Valerian (A.D. 253-260) and Gallienus (A.D. 253-268)

Richard D. Weigel (Western Kentucky University)

P. Licinius Valerianus, or Valerian, was unusual for his time period in that he was an emperor who came from an old Roman senatorial family. He was likely born shortly before 200 A.D., but little is known of his early life. Valerian married Egnatia Mariniana and had two sons, Gallienus and Valerian Junior. Gallienus was born around 218.[[1]] Valerian makes his first appearance in the sources in 238 A.D. as an ex-consul and princeps senatus negotiating with (more likely than serving on) the embassy sent to Rome by Gordian I’s African legions to secure senatorial approval of Gordian’s rebellion against and replacement of Maximinus Thrax as emperor.[[2]] The Scriptores Historiae Augustae probably report accurately that Trajan Decius, on the recommendation of the Senate, offered Valerian the censorship in 251. Although the senatus consultum cited and the specific office are of doubtful authenticity, the high reputation Valerian possessed in the Senate and his association with the government under Decius probably are truthful aspects of the story.[[3]] In 253 Valerian was apparently commanding in Raetia and Noricum when Trebonianus Gallus sent him to bring legions from Gaul and Germany to Italy for the struggle with the forces of Aemilianus. After Gallus‘ troops killed him and his son and joined Aemilianus, Valerian’s men proclaimed their general emperor and their arrival in Italy caused Aemilianus‘ soldiers to desert and kill their commander and join Valerian’s forces in acclaiming Valerian as emperor.[[4]]

The Senate presumably was pleased to ratify the position of Valerian, one of their own, as emperor and they also accepted his son and colleague, P. Licinius Egnatius Gallienus, as Augustus, rather than just as Caesar.[[5]] Valerian apparently realized the necessity of sharing power equally with his son and of dividing their efforts geographically, with Gallienus responsible for the West and Valerian himself concentrating on the East. The biographies of Valerian and Gallienus in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, attributed to Trebellius Pollio, are not especially helpful in putting together an account of their joint reign. The life of Valerian is fragmentary and that of Gallienus projects an extremely biased negative interpretation of his career.

Gallienus in the early years of the joint reign concentrated, with some success, on protecting Gaul and the Rhine frontier by driving back Germanic tribes and fortifying cities such as Cologne and Trier. In a move which would characterize later diplomacy with Germans, Gallienus concluded an alliance with one of their chieftains, presumably to assist the Romans in protecting the empire from other Germanic tribes.[[6]] The invasions increased in number around 257-258 as the Franks entered Gaul and Spain, destroying Tarraco (Tarragona), and the Alamanni invaded Italy. Gallienus defeated the Alamanni at Milan, but soon was faced with the revolts in Pannonia and Moesia led first by his general there, Ingenuus, and then by Regalianus, commander in Illyricum. Gallienus put down these rebellions by 260 and secured stability in the region by concluding an alliance with the Marcomannic king, whose daughter Pipa the emperor apparently accepted as his concubine although he was still married to Cornelia Salonina.[[7]]

In the East, Valerian had succeeded by A.D. 257 in rescuing Antioch in Syria from Persian control, at least temporarily, but was soon faced with a major invasion of the Goths in Asia Minor.[[8]] The Scriptores Historiae Augustae biography of Aurelian has Valerian appear to speak in the Baths at Byzantium to publicly commend Aurelian for his success in driving back the Goths and reward him with the consulship and even with adoption as imperial successor.[[9]] However, it is not clear that Valerian even reached Byzantium because he sent Felix to that city while he remained to protect the eastern section of Asia Minor and then returned to Antioch to guard it against renewed Persian attacks.[[10]] It was at this point, around 259, that Valerian moved to defend Edessa and his troops lost significant numbers to the plague. Valerian tried to negotiate a peace with the Persian king, Sapor, but was captured by treachery and taken into captivity. The ultimate humiliation of a Roman emperor by a foreign leader was enacted through Sapor’s use of Valerian as a human stepping-stool to assist the Persian king in mounting his horse and Valerian’s body was later skinned to produce a lasting trophy of Roman submission.[[11]]

Eusebius discusses the policy of Valerian toward the Christians and says that, after initially treating them most positively, Valerian was persuaded by Macrianus to lead another persecution against them.[[12]] Valerian in fact after his brutal imprisonment and death in Persia would serve as a negative moral exemplum for some Latin Christian writers who gleefully pointed out that those who oppose the true God receive their just desserts.[[13]] Eusebius also credits Gallienus with reversing his father’s policy and establishing peace with the Church, citing imperial edicts which established freedom of worship and even restored some lost property.[[14]] Paul Keresztes claims that Gallienus in fact established a peace with Christians that lasted for forty-three years, from A.D. 260 until 303, and gave the community a kind of legal status which they had previously lacked.[[15]]

Andreas Alföldi details a growing separation between Gallienus and his father which goes well beyond the geographical one which had developed out of military necessity. In addition to the strikingly different policies, just described, which they pursued toward the Christians, Gallienus began to make his military independence clear through changes in coin inscriptions and by 258 he had created his central cavalry unit and stationed it at Milan. This independent force, which was under the command of a man of equestrian rank and soon stood on a level at least equal to that of the Praetorian Guard, would play a significant role in Gallienus‘ upcoming battles and, of course, was a foretoken of a new trend for military organization in the future.[[16]] Alföldi cites as evidence of the increasing separation between the joint emperors the statement that Gallienus did not even seek his father’s return from captivity, which Lactantius of course interpreted as part of Valerian’s divine punishment, but one wonders what indeed Gallienus might have done and his „indifference“ may have been instead his attempt to reassert confidence in his armies and not dwell on the depressing and humiliating servitude and ultimate death of Valerian.[[17]] Another reform which Alföldi discusses as part of Gallienus‘ independent stand is his exclusion of the senatorial class from major military commands. H.M.D. Parker credits Gallienus with beginning to separate the civil and military functions of Rome’s provincial governors, thus making senatorial governors purely civil administrators and starting to replace them even in this reduced role by equestrians.[[18]] The disappearance in this period of the S.C. stamp of senatorial authority on bronze coins was probably also seen as an attack on the prestige of the order, although the debasement of the silver coinage had by this time practically reached the point where the „silver“ coins were themselves essentially bronze and the change may have been more for economic than for political reasons. Gallienus‘ exclusion of senators from military command further broke down class distinctions because sons of centurions were by this time regularly given equestrian rank and the move further accelerated the alienation of Rome as center of the Empire. In addition, the bitterness of the senatorial class over Gallienus‘ policy most likely explains the hatred of Latin writers toward this particular emperor.[[19]]

