 270; Mosser 
2003, 93–94, 166, kat. št. 3, t. 2: 3; Zaccaria 2010, 108.
20  Šašel Kos 1997b, 183–184, kat. št. 36 (= AIJ 173; AE 
1938, 173 = EDR073370 = lupa 3688 = EDCS-12700084).
21  Šašel Kos 1997b, 185–186, kat. št. 37 (= ILJug 305; 
AE 1950, 42 = EDR073752 = lupa 4190 = EDCS-10000372).
22  Šašel Kos 1997b, 186–188, kat. št. 38 (= CIL III 10769 
= EDR129035 = lupa 4227 = EDCS-29000514); Mosser 
2003, 175, kat. št. 19.
23  Šašel Kos 1997b, 133–136, kat. št. 8 (= CIL III 3835 
+ p. 2328,188 = AIJ 151 = EDR128830 = lupa 6149 = 
EDCS-26600531); Mosser 2003, 266, kat. št. 200.
24  Šašel Kos 1997b, 189–191, kat. št. 39 (= CIL III 
3847 = 10757 = AIJ 174 = EDR129059 = lupa 3689 = 
EDCS-26600538); Mosser 2003, 175, kat. št. 19); Šašel Kos 
1998, 336–337, kat. št. 6 (= CIL III 3845 + p. 2328,188 = 
ILS 2264 = EDR135194 = lupa 4202 = EDCS-28701001); 
Mosser 2003, 167, kat. št. 5) – nagrobnik je dal postaviti 
veteran VIII. legije; nagrobnik, odkrit leta 2017: https://
mgml.si/sl/mestni-muzej/razstave/309/nagrobni-spome-
nik-veterana-15-apolonove-legije/
25  Šašel Kos 1997b, 191–192, kat. št. 40 (= CIL III 3848 
= EDR129060 = lupa 4193 = EDCS-26600539).
26  Maxfield 1986.
27  Ragolič 2023, 43–44, kat. št. 7 (= CIL III 10878 + p. 
2188 = AIJ 371 = EDCS-29000461= lupa 1699), 47, kat. 10 
(= EDCS-09200411 = lupa 6194), 49–50, kat. št. 13 (= CIL 
III 10879 + p. 2188 = AIJ 381 = EDCS-29000462 = lupa 
1700), 306–308, kat. št. 405 (= CIL III 4060 = AIJ 260 = 
EDCS-26600462 = lupa 3102), 308–309, kat. št. 406 (= AIJ 
262 = EDCS-11300990 = lupa 3749).
28  Ragolič 2023, 43–44, kat. št. 13, 405, 406.
29  Cf. obravnavo literarnih virov.
142 Janka ISTENIČ
Ptuju najpozneje ob koncu avgustejske dobe.30 Iz 
druge četrtine 1. st. n. št. je nagrobnik veterana 
11. legije.31 Vsi in situ najdeni nagrobniki iz prve 
polovice 1. st. n. št. so z območja zahodnega gro-
bišča Poetovione na desnem bregu Drave, kjer so 
bili najdeni tudi vsi v drugo polovico 1. st. n. št. 
datirani nagrobniki aktivnih vojakov ter večina 
nagrobnikov veteranov iz 1. in 2. st. n. št.32
V Celju najdeni nagrobnik veterana 8. legije 
nakazuje, da je služil v tej legiji, ko je bila name-
ščena na Ptuju, tj. pred letom 43 n. št.33
ARHEOLOŠKI VIRI
Od zgodnjega 1. st. do konca
zgodnje avgustejske dobe 
Daleč najpogostejše najdbe pred srednjo avgu-
stejsko dobo so okovni žebljički rimskih vojaških 
obuval tipov Alezija A–D (sl. 2), ki so datirani od 
poznega 2. st. pr. n. št.34 do okoli leta 15 pr. n. št.35 
Številni okovni žebljički tipov Alezija A–D iz-
virajo z najdišč Gradišče v Cerknem, Vrh gradu 
pri Pečinah in iz najdiščnega kompleksa Grad nad 
Reko (sl. 2: 1–3; sl. 4: 11–20), tj. z vzhodnega dela 
naselbinskega območja Karnov. Vsa tri najdišča so 
na naravno dobro zavarovanih legah; domnevamo, 
da je šlo za svete kraje, pomembne za identiteto 
domačega prebivalstva.36 Odkrili so jih nearheo-
logi, ki so uporabljali detektorje kovin.37 Gradišče 
v Cerknem in Vrh gradu pri Pečinah sta že bila 
razmeroma izčrpno obravnavana,38 Grad nad Re-
ko pa le zelo kratko,39 zato so v članku povzeti 
izsledki raziskav tega najdiščnega kompleksa (sl. 