Although Gallienus‘ military innovations may have made his forces more effective, he still had to face numerous challenges to his authority.In addition to systemic invasions and revolts, the plague wreaked havoc in Rome and Italy and probably in several provinces as well.[[20]] It must have seemed that every commander he entrusted to solve a problem later used that authority to create another threat. When Gallienus was involved in putting down the revolt of Ingenuus in Pannonia, he put Postumus in charge of the armies guarding the Rhine and Gaul. There is some doubt about which of Gallienus‘ sons, Cornelius Valerianus or P. Cornelius Licinius Saloninus, was left in Cologne under the care of the Praetorian Prefect Silvanus and perhaps also Postumus. In any case, when Postumus revolted and proclaimed his independent Gallic Empire, Silvanus and one of the emperor’s sons were killed. Gallienus probably restricted Postumus‘ expansion, but he never gained the personal revenge that, according to one source, drove him to challenge Postumus to single combat.[[21]] While Gallienus was thus engaged, and after Valerian’s capture by the Persians, Macrianus had his soldiers proclaim his sons, Macrianus and Quietus, emperors in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Gallienus sent Aureolus to defeat Macrianus and one son in the area of Illyria and Thrace; Odenathus of Palmyra defeated the other son and restored stability in Syria and, with Gallienus‘ approval, followed that up with a victory over the Persians.[[22]] After Odenathus‘ assassination ca. 267, his wife Zenobia continued to rule the independent Palmyrene section of the Empire.[[23]]

In A.D. 262 Gallienus concluded his tenth year in office by celebrating in Rome his Decennalia with a spectacular procession involving senators, equestrians, gladiators, soldiers, representatives of foreign peoples, and many other groups. This festival included feasts, games, entertainment, and spectacle which probably reminded Romans of the millennial Secular Games celebrations of Philip I and likely were intended to secure popular support at home for Gallienus. Over the next five years little is known about specific activities of the emperor and he presumably spent more time in Rome and less along the frontiers.[[24]]

Gallienus and Salonina as rulers patronized a cultural movement which collectively is known as the Gallienic Renaissance. The imperial patrons are most directly connected with the philosophical aspects of this movement because Porphyry testifies to their friendship for the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus. Porphyry goes on to say that Plotinus asked Gallienus to rebuild an abandoned former city of philosophers in Campania, rename it Platonopolis, and govern it as a kind of Platonic Republic, but that the jealousy and spite of others at court scuttled the plan.[[25]] In addition to Neoplatonic philosophy, according to Gervase Matthew, the Gallienic Renaissance included the „upward glance“ and other stylistic changes in imperial sculpture and religious beliefs that were characterized by „an overwhelming sense of the transcendent and immutable.“ Matthew points out both the return to artistic models of Augustus, Hadrian, and even Severus Alexander and also „a new Romantic tension“ which breaks with the past and points toward a new and very different world.[[26]] The Hellenic character of much of the Gallienic Renaissance is also stressed in the emperor’s trip to Athens where he, likely in imitation of Hadrian, became eponymous archon and received initiation into the Eleusinian cult of Demeter.

Late in his reign, Gallienus issued a series of coins in Rome which honored nine deities as Conservator Augusti or protector of the emperor by pairing his portrait with reverses picturing an animal or animals symbolic of each deity. Included in this group of celestial guardians are Apollo, Diana, Hercules, Jupiter, Juno, Liber Pater, Mercury, Neptune, and Sol. For example, Apollo’s coin-types portray a centaur, a gryphon, or Pegasus; Hercules is represented by either the lion or the boar. It appears that Gallienus was issuing the „animal series“ coins both to secure, through some religious festival, the aid of Rome’s protective gods against continuing invasions, revolts, and plague and to entertain the Roman populace with pageantry and circus games, thus to divert their attention away from the same problems and maintain the security of the regime in power.[[27]]

In A.D. 268, Gallienus saw his third son, Marinianus, become consul, but in the spring another Gothic invasion brought the emperor back to Greece. He defeated the invaders at Naissus in Moesia , but was deterred from pursuing them further by a revolt of the commander of his elite cavalry, Aureolus. He besieged this last rebel emperor in Milan, but a plot involving his Praetorian Prefect and two future emperors, Claudius and Aurelian, all three men Illyrians popular with many of the soldiers, lured Gallienus away from the city on a false pretext and assassinated him. The emperor’s brother Valerian and young son Marinianus were also murdered.[[28]] In spite of the bitter resentment which many of the senators must have felt toward the dead emperor and his reform policies, Claudius II, perhaps only to legitimize his own reign, persuaded the Senate to deify Gallienus.[[29]]

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

• Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Loeb translation by David Magie), including The Two Valerians, The Two Gallieni, The Thirty Pretenders, and The Deified Claudius by Trebellius Pollio
• Aurelius Victor, Liber De Caesaribus (translation by H. Bird)
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Loeb translation by J. Oulton)
• Eutropius, Breviarium (translation by H. Bird)
• John Malalas, Chronographia (translation by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, and Roger Scott)
• Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum (translation by M. F. McDonald)
• Orosius, The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans (translation by R.J. Deferrari)
• Porphyry, Life of Plotinus (translation by S. MacKenna)
• A. Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet IV (Oxford, 1978)
• Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum (Pinder edition, Bonn, 1841-1897)
• Zosimus, Historia Nova (translations by J. Buchanan and H. Davis or by R. Ridley)