3–5). Od tu izvira najširši nabor tipov rimskega 
orožja, sledi Gradišče v Cerknem, kjer so našli 
večino tipov z Gradu nad Reko poznanega orožja,40 
30  Oldenstein-Pferdehirt 1984, 397–400; Reddé 2000, 
120–121.
31  Ragolič 2023, 44–45, kat. št. 8 (= AIJ 379 = lupa 
3068 = EDCS-11301055).
32  Istenič 2002, 168–169; Ragolič 2023, 43–47, 49–50, 
51–52, 54–56, kat. št. 7–10, 13, 15, 17–18.
33  Visočnik 2017, 105–106, kat. št. 78 (= CIL 03, 05220 
= EDCS-14500532 = lupa 411).
34  Kielb Zaaraoui 2018.
35  Istenič 2019a, 276–279.
36  Istenič 2023.
37  Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a.
38  Istenič 2015a.
39  Istenič 2005.
40  Istenič 2015a, 68–70, t. 2–4.
sočasno rimsko orožje z Vrh gradu pri Pečinah 
pa obsega 38 svinčenih želodov in štiri puščične 
osti.41 Materialni sledovi rimske oborožene agre-
sije so verjetno na vseh treh najdiščih povezani 
z istim rimskim vojaškim pohodom v obdobju 
po Cezarjevih galskih vojnah in pred začetkom 
srednje avgustejske dobe.42 Apijanova omemba 
Karnov med Oktavijanovimi nasprotniki v ilirskih 
vojnah (35–33 pr. n. št.)43 nakazuje, da je bil ta 
pohod del ilirskih vojn. S tako interpretacijo se 
ujema dejstvo, da je bilo zavarovanje vzhodnega 
zaledja srednje Soške doline ključno za varnost 
Italije in za rimske vojaške pohode naprej proti 
jugovzhodu proti Sisciji.44
Številni okovni žebljički tipov Alezija izvirajo 
z najdišč Ulaka – tabor in Nadleški hrib, ki sta 
povezana z rimsko vojaško osvojitvijo gradišča na 
Ulaki (sl. 6: A–C).45 Na najdišču Ulaka – tabor 
sta arheološka analiza in interpretacija lidarskih 
podatkov pokazali ostanke rimskih vojaških 
struktur (verjetno več kot en tabor in zaporni 
zid). Med drobnimi najdbami so poleg 45 okovnih 
žebljičkov tipov Alezija dve železni konici pilumov, 
katapultne konice in drugi rimski izstrelki, ki 
kažejo na oboroženi rimski poseg v sredini 1. st. 
pr. n. št.46 Pri Nadleškem hribu lidarski podatki 
in drobne najdbe kažejo na časovno zaporedna 
rimska vojaška tabora. Starejši (pred približno leta 
15 pr. n. št.) je verjetno manjši tabor (površina 
okoli 2,4 ha).47 
Geopolitične okoliščine nakazujejo dve možni 
obdobji za rimski napad na gradišče Ulaka: Cezarjev 
prokonzulat v Galiji in Iliriku (59–49 pr. n. št.) ter 
ilirske vojne (35–33 pr. n. št.). Drugi možnosti v 
prid govori lega Ulake na poti, ki je vodila iz Italije 
proti Japodom in Segestiki/Sisciji, ter obenem na 
ozemlju pod nadzorom Tavriskov ali Karnov – torej 
ljudstev, ki jih je premagal Oktavijan. 
Več kot 20 okovnih žebljičkov tipov Alezija 
z najdišč vzhodno od Ajdovščine (sl. 2: 33) na-
41  Istenič 2015a, 71–73, t. 5–7.
42  Cf. Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a.
43  Cf. obravnavo literarnih virov.
44  Istenič 2015a, 59–60.
45  Istenič 2019a, 282–283, kat. št. 23–25; Laharnar 
2022, 220–237, 415, t. 48: 12–19; Laharnar, Istenič 2024.