Secondary Sources:

• Alföldi, A. Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Darmstadt, 1967).
• Alföldi, M. Zu den Militärreformen des Kaisers Gallienus (Basel, 1957).
• Altheim, F. Die Soldatenkaiser (Frankfurt, 1939).
• Baynes, N. „Three Notes on the Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine.“ JRS 15 (1925), 195-208.
• Bleckmann, B. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1992).
• Brauer, G. The Age of the Soldier Emperors (Park Ridge, NJ, 1975).
• Christol, M. „Les règnes de Valérien et de Gallien (253-268): travaux d’ensemble, questions chronologiques.“ Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.2 (Berlin, 1975), 803-827.
• Cook, S., F. Adcock, M. Charlesworth, and N. Baynes, The Cambridge Ancient History, volume XII (Cambridge, 1939).
• De Blois, L. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden, 1976).
• Demougeot, E. La Formation de l’Europe et les Invasions Barbares, vol. 1 (Paris, 1969).
• De Regibus, L. La Monarchia Militare di Gallieno (Recco, 1939).
• Gagé, J. „Programme d’italicité et nostalgies d’hellénisme autour de Gallien et Salonine.“ ANRW II.2 (Berlin, 1975), 828-852.
• Göbl, R. „Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit.“ Numismatische Zeitschrift 74 (1951), 8-45 and 75 (1953), 5-35.
• Grosse, R. Römische Militärgeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der Byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Berlin, 1920).
• Grunwald, R. Studies in the Literary Sources for the Emperor Gallienus, 253-268 A.D. (Diss: Minnesota, 1969).
• Healy, P. The Valerian Persecution (London and Boston, 1905).
• Homo, L. „L’empereur Gallien et la crise de l’empire romain au IIIe siècle.“ Revue Historique 113 (1913), 1-22 and 225-257.
• Kent, J.P.C. „Gallienae Augustae.“ Numismatic Chronicle 13 (1973), 64-68.
• Keresztes, P. „The Peace of Gallienus: 260-303 A.D.“ Wiener Studien 9 (1975), 174-185.
• Kuhoff, W. Herrschertum und Reichskrise: Die Regierungszeit der römischen Kaiser Valerianus und Gallienus (253-268 n. Chr.) (Bochum, 1979).
• Manni, E. L’impero di Gallieno (Rome, 1949).
• Matthew, G. „The Character of the Gallienic Renaissance.“ JRS 33 (1943), 65-70 and plates 4-6.
• Oost, S. „The Alexandrian Seditions under Philip and Gallienus.“ Classical Philology 56 (1961), 1-21.
• Parker, H. A History of the Roman World A.D. 138 to 337 (London, 1958).
• Pekáry, T. „Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Jahrzehnts 250-260 n. Chr.“ Historia 11 (1962), 123-128.
• Pflaum, H.-G. „Zu Reform des Kaisers Gallienus.“ Historia 25 (1976), 109-117.
• Pugliese-Caratelli, G. „La crisi dell‘ impero nell‘ età di Gallieno.“ Parola del Passato 2 (1947), 48-73.
• Rosenbach, M. Galliena Augusta (Tübingen, 1958).
• Rothkegel, F. Die Regierung des Kaisers Gallienus von 253 bis 268 n. Chr. (Glatz, 1894).
• Simon, H.-G. „Die Reform der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien“ in W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, Studien zur Antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff (Cologne and Vienna, 1980), 435-452.
• Voetter, O. „Die Münzen des Kaisers Gallienus und seiner Familie.“ Numismatische Zeitschrift (1900), 117-147 and (1901), 73-110.
• Vorbrodt, T. Kaiser Gallienus (Diss: Halle, 1923).
• Weigel, R. „Gallienus‘ ‚Animal Series‘ Coins and Roman Religion“, The Numismatic Chronicle 150 (1990), 135-143.
• Wickert, L. „Licinius 173“ and „Licinius (Egnatius) 84“ in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie 13.1 (1926), 350-369 and 488-495.
• Zaccaria, C. „Contributo alla storia dei Cesari dell III. sec. d.C. I figli dell’imperatore Gallieno.“ Quaderni di Storia antica e Epigrafia 2 (1978), 59-155.
• ________. „Successione ereditaria e propaganda dinastica nelle emissioni monetali del regno di Valeriano e Gallieno.“ Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 25 (1978) 103-138