46  Laharnar, Istenič 2024, 178–181, sl. 4: 3–8.
47  Laharnar 2016, 96, sl. 6: 1, 11–18; Laharnar 2022, 
234–237, sl. 3.118–3.120, sl. 48: 1, 6–10, 12–19; Laharnar, 
Lozić 2016, 65–66; Laharnar, Istenič 2024, 177–178, sl. 2, 5. 
Z najdišča izvirajo tudi trije poznorepublikanski denariji, 
od katerih je najmlajši malo obrabljen kovanec, skovan 
leta 90 pr. n. št. (Laharnar 2016, 96).
143Vloga rimskih vojsk v rimski osvojitvi ozemlja današnje Slovenije in utrditvi rimske nadvlade
kazuje, da je rimska vojska morda uporabljala 
pot čez prelaz Hrušica pred začetkom srednje 
avgustejske dobe.48 
Poleg obravnavanih najdišč okovni žebljički tipov 
Alezija izvirajo iz številnih naselij in kultnih krajev 
domačinov.49 Večina je verjetno iz časa ilirskih 
vojn,50 nekatera so morda nekaj desetletij starejša 
(sl. 2: Baba, 17),51 drugih pa za zdaj ni mogoče 
datirati ožje kot okovnih žebljičkov.52
Okovna žebljička in najmanj pet drugih kosov 
rimskega orožja iz Ljubljanice kažejo, da je rimska 
vojska uporabljala plovno pot po Ljubljanici pred 
srednjo avgustejsko dobo.53 Do izgradnje ceste 
na severnem robu Barja (sl. 7) je bila Ljubljanica 
edina vse leto uporabna povezava med Navportom 
in Emono.54 
Diplomatske in morda vojaške stike Rimljanov 
z elito domačinov po našem mnenju kažejo meči 
v nožnicah z medeninastimi okovi, okrašenimi v 
predrti tehniki; verjetno gre za rimske izdelke iz 
obdobja med okoli letoma 40/30 in 15 pr. n. št., 
narejene ob upoštevanju keltskega okusa. Približno 
sočasen je najstarejši grob z rimskim orožjem (sl. 
1: Reka).55
48  Istenič 2019b, 254.
49  Istenič 2015a, 59–60; Horvat 2018; Istenič 2019a, 
283–287.
50  Laharnar 2009, 106–107, 118, 132, 141, t. 5: 5–7; 
Laharnar 2011, 353, 370, 347–348, 365–366, 369, sl. 6, t. 
1: 1,2,9,12,15,16,19. Podatka o najdbi raztresenih kovancev 
s Starega gradu, ki naj bi obsegala okoli 60 denarijev, od 
katerih je najmlajši Oktavijanov denarij skovan leta 36 pr. 
n. št. (Švajncer, Švajncer 2020, 140, spodnja slika v desnem 
stolpcu), ni bilo mogoče preveriti.
51  Številni izstrelki za pračo nakazujejo rimski napad, 
medtem ko odsotnost poznejših najdb govori za opustitev 
gradišča (Laharnar 2022, 54–57, 327–328, t. 3: 15–17; 4: 
18–29, sl. 3.15). Poleg okovnih žebljičkov vojaških obuval 
je med rimskimi vojaškimi predmeti s tega najdišča le nekaj 
kosov, starejših od srednjeavgustejske dobe, vendar ti ne 
kažejo na rimski vojaški napad. Več vojaških predmetov s 
tega najdišča je iz srednje do pozne avgustejske dobe, zato 
domnevamo, da lahko enako velja za pračne izstrelke, ki 
verjetno niso bili uporabljeni in so bili najdeni v dveh ločenih 
skupinah (Laharnar 2022, 298–299, 314–316, t. 9: 71–75, 
78–111). Istenič 2019a, 284–285; Laharnar 2022, 346–347.
52  Istenič 2019a, 238–287.
53  Istenič 2019b, 30–41, 114–115, 208–210, kat. št. 
A1, A4, MM A22, MM A23, C1, H7, H8, sl. 13, 17, 123, 
t. 1, 12, 19; Horvat 1990; Mušič, Horvat 2007; Vojaković, 
Bekljanov Zidanšek, Toškan 2019.