Footnotes

[[1]]S.H.A. Val. 8 and Gal. 14.9-11; L. Wickert, „Licinius 84, 172, and 173“ in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie 13.1 (1926), 352, 486-488, 494 .
[[2]] S.H.A. Gord. 9.7-8; Zosimus I.14; Wickert, 488.
[[3]]S.H.A. Val. 5-7; Wickert, 488-489.
[[4]] Zosimus I. 28-29; Orosius 7.22; Eutropius 9.7; Aurelius Victor 32.
[[5]]Eutropius 9.7-8 and Bird’s tr. n. 16, pp. 138-139.
[[6]]Zosimus I.30; H. Parker, A History of the Roman World A.D. 138 to 337 (London, 1958), 167.
[[7]]Aur. Vict. 33; S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 9-10; Parker, 167-168.
[[8]]Zosimus I.31-37; Wickert, 491; Parker, 168-170.
[[9]]S.H.A. Aurel. 13-16.1.
[[10]]Zosimus I.36.
[[11]]Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 5; Wickert, 492-493; Parker, 170.
[[12]]Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 7.10.
[[13]] Lactantius, 5; Orosius 7.22.
[[14]] Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 7.13.
[[15]] P. Keresztes, „The Peace of Gallienus,“ Wiener Studien 9 (1975), 174-185.
[[16]] A. Alföldi in S. Cook et al., Cambridge Ancient History XII (Cambridge, 1939), 181-184, 216-217.
[[17]] Lactantius 5; Alföldi, 183; Parker, 180-181. Hans-Günther Simon, in „Die Reform der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien“ in W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, Studien zur Antiken Sozialgeschichte (Cologne and Vienna, 1980), 435-452, questions the „reform“ nature of Gallienus‘ changes and tries to place them within a broader context.
[[18]] Aur. Vict. 33 (see also Bird’s n.31 on p. 145); Alföldi, 183-184, 219-220; Parker, 178-180.
[[19]] Alföldi, 183, 219-221.
[[20]] Aur. Vict. 33; S.H.A. Gall. 5.6; Parker, 176.
[[21]] S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 3.1-7; Wickert, 355-357; Parker, 167-168. On Gallienus‘ sons, see C. Zaccaria, „Contributo alla storia dei Cesari dell III. sec. d.C. I figli dell‘ imperatore Gallieno,“ Quaderni di Storia antica e Epigrafia 2 (1978), 59-155.
[[22]] S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 12.11-14; Parker, 172-175.
[[23]] Zosimus 39; Alföldi, 176-178.
[[24]] S.H.A. Gall. 7.4-9.8; Parker, 176-177, 181-182.
[[25]] Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 12 in Stephen MacKenna’s translation of Plotinus: The Enneads (New York, 1957), 9.
[[26]] G. Matthew, „The Character of the Gallienic Renaissance,“ J.R.S. 33 (1943), 65-70 and plates IV-VI.
[[27]] R. Weigel, „Gallienus‘ ‚Animal Series‘ Coins and Roman Religion,“The Numismatic Chronicle 150 (1990), 135-143.
[[28]] Zosimus I.39-41; S.H.A. Gall. 13.6-15.1; Aur. Vict. 33; Eutrop. 9.11; C.A.H. XII, 189-190; Parker, 177-178. John Malalas preserves a different tradition, stating that Gallienus died from illness (Chronographia 12.27).
[[29]] Aur. Vict. 33.

Copyright (C) 1998, Richard D. Weigel. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Valerianus Publius Licinius (253-260 n. Chr.)

Principal unsigned article

Roman emperor from A.D. 253 to 260. He was of noble family, and in 238 was princeps senatus. In 251, when Decius revived the censorship with legislative and executive powers so extensive that it practically embraced the civil authority of the emperor, Valerian was chosen censor by the senate. After the death of Decius Valerian retained the confidence of his successor, Trebonianus Callus, who sent him to fetch troops to quell the rebellion of Aemilianus, governor of Moesia and Pannonia. The soldiers in Raetia, however, proclaimed Valerian emperor; and marching slowly towards Rome he found both his rivals dead, slain by their own soldiers. Valerian was about sixty-three years of age, and had scarcely the vigour to deal with the enemies that threatened every frontier of the empire. Taking his son Gallienus as colleague, he left the wars in Europe to his direction, under which matters went from bad to worse and the whole West fell into disorder. Valerian chose for his own part the war in the East, where Antioch had fallen into the hands of a Persian vassal and Armenia was occupied by Shapur (Sapor) I., while in 258 the Goths ravaged Asia Minor. Valerian recovered Antioch, fought in Mesopotamia with mixed success and finally was taken captive. It is said that he was subjected to the greatest insults by his captors, and that after his death his skin was stuffed with straw and reserved as a trophy in the chief Persian temple. Owing to imperfect and contradictory authorities, the chronology and details of this reign are very uncertain.

See Trebellius Pollip, Life of Valerian (frags.); Aurelius Victor, Caesares, 32; Eutropius ix. 6; Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii. 5; Zosimus i. 27; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. 10; H. Schiller, Geschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, i. pt. 2.

This work is supposed to be in public domain, as the editor died in 1924 and there is no author noted.

Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus (ca. July – ca. Sept. 253)

von Thomas Banchich (Canisius College)

[Abb. einer Münze]

Biography

The anonymous late 4th-century Epitome de Caesaribus sets the birthplace of Aemilianus (PIR² A330) „on the island Meninx, which is now called Girba,“ modern Gerba, off the coast of western Tunisia and calls him a Moor (31.1-2, ed. Pichlmayer, p. 159), while John Zonaras styles him a Libyan (12.21, ed. Büttner-Wobst, p. 590). On the basis of another detail provided by the Epitome (31.3, p. 159) — that at the time of his death Aemilianus had lived „fifty less three years“–, his birth-date can be situated ca. 207. However, Zonaras (12.22, p. 592) and anonymous 13th-century Chronological Survey [hereafter Syn. Sath.], often identified as the work of Theodore Scutariotes (SUNOCIS XRONIKH, ed. Sathas, p. 38), both make him forty (i.e., in his fortieth year) when he met his end in 253. The assertions of Eutropius‘ (Breviarium 9.6, ed. Droysen, p. 152) that he was „from a very insignificant family,“ and of Paeanius, who (ca. 380) translated into Greek and expanded Eutropius that „Aemilianus, not being able to trace himself back to illustrious ancestors, but, rather, having been born from entirely insignificant ones, having ruled for three whole months, died“ (9.6, ed. Droysen, p. 153) may be nothing more than baseless defamation of a failed usurper. On the other hand, John of Antioch’s claim that Aemilianus used his ancestry to justify his grab for imperial power (Fr. 150, ed. Müller, FHG IV, p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, ed. de Boor, p. 110) may reflect fabricated self-promotion rather than accurate information about Aemilianus‘ lineage. His wife was C. Cornelia Supra (PIR² C1502), whom an inscription from Cuicul, Algeria (Dessau, ILS 9498), styles Augusta, and who is otherwise known only from numismatic evidence.The date of their union is a mystery, but her African origin suggests a time before Aemilianus left his native province.

Sometime during the reigns of Gallus and Volusianus (ca. June 251 – ca. August 253), Aemilianus was sent to the Balkans, his position variously described as archon of Moesia (John of Antioch fr.150, p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60), „being in command of the Pannonian units“ (Zosimus 1.28, ed. Paschoud, I, p. 27), „being in command of Paeonians“ (Syn. Sath., p. 38), „in command of the army in Moesia“ (Symeon the Logothete = Leo Grammaticus, ed. Bekker, p. 77), and “ commander of the army of Moesia“ (Zonaras 12.21, p. 590). John of Antioch, either independently or under the influence of his sources, attributes to Aemilianus envy and seditious intentions which preceded the deaths of Gallus and Volusianus and also implies serious discontents on Aemilianus‘ part with the Senate of Rome. In his translation of Eusebius, Jerome, mirrored by Jordanes, gives no motive but states that Aemilianus „was plotting revolution in Moesia“ (Chronicon, Ol. 258, ed. Helm, p. 219: „in Moesia res novas machinabatur;“ Jordanes Romana 285, ed. Mommsen, p. 37: „in Moesia res novas moliebatur„). Zosimus and Zonaras offer the fullest account of what transpired in the summer of 253.

The former, perhaps echoing a point of view of inhabitants of Asia that he found in his ultimate or intermediate source, is unqualified in his praise of Aemilianus: „Meanwhile, the Scythians who had taken over the whole of Europe quite unhindered now crossed into Asia and plundered as far as Cappadocia, Pessinus, and Ephesus. Aemilianus, commander of the Pannonian legions, did his best to encourage his troops, who did not dare resist the successful barbarians, and reminded them of their Roman honor. He then made a surprise attack on the barbarians in the district and killed most of them. Next he crossed over into the enemy territory, destroyed every obstruction and, contrary to every expectation, freed Rome’s subjects from their tormentors. For this he was chosen emperor“ (1.28.1-2, pp. 26-27; trans. Ridley, slightly adapted).

For his part, Zonaras maintains that Scythians, i.e., Goths, who had been charged with the collection of a payment promised them by the Romans, alleged that they had not received the agreed-upon amount and departed in anger. Despite comments to the contrary in several influential modern accounts, neither Zonaras nor any other ancient source attributes this to some change in Roman policy or to the specific initiative of Aemilianus. Indeed, Zonaras implicitly leaves open the possibility that the Goths‘ allegations may in fact have been a ploy aimed at extorting more of Moesia’s wealth. What Zonaras does say is that after the departure of the Goths: „A certain Aemilianus, a Libyan man, commander of the army of Moesia, promised that he would give to the soldiers all that had been given to the Scythians, if they would engage in war with the barbarians. Catching the Scythians by suprise, they killed all but a few and collected much booty from them, overrunning their territory. Afterwards, Aemilianus, having become haughty in his success, canvassed the soldiers under him. They proclaimed him emperor of the Romans“ (12.21, p. 590).

The rough parallel of Syn. Sath. 38 — „And a certain Aemilianus, being in command of Paeonians, emboldening the troops under him and having attacked the barbarians there, destroyed many, and was recognized sovereign by the troops there.“ — is probably of no independent value. Jordanes (Getica 105, ed. Mommsen, p. 85), on the other hand, has Aemilianus and his troops plundering Moesia after the example of the Goths rather than, as Zonaras maintains, recovering through victory the bribes paid to them (i.e., to the Goths). Brief notices in several other sources (Eutropius 9.5, p. 152; Paeanius 9.5, p. 153; Aurelius Victor 31.1, ed. Pichlmayr, p. 107; Epitome de Caesaribus 31.1, p. 159) add nothing. It is impossible to decide if the claim of Symeon ( = Leo Grammaticus, pp. 77-78) that Aemilianus had the support of an army in Libya reflects reality or a garbling of sources.

As Aemilianus entered Italy with an army of uncertain size and proceeded southward along the Flaminian Way, the Emperors Gallus and Volusianus moved against him.[[1]] Their action makes the most sense if the usurper’s forces were not overly imposing. Indeed, Aemilianus could never have contemplated investing Rome, and, given what had just transpired in Moesia, it seems doubtful that he would have chosen to leave that province denuded of defenders or that his troops would have acquiesced in such a move. His best hope would have been a rapid advance facilitated by modest numbers in order to bring matters to a head before his rivals could assemble a force sufficient to destroy him.[[2]] Whatever their size and the intentions of their commanders, the opposing sides met at Interamna Nahars, near the southern terminus of the eastern branch of the Flaminian Way, with Aemilianus emerging the victor (Eutropius 9.5, p. 152; Paeanius 9.5, p. 153; Aurelius Victor 31.1, ed. Pichlmayr, p. 107). In the aftermath, Gallus and Volusianus apparently retreated northward up the western branch of the same road, only to be murdered at the Forum Flaminii by their own men – motivated, according to Aurelius Victor (31.2, pp. 107-108), by the hope of rewards – , who then went over to Aemilianus. John of Antioch (Fr. 150, FHG IV p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, p. 110) refers to the killers as domestici, i.e.,members of a regiment of imperial guards or simply officials or retainers–, which may suggest that Gallus and Volusianus fled with only a relatively small force of guardsmen. Their betrayal also militates against the notion that Gallus and Volusianus had marched against Aemilianus in the expectation of the imminent arrival of large numbers of reinforcements.

Aemilianus, in turn, marched toward Rome where – though, despite the testimony of Syn. Sath. 38, he may never have actually entered the city – formal recognition was forthcoming from an initially recalcitrant Senate (Aurelius Victor 31.3, p. 108). Zonaras (12.22, p. 591) says that Aemilianus „wrote to the Senate, promising that he would rid Thrace of barbarians, that he would campaign against Persia, and that, having turned the realm over to the Senate, he would do everything and fight as their general.“ A fragment of the so-called Anonymous Continuator of Cassius Dio (Fr. 2, FHG IV, pp. 190-199 = Excerpta de Sententiis158, ed. Boissevain, p. 264), perhaps to be identified with Peter the Patrician, reflects this same tradition: „After he had been acclaimed sovereign, Aemilianus wrote to the Senate: ‚I leave the realm to you, and I strive in every way as your general.“ Aurelius Victor (31.3, p. 108) calls his reign modestum, „moderate“ or „mild;“ the titulature on coins and inscriptions probably reflects, for the most part, honors formally granted by the Sentate.