54  Istenič 2019b, 236–238.
55  Nožnice z medeninastim mrežastim okovom: Istenič 
2010; Istenič 2015b; grob z rimskim orožjem: Istenič 2013.
Od srednje avgustejske dobe
do okoli leta 14 n. št.
Velika večina rimskih vojaških najdb iz Lju-
bljanice je iz srednje in pozne avgustejske dobe 
(15 pr. n. št.–14 n. št.). Le okoli pet odstotkov 
predmetov je ozko datiranih v čas od vključno 
Tiberijeve vladavine (14–37 n. št.) naprej.56 
Upad števila najdb v Tiberijevi dobi se ujema 
z domnevnim časom izgradnje ceste Naupor-
tus–Emona proti koncu Avgustove vladavine 
in z zmanjšanim obsegom oskrbe po rimski 
osvojitvi severnega Balkana.57 
Morda je gostota najdb pri Bevkah povezana z 
mejo med rimskim ozemljem pod civilno upravo 
(provinca Galija Cisalpina/Italija)58 in obmejnim 
območjem pod vojaško upravo,59 ki jo domnevamo 
pri izrazitem zavoju Ljubljanice vzhodno od Bevk, 
tj. na najdišču mejnika, ki je označeval poznejšo 
mejo med upravnima ozemljema Akvileje in Emone 
(sl. 7).60 Mejo med ozemljem pod rimsko civilno 
upravo in obmejnim območjem pod vojaško upravo 
pri Bevkah domnevamo med sredino 1. st. pr. n. št. 
in koncem Avgustove vladavine.61
V Ljubljani, na desnem bregu Ljubljanice, so 
Rimljani ob civilnem naselju62 zgradili zaporedna 
vojaška tabora (sl. 8: 1, 9), ki sta imela ključno 
vlogo pri varovanju kopenske transportne pove-
zave med glavno oskrbovalno bazo v Akvileji in 
Ilirikom.63 Naš opis taborov temelji na poročilih 
o izkopavanjih64 in objavah65 ter na podatkih, ki 
nam jih je prijazno poslala Iris Bekljanov Zidan-
šek (Arhej, d. o. o.), ki pripravlja izčrpno objavo 
o obeh taborih. 
Starejši tabor (sl. 9, 10) je bil zgrajen okoli leta 
10 pr. n. št. in je še bil v uporabi v začetku pozne 
avgustejske dobe (terminus post quem leto 3 n. št.). V 
56  Istenič 2019b, 208–210, sl. 123.
57  Istenič 2019b, 254–255.
58  Gallia Cisalpina je leta 42/41 pr. n. št. postala skrajni 
severovzhodni del Italije (Bandelli 2017, 308).
59  Cf. Roymans 2004, 195.
60  Istenič 2019b, 246, 248, 250, sl. 144. Mejnik: Šašel 
Kos 2002.
61  Zaccharia 2023, 133; Istenič 2019b, 242 z opom-
bami, 246–254.
62  Naselje pod Gradom: Vičič 1993; Vičič 1994; Vičič 
2002; Vojaković 2014; Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Voja-
ković 2017; Vojaković 2023a.
63  Egri 2008. Cf. Kehne 2007.
64  Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 27–29; 
Gaspari et al. 2014, 136–146, 151–153.
65  Vojaković et al. 2011; Novšak et al. 2023.
144 Janka ISTENIČ
drugi polovici prvega desetletja n. št. mu je sledil 
mlajši in večji tabor.66
Sledovi rimskih vojaških struktur v Ljubljani so 
bili odkriti tudi na lev3m bregu strani Ljubljanice; 
večina je iz pozne, redke pa iz srednje avgustejske 
dobe. So pod plastmi, ki so povezane z gradnjo 
civilnega naselja.67
Najmanj trije rimski tabori so bili na območju 
Brežiških vrat, strateško pomembnem ozkem prehodu 
med Krškim poljem in dolino reke Save (sl. 7). Vsi 
so bili na desnem bregu Save. Najbolje raziskan 
je tabor iz pozne avgustejske dobe na Obrežju 
(sl. 11).68 V pozni avgustejski dobi je deloval tudi 
tabor Vihre – Sv. Urh pri Drnovem.69 Ostankov 
tabora na najdišču Čatež – Sredno polje za zdaj 
ni mogoče datirati ožje kot v srednjo avgustejsko 
do tiberijsko dobo.70
Večji tabor (c. 4 ha) na Nadleškem hribu (sl. 6: 
B; 7) je verjetno iz srednje ali pozne avgustejske 
dobe.71 V istem času je bil verjetno tabor tudi na 
bližnjem najdišču Ulaka – tabor (sl. 6: C).72
Na Ptuju (sl. 7, 12), ki je imel za Rimljane v 
obdobju rimskega osvajanja strateško lego, je bil 
najpozneje od leta 14 n. št. do konca 1. st. legijski 
tabor. Od leta 14 do 43/45 je bila v njem nameščena 
8., pozneje pa 13. legija.73 Nedavne raziskave so 
66  Izsledki izkopavanj leta 2008 so pokazali, da je utrdba 
nastala “po letu 10 pr. n. št.” (Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, 
Vojaković 2017, 28; Gaspari et al. 2014, 144), medtem ko 
so izkopavanja leta 2018 razkrila več nivojev tal, od katerih 
so najstarejša – na podlagi fine keramike – datirana med 
20 in 10 pr. n. št. (Novšak et al. 2023, 110–114, 121, 177). 
Novci: glej op. 88–91 v angleškem besedilu. 
67  Istenič 2019b, 242, 243, op. 905. Gaspari 2010, 25–81, 
113–125; Gaspari 2014, 134–141, sl. 143–146; Gaspari et 
al. 2014, 147–149, 164; Istenič 2019b, 242, 243, op. 905; 
Praprotnik 2016.
68  Mason 2006; Mason 2008; Miškec 2009. Podrobnejša 
analiza: glej op. 104–105 v angleškem besedilu. 
69  Drnovo pri Krškem/municipium Flavium Latobico-
rum Neviodunum je bilo neposredno ob Savi (Verbič, Berič 
1993, 330); Leskovar et al. 2019; Vir: objava na FB-strani 
Arhos, d. o. o., objavljeno 6. aprila 2023 (https://www.
facebook.com/arhos.arhos.71); Vičič, Predan 2003; Vičič, 
Predan 2004; Štular, Tica 2004; Olić 2009.
70  Tomaž 2022, 109–114, 183–187, 798–803, sl. 8b, 58–64.
71  Laharnar 2016, 94–95, sl. 4, 7: 19, 20, 23.
72  Laharnar, Istenič 2024.
73  Cf. obravnavo epigrafskih virov. Tacitus, Annales 
I, 23, 30. Oldenstein-Pferdehirt 1984, 397–400; Reddé 
2000, 120–121. Saria 1951, 1170–1171; Radman-Livaja 
2012, 164 (z referencami); Ritterling 1924–1925, 1713. 
Nagrobniki veteranov in aktivnih vojakov 8. legije na 
Ptuju in v njegovi okolici: Ragolič 2023, 16, kat. št. 2, 9, 
14, 15, 16?, 17–20, 359.
pokazale sledove rimskega vojaškega tabora na 
Panorami. Časovno sta si sledila starejši okop iz 
lesa in zemlje z leseno palisado ter mlajše kamnito 
obzidje tabora. Odkritje je vodilo k domnevi, da je 
bil na Panorami in verjetno na nižje ležeči terasi 
med Panoramo in Dravo legijski tabor (sl. 12).74
Majhno število za rimsko vojsko zgodnjega 
principata značilnih predmetov izvira s prazgodo-
vinskih gradišč v jugozahodni Sloveniji in severno 
od Ljubljane. Razen na Ambroževem gradišču 
nimamo podatkov o kontekstu teh najdb ali npr. 
o lončenini s teh najdišč. Med možnimi razlagami 
rimskih vojaških predmetov na teh najdiščih so 
prisotnost rimskih enot v lokalnih naseljih in vr-
nitev pomožnih vojakov v njihovo izvorno okolje.
Grobovi z zgodnjerimskim orožjem so pred-
vsem v severozahodni in jugovzhodni Sloveniji 
ter posamezni v osrednji Sloveniji (sl. 7). V njih 
so verjetno pokopani domačini, ki so služili v 
rimski vojski.75
SKLEP 
Arheološki viri kažejo rimsko vojaško prisotnost 
pred začetkom srednje avgustejske dobe v zahodni 
polovici ozemlja Slovenije. Vodilne drobne najdbe 
so okovni žebljički tipov Alezija. 