The first — and the last — challenge to Aemilianus‘ rule came from the future emperor Publius Licinius Valerianus, whom Zosimus (1.28.3, p. 28) unconvincingly alleges had been dispatched by Gallus and Volusianus from Rome to bring to their aid legions from Gaul and Germany. More likely, he was already in command of those forces (perhaps being readied for an eastern campaign), began to move toward Italy after learning of Aemilianus‘ elevation, and resolved to battle Aemilianus for imperial power after the deaths of Gallus and Volusianus.[[3]]

Zonaras (12.22, pp. 591-592), records that Valerian: „commander of the forces beyond the Alps, when he had learned about Aemilianus, himself also became a usurper. After he had concentrated the forces under him, he hastened toward Rome. Then, in fact, those who served with Aemilianus, when they had recognized that they were no match in battle for the army of Valerian, judging that it was not pious that Romans destroy and be destroyed by one another, that wars be joined between men of the same race, and otherwise reckoning, too, that Aemilianus was unworthy of the realm both as ignoble and groveling, and, to be sure, considering that [592] Valerian was better suited for the rule because he would, for certain, assume affairs in a more authoritative fashion, killed Aemilianus, who had not yet reigned four months and was forty years of age. They submitted themselves to Valerian and entrusted the empire of the Romans to him without a fight.“

Aside from Aurelius Victor (31.3, p. 108) who has Aemilianus die of an illness – an error possibly due to confusion as a result of records of plague under Gallus and Volusianus – the ancient sources agree with Zonaras that he was killed by his troops. Indeed, Syn. Sath. 38 is nothing but a close parallel: „Valerianus, general of the one beyond the Alps, rebelled against this one, and moved with a force upon Rome, planning to attack Aemilianus. And the army, seeing Aemilianus weaker with respect to the war, and Valerian a better leader for affairs of state, killed Aemilianus, who happened to be forty years old and gave the power to Valerian.“

The Epitome de Caesaribus (31.2, p. 159) has him „defeated near Spoletium or a bridge which is said to have taken its name from his destruction of the Sanguinarii, between Oriculum and Narnia, positioned in the middle of the area between Spoletium and the city Rome.“ The Chronographer of 354 (ed. Mommsen, p. 148) likewise places Aemilianus‘ death at the Sanguinarian bridge, while Zosimus (1.29.1, p. 28), without naming a location, merely comments that Aemilianus‘ troops „seeing him behaving more like a common soldier than a general, and considering him unfit to be emperor, killed him“ (trans. Ridley). Epigraphic and papyrological evidence point to between late July and mid-September of 253 as the time of his death.[[4]]

In the Latin source tradition, Eutropius (9.6, p. 152), Aureliius Victor (31.3, p. 108), Orosius (7.21, ed. Zangemeister, p. ), Jordanes (Romana 286, p. 37) and Jerome (Chronicon, Ol. 258, p. 219) give three months, while the Chronographer of 354 (p. 148, line 3) specifies eighty-eight days. In the Greek tradition, only Paeanius, mirroring Eutropius, assigns to Aemilianus three months (9.6, p. 153), though George Syncellus‘ three years (Ecloga Chronographia 715, ed. Mosshammer, p. 465) may be an error linked to that figure. The Latin Epitome de Caesaribus (31.2, p. 159) almost certainly reflects a Greek source in its report of a reign of four months, the same duration recorded by Zonaras – „he had not yet reigned four months (12.22, p. 592) – , the Syn Sath. 38, and John of Antioch (Fr. 150, FHG IV p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, p. 110). The one year allotted him by George the Monk (Chronicon, ed. de Boor, Vol. II, p. 467) and Cedrenus (ed. Bekker, Vol. I, p. 454) – both of whom have him killed „in the palace“ – need mean more than „in the first year of his reign,“ which is reconcilable with Symeon’s (Leo Grammaticus, p. 78) figure of two months. These durations probably all in some way reflect a calculation of the length of Aemilianus‘ reign beginning with acclamation in Moesia rather than with his recognition by the Senate. By any measure, for believers events would have confirmed the Sibyl’s prediction (13.146, ed. and trans. Potter, p. 174) that after Gallus „again another man will rule bearing the first letter in his names; but swiftly in his turn he will fall before powerful Ares, smitten by gleaming iron.“

The epigraphic and numismatic evidence for Aemilianus‘ reign is unremarkable. Numerous erasures from inscriptions testify to an official damnatio memoriae, perhaps reflected in John of Antioch’s comment ( Fr. 150, FHG IV p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, p. 110) that Aemilianus „disappeared from mankind.“[[5]] Aemilianus‘ historical importance may simply be that his rise and fall offers a signal example of some systemic problems involving the interrelationships between troops, commanders, senate, and emperors that define in part the so-called „Crisis of the Third Century.“ On a specific level, the sequence of events subsequent to his usurpation brought to power the ill-fated Valerian. To students of Roman historiography, Aemilianus is an important „trace element“ whose presence contributes to the critical analysis of the traditions from which much of our most important literary evidence for the events of the Third Century derive.

Notes

[[1]]Potter, p. 322, with n. 341, estimates that Aemilianus‘ march to Italy would have taken about two months.

[[2]]The later betrayal of Aemilianus by his soldiers when faced by the numerically superior forces under Valerian also supports this hypothesis.

[[3]]This seems the most reasonable explanation for Valerian’s clash with Aemilianus about a month after the latter’s victory at Interamna. See Potter, p. 322.

[[4]]For the evidence, critical discussion, and references to additional scholarship, see Peachin, pp. 36-37, and Potter, pp. 320-321. On the setting of the battle, see Talbert, Map 42, D3.

[[5]]Cf. Peachin, pp. 36-37, and Kienast, pp. 212-213.

Bibliography

I. Ancient Sources and Translations

Unless otherwise noted, translations are the author’s. The translation of Zonaras is by Banchich and Eugene N. Lane.

Anonymous Continuator of Cassius Dio. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Edited by
K. Müller. 5 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1883. Vol. IV, pp. 191-199.