Razmeroma zanesljiva in ozka datacija je možna 
za najdišča Grad pri Reki z okolico, Gradišče v 
Cerknem in Vrh gradu pri Pečinah, ki so najverje-
tneje povezani z Oktavijanovimi ilirskimi vojnami 
(35–33 pr. n. št.). Z istimi vojnami povezujemo 
materialne sledove rimske vojaške prisotnosti na 
Notranjskem in Gorenjskem (sl. 1, 2). Zdi se, da 
so Rimljani po ilirskih vojnah nadzorovali ozemlje 
zahodne polovice Slovenije, ki je vzhodno od 
Ljubljane segala do Save. 
Intenzivno rimsko vojaško delovanje med ilirskimi 
vojnami je bilo posledica potrebe po zagotavljanju 
kopenske povezave med Italijo ter območji bojev z 
Japodi in Segestani (severna Hrvaška).76 Pomem-
ben del te povezave je potekal po reki Ljubljanici 
med Navportom (Vrhniko) in Emono (Ljubljana). 
Povezava arheoloških in zgodovinskih virov 
razkriva, da je bilo v Ljubljani rimsko vojaško 
oporišče od panonskih vojn (12–9 pr. n. št.), ko 
74  Horvat et al. 2020, 13–53, 65–70; Horvat 2023; 
Horvat 2024. 
75  Istenič 2013. Grob iz Ljubljane: Gaspari et al. 2015; 
grobova z Verduna: Breščak 2015.
76  Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a.
145Vloga rimskih vojsk v rimski osvojitvi ozemlja današnje Slovenije in utrditvi rimske nadvlade
je začel delovati starejši tabor na desnem bregu 
Ljubljanice, do približno konca avgustejske dobe, 
ko je prenehal delovati tamkajšnji mlajši tabor. 
Opustitev zgodnjega tabora ter gradnja mlajšega in 
večjega sta verjetno povezani z začetkom panon-
sko-delmatskega upora leta 6 n. št., ko je grozila 
invazija upornikov v Italijo po kopenskih poteh. 
Pred koncem avgustejske dobe se je rimska vojaška 
raba levega brega prav tako končala ali znatno 
zmanjšala, obsežna izravnava pa je pripravila teren 
za gradnjo kolonije Emona. 
Nagrobnik in votivni oltar (če je avtentičen), 
povezana z aktivnimi pripadniki 15. legije, ter trije 
nagrobniki veteranov iste legije77 nakazujejo, da 
so bili med aktivnimi enotami v Emoni oddelki 
15. legije, ki je imela tabor na območju poznejše 
province Panonije.78
Koncentracija z rimsko vojsko povezanih ar-
heoloških in epigrafskih virov v Ljubljani odraža 
ključni pomen Ljubljanskih vrat za zaščito Italije 
in za oskrbovanje rimskih vojaških enot v Iliriku. 
Emona je bila med ključnimi točkami na glavni 
komunikacijski poti, ki je povezovala rimsko zaledje 
z operativno bazo v Ogleju, in območju spopadov 
na Balkanskem polotoku.
Druga zgoščina rimskih enot je bila na ob-
močju Brežiških vrat. Poznoavgustejski tabori so 
bili na treh lokacijah na desnem bregu reke Save 
(Obrežje, Čatež – Sredno polje, Vihre – Sv. Urh). 
Domnevamo, da so bili povezani z vojno v letih 
6–9 n. št. Takrat je bilo za rimsko vojsko ključnega 
pomena zavarovati prehode, ki so vodili z Balkana 
v Italijo, pri čemer so bila Brežiška vrata, gledano 
z vzhoda, prvo območje ob glavni prometnici 
ob Savi, kjer je bilo mogoče nadzorovati vojaške 
premike proti Italiji. 
Mlajša tabora na Nadleškem hribu in sosednjem 
najdišču Ulaka – tabor bi lahko bila povezana z 
vojnami v letih 12–9 pr. n. št. in/ali 6–9 n. št. 
Njuna glavna funkcija je bila verjetno nadzor 
stranske ceste, ki je povezovala Ilirik z Italijo. Kot 
že omenjeno, je imel ta nadzor izjemen pomen 
leta 6 n. št.