Aurelius Victor, Sextus. De Caesaribus. Edited by F. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1970.

_______ . Translated by H. Bird. Translated Texts for Historians. Vol. 17. Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 1994.

Cedrenus, George. Chronographia. Edited by I. Bekker. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum
Historiae Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1838-1839.

Chronographer of 354. Edited by T. Mommsen. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi IX. Chronica Minores Saec. IV, V, VI. VII. Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892.

Epitome de Caesaribus. Edited by F. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner, 1970.

_______ . Translated by T. Banchich. Canisius College Translated Texts. No. 1.
Buffalo: Canisius College Classics Department, 2000. <http://www.roman-emperors. org/epitome.htm>.

Eutropius. Breviarium ab urbe condita. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores
Antiquissimi II. Edited by H. Droysen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1879.

_______ . Breviarium. Translated by H. Bird. Translated Texts for Historians 14.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993.

Excerpta de Insidiis. Edited by C. de boor. Vol. III of Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti. Edited by U. Boissevain, C. de Boor, and Th. Büttner-Wobst. Berlin: Weidmann, 1905.

Excerpta de Sententiis. Edited by U. Boissevain. Vol. IV of Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti. Edited by U. Boissevain, C. de Boor, and Th. Büttner-Wobst. Berlin: Weidmann, 1906.

George the Monk. Chronicon. Edited by C. de Boor and P. Wirth. 2 vols. Corrected
Reprint of 1904 ed. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1978.

John of Antioch. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Edited by K. Müller. 5 vols.
Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1883. Vol. IV, pp. 535-622, and V.1, pp. 27-38.

Jerome. Chronica. Edited by R. Helm. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Eusebius Werke.
Vol. VII. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956.

Jordanes. Romana et Getica. Edited by T. Mommsen. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1. Berlin: Weidmann, 1882.

Jordanes. The Gothic History. Translated by C. Mierow. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1915.

Leo Grammaticus. Chronographia. Edited by I. Bekker. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1842.

Orosius, Paulus. Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII. Edited by C. Zangemeister.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. V. Vienna: C. Geroldi Filium Bibliopolam Academiae, 1887.

_______ . Seven Books of History Against the Pagans. Translated by I. Raymond. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1936.

Paeanius. METAFRASIS. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi II.
Edited by H. Droysen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1879.
Peter the Patrician. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Edited by K. Müller. 5 vols.
Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1883. Vol. IV, pp. 181-191.

Scutariotes, Theodore = Synopsis Sathas.

Symeon the Logothe = Leo Grammaticus.

Syncellus, George. Ecloga Chronographica. Edited by A. Mosshammer. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner, 1984.

Synopsis Sathas. ANONYMOU SUNOCIS XRONIKH. Edited by K. N. Sathas.
MESAIVNIKH BIBLIOYHKH. Vol. 7. Paris: Jean Maisonneuve, 1894.

Zonaras, John. Annales. Vol. II. Edited by M. Pinder. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1844.

Zosimus. Histoire Nouvelle. Livres I-II. Edited by F. Paschoud. Paris: „Les Belles
Lettres,“ 1971.

Zosimus. New History. Translated by R. Ridley. Sidney: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1982.

II. Modern Studies

Baldini, Antonio. Storie Perdute (III seculo d.C.). Bologna: Patron editorè, 2000.

Bleckmann, Bruno. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und
byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Munich: Tuduv-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992.

Christol, Michel. L’Empire Romain du IIIe Siècle. Paris: Editions Errance, 1997.

Kienast, Dietmar. Römische Kaisertabelle. 2nd ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1996.

Peachin, Michael. Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284
Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1990.

Potter, David S. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990.

Southern, Pat. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London and New York:
Routledge, 2001.

Talbert, Richard. The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000.

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988.

Copyright (C) 2002, Thomas Banchich. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Thomas Banchich: Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus (ca. July – ca. September, 253), in: De Imperatorbibus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [21.07.2007], http://www.roman-emperors.org/aemaem.htm.

Trebonianus Gallus (251-253 A.D.) and Gaius Vibius Volusianus (251-253 A.D.)

von R. Scott Moore (Indiana University of Pennsylvania)

[Abb.en zu Gallus und Volusianus]

Early Career and Accession

Gaius Vibius Trebonianus Gallus was born around the year 206 AD in Perugia (Italy). He married Afinia Gemina Baebiana and had two children with her, a son Gaius Vibius Volusianus and a daughter Vibia Galla. He appears to have had a traditional political career, serving as a senator and as consul. In 250, he became governor of Upper Moesia and as governor became deeply involved with Decius‘ Danube wars, including the successful defense of the city of Novae.[[1]]

After repeated incursions into Moesia and Dacia by the Goths, the emperor Decius and his son Herennius Etruscus led a military expedition into the Lower Danube and forced the Goths to withdraw. In an effort to trap the retreating Goths, Decius was tricked into fighting from a poor position at Abrittus in June of 251 AD and he and his son were killed before a relief force could arrive.[[2]] With the death of Decius, the army immediately proclaimed Trebonianus Gallus as emperor. He adopted Decius‘ surviving son Hostilian, who was too young to succeed his father, and proclaimed him as co-emperor. He also elevated his son Volusianus to the rank of Caesar.[[3]]

Gallus‘ Reign

Concerned with reaching Rome quickly and solidifying his position as emperor, Gallus signed an unpopular peace treaty with the Goths. In return for their withdrawal, he agreed to allow them to keep the loot and Roman prisoners gained from their incursions and to pay them an annual tribute.[[4]] While this allowed him to proceed immediately to Rome, when he arrived he found the city suffering from the plague.[[5]] Soon after the imperial arrival in the city, Hostilian contracted the plague and died in July 251 AD. Gallus then elevated his son Volusianus to the position of co-emperor.[[6]]

As the plague continued to ravage the city, Gallus gained popular support within the city by providing proper burials for all plague victims, even those too poor to afford it.[[7]] While Gallus acted decisively regarding the plague in Rome, in all other matters, both internal and foreign, he was either slow to react or failed to take any serious action at all.[[8]] There were rumors that he renewed the persecution of Christians, but the only evidence is the arrest and imprisonment of Pope Cornelius in 252 AD.[[9]]

In 252 AD, the Persian king Shapur I attacked the eastern frontier, perhaps due to a dispute with the Romans over control of Armenia.[[10]] Advancing up the Euphrates, Shapur quickly defeated the the Roman forces at the battle of Barbalissos and soon controlled most of the province of Syria. In 253 AD, he completed the annexation of Syria with the capture of its capital city of Antioch.[[11]] Gallus did not take any action to stop Shapur’s advances or bolster the eastern defenses against further excursions into Roman controlled territory.