Literarni in epigrafski viri kažejo, da je bil 
legijski tabor na Ptuju zgrajen pred letom 14 n. 
št., nimamo pa jasnih arheoloških virov o rim-
ski vojaški prisotnosti v avgustejski in tiberijski 
dobi. Območje Ptuja je za rimsko vojsko postalo 
77  Cf. obravnavo literarnih virov.
78  Šašel Kos 1995, 123–237; Mosser 2003, 167; Wheeler 
2000, 270–274; Dzino 2010, 168; Radman-Livaja 2018, 
160–161.
pomembno med vojno v letih 12–9 pr. n. št. ali 
kmalu zatem, saj je bila njegova geostrateška lega 
idealna za oporišče v obdobju vojaškega osvajanja 
proti severu in vzhodu, tj. območij, ki so pozneje 
postala del province Panonije. 
Rimska vojaška zaščita je verjetno vključevala 
tista civilna naselja ob glavnih cestah, kjer so imeli 
prebivalci iz Italije vodilno ali pomembno vlogo. 
Tako naselje je bilo ustanovljeno najpozneje za 
časa Oktavijana v Navportu, ki je bil pomembna 
točka na rimski vojaški oskrbovalni poti med 
vojnami v letih 35–33 pr. n. št. in v avgustejski 
dobi. Podobno naselje iz srednjega do poznega 
avgustejskega obdobja je morda obstajalo v Kra-
nju, ob cesti, ki je vodila iz Emone proti Štalenski 
gori na Koroškem (Avstrija), ki je bila politično 
in gospodarsko središče Noriškega kraljestva ter 
po približno letu 15 pr. n. št. rimskega Norika.79
Arheološke vire za vojaške tabore in bojišča je 
lažje prepoznati kot materialne sledove drugih 
metod, ki so jih Rimljani uporabljali za uveljavi-
tev nadzora nad osvojenimi ljudstvi in ozemlji. 
Vključevale so prisilno opustitev tistih višinskih 
naselij, kjer so se prebivalci uprli80 Rimljanom, in 
novačenje med moškimi premaganih skupnosti za 
vojaške potrebe. Vključevanje domačih moških 
(predvsem v jugovzhodni in severozahodni Slo-
veniji) v rimsko vojsko, ki se je začelo kmalu po 
ilirskih vojnah (35–33 pr. n. št.), kažejo grobovi, 
ki vsebujejo rimsko orožje, epigrafski viri in do-
mnevni odlomki vojaških diplom.81 O novačenju 
med Latobiki (na območjih, kjer so pozneje nastala 
civilna naselja municipium Flavium Latobicorum 
Neviodunum in Praetorium Latobicorum), ki so 
bili pred rimsko nadvlado verjetno podrejeni 
Tavriskom, sklepamo iz dveh vojaških diplom, ki 
omenjata konjeniško enoto ala I Latobicorum et 
Varcianorum.82
V vzhodni Sloveniji severno od Save ni ar-
heoloških sledov rimskih vojaških dejavnosti v 
obravnavanem obdobju. V drugi polovici 1. st. pr. 
n. št. je bila večina tega območja del Noriškega 
kraljestva, tradicionalnega zaveznika Rima, ki 
79  Sagadin 2020, 210; Dolenz et al. 2024.
80  Gobavica nad Mengšem in Straža nad Šmartnim 
(sl. 2: 26–27; Horvat 2015a), Cvinger nad Virom pri Stič-
ni (Laharnar 2011, 350, 368, št. 18) in verjetno številna 
najdišča na Notranjskem (Laharnar 2011, 350, 368, št. 17, 
19–22; Laharnar 2022, 360–365).
81  Laharnar 2022, 327–328, 330, t. 22: 35, 29: 15, 49: 13.a
82  Lovenjak 2003, 95. Diplomi sta iz časa Vespazijanove 
(CIL 16 Suppl. No. 158) in Trajanove vladavine (Roxan 
1978, št. 52).
146 Janka ISTENIČ
je okoli leta 15 pr. n. št. brez vojaške intervencije 
postalo rimski protektorat. Pri upravljanju tega 
območja so se rimske oblasti močno oprle na 
noriško elito.83
Zadnji z rimsko vojsko povezan dogodek za-
deva upor v Nauportu leta 14 n. št. Arheološki 
viri kažejo, da je bilo vojaško oporišče v Emoni 
opuščeno ob koncu avgustejskega obdobja. Obse-
žne vojaške operacije na zahodnem Balkanu so se 
končale, diplomatska in vojaška prizadevanja pa 
so se osredotočila na mejo ob Donavi. V zaledju 
limesa, ki se je razvijal ob srednji Donavi, je ostal 
legijski tabor na Ptuju, ki je do konca 1. st. n. št. 
varoval glavno prometnico med Italijo in srednjim 
Podonavjem ter severnim Balkanom.84
83  Šašel 1954; Šašel Kos 1997a, 24–32; Urban 2000, 
332–368.
84  Sedlmayer 2020, 20–26. V povezavi s hipotezo o 
liniji utrdb, ki bi potekale iz zaledja vzhodnega Jadrana 
v Dalmaciji prek Siscije in Poetovione do Carnuntuma 
ob Donavi ter bile postavljene bodisi med vojno v letih 
35–33 pr. n. št. bodisi v avgustejskem obdobju z namenom 
nadzora nad Ilirikom in zaščite Italije (Šašel 1974), velja 
omeniti študijo Periša 2008. V njej je avtor pokazal, da so 
bile rimske utrdbe v Dalmaciji tesno povezane z rimskimi 
boji proti Delmatom.
Ob ustanovitvi kolonije Emona, verjetno ob 
koncu avgustejske dobe,85 je njeno upravno ozemlje 
prešlo iz vojaške v civilno upravo.86 Življenje v 
mestu pravokotne oblike s kamnitim obzidjem na 
levem bregu Ljubljanice se je začelo v zgodnjem 
tiberijskem obdobju. Prevladuje mnenje, da je 
bila v istem času ustanovljena provinca Panonija 
(Spodnji Ilirik).87
V članku obravnavani podatki nakazujejo, da je 
bila rimska vojaška sila pomemben dejavnik pri 
uveljavitvi rimske prevlade nad precejšnjim delom 
ozemlja današnje Slovenije v drugi polovici 1. st. 
pr. n. št. in na začetku 1. st. n. št., ko se je končalo 
skoraj dve stoletji trajajoče rimsko osvajanje tega 
ozemlja.
85  To datacijo podpirajo arheološki dokazi in cesarski 
gradbeni napis, objavljen v Šašel Kos 1997b, 177–181, kat. 
št. 34, 35 (= CIL III 10768 + str. 2328,26 = CIL 03, 10768 = 
AIJ 303, 304 = lupa 9246). Šašel Kos (npr. 2012) zagovarja 
tudi tezo, da je bila rimska kolonija ustanovljena okoli leta 
30 pr. n. št. Povzetek zgodovine raziskav s sklici: Istenič 
2019b, poglavje 19.2.3, 240–244.
86  Nasprotno Šašel (1989) in Šašel Kos (1995; 2005, 
341, sl. 81; 2012, 80–84, sl. 2) zagovarjata tezo, da je bilo 
območje Emone že od srede 1. st. pr. n. št. del province 
Galije Cisalpine oziroma po letu 42/41 pr. n. št. del Italije.
87  Cf. op. 17.
Janka Istenič
Narodni muzej Slovenije
Prešernova 20
SI–1000 Ljubljana
janka.istenic@nms.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6705-4471
Illustrations: Fig. 1,2,7 (map: Vida Bitenc). – Fig. 3,12 (map: Nejc Dolinar, NMS). – Fig. 4,5 (drawing: Ida Murgelj, NMS). 
– Fig. 6 (map: Matic Zupan, NMS). – Fig. 8 (photo: Janez Kotar). Fig. 9,10 (photo: Arhej d.o.o.).
Slikovno gradivo: Sl. 1,2,7 (karta: Vida Bitenc). – Sl. 3,11 (karta: Nejc Dolinar, NMS). – Sl. 4,5 (karta: Ida Murgelj, NMS). 
– Sl. 6 (karta: Matic Zupan, NMS). – Sl. 8 (foto: Janez Kotar). – Sl. 9,10 (foto: Arhej d.o.o.).
The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency as part of the 
P6-0283 Long-Term Grant.
Članek je nastal v okviru programa P6-0283, ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko 
dejavnost Republike Slovenije.