While the Persians were attacking the eastern frontier, trouble also occurred on the northern frontier. Gallus‘ replacement as governor of Upper Moesia, Aemilius Aemilianus, refused to pay the annual tribute to the Goths agreed to by Gallus in 251 AD. In retaliation for the Roman breach of the peace treaty, the Goths once again invaded the Lower Danube. Aemilianus gathered an army and was able to defeat the invading Goths and as a reward, his grateful troops proclaimed him as emperor.[[12]] He immediately stripped the area of troops and marched his army towards Rome. In an effort to prevent Aemilianus from reaching Italy, Gallus and Volusianus gathered an army and marched north. Gallus also requested Publius Licinius Valerianus to bring reinforcements south from Germany to join up with his forces marching north, but they never arrived. Gallus‘ army moved slowly and had only reached Interamna by August of 253 AD when word reached them that Aemilianus had already crossed into Italy with a large force and was rapidly approaching. Learning of this and fearing defeat, Gallus‘ troops mutinied and murdered the two co-emperors.[[13]]

Notes

[[1]] Wolfram, History of the Goths, 45-46.

[[2]] Some sources imply that Gallus either actively conspired with the Goths or was deliberately slow in coming to assist Decius hoping that he would be killed. Zosimus 1.23, Eusebius 7.1.

[[3]] Zosimus 1.24.

[[4]] Zosimus 1.24.

[[5]] For a description of the plague see Pontius, Life and Passion of Cyprian, in Cyprian, Writings, 1.21.

[[6]] Some sources imply that Gallus had the young co-emperor assasinated. Zosimus 1.25.

[[7]] Brauer, The Age of the Soldier Emperors, 61.

[[8]] Zosimus 1.26.

[[9]] Eusebius 7.1, Liber Pontificalis 22.

[[10]] Zosimus 1.27, Zonaras 12.21.

[[11]] Maricq, „Res Gestae Divi Saporis,“ 295, Frye, The History of Ancient Iran, 369-373, Zosimus 1.27

[[12]] Zosimus 1.28, Jordanes Getica 105.

[[13]] Zosimus 1.28.

Primary Source Bibliography

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History.

Jordanes. Getica.

Liber Pontificalis.

Pontius the Deacon. Life and Passion of Cyprian.

Zonaras, Johannes. Epitome Historiarum.

Zosimus. Historia Nova.

Bibliography

Brauer, George C., Jr. The Age of the Soldier Emperors. Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1975.

Frye, R.N. The History of Ancient Iran. Munchen, 1983.

Hanslick, Rudolf. „Vibius Trebonianus Gallus Augustus.“ RE II 16:1984.

Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd edition. Oxford, 1996. S.v. „Vibius Trebonianus Gallus“ by John Frederick Drinkwater.

Maricq, A. „Res Gestae Divi Saporis“ Syria 35 (1958), 295.

Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East: 31 BC – AD 337. London, 1993.

Wolfram, Herwig. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. History of the Goths. 2nd edition. Berkeley, 1988.

Copyright (C) 2002, R. Scott Moore. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. R. Scott Moore: Trebonianus Gallus (251-253 A.D.) and Gaius Vibius Volusianus (251-253 A.D.), in: De Imperatorbibus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [01.07.2007], http://www.roman-emperors.org/trebgall.htm.

Trajan Decius […] and Usurpers During His Reign

von Geoffrey Nathan (San Diego State University) und
Robin McMahon (New York University)

[Abb. zu Decius]

Geoffrey Nathan: Trajan Decius (249-251 A.D.)

Early Life and Public Career

Any discussion of Decius (and for most third century emperors) must be prefaced by an understanding that the historical tradition is incomplete, fragmentary, and not wholly trustworthy. Any reconstruction of his life and reign will therefore be to some degree speculative. With that caveat in mind, Gaius Messius Quintus Decius was born, to a provincial yet aristocratic Senatorial family during the transitional Severan age, possibly in 201.[[]1]] His family may have been from Italian stock, although that is by no means certain.[[2]] Attempts to describe his life previous to the consulship are problematic, although he did serve as governor in Moesia in the mid-230’s.[[3]] That also means that Decius probably had been a member of the Senate for some time. We know little else about his early life, other than at some point he married Herennia Cupressenia Etruscilla, apparently from the Senatorial ordo as well.[[4]] His political fortunes rose in the troubled 240’s. As instability grew in the mid-third century, Philip the Arab charged Decius, suffect consul for 249, with restoring order along the Danubian frontier.[[5]] In addition to the border unrest, a low-level army officer, Tiberius Claudius Marinus Pacatianus, had led a rebellion of the armies in Pannonia and Moesia.[[6]] For a short time, Marinus apparently claimed the imperial purple and along with movements of the Gepidae, represented a clear threat to the stability of Philip’s rule.[[7]]

Philip’s decision to send Decius was perhaps more motivated by political expediency than by any great confidence in his military abilities.[[8]] Decius had an aristocratic pedigree, and so was likely to have been a popular choice with a Senate that was increasingly doubtful of Philip’s abilities.[[9]] He was also a native of Sirmium in Pannonia Inferior, and so was likely familiar with the intricacies of life and politics in the region.[[10]] Finally, he had, of course, served as governor of the wayward province, and thus undoubtedly had connections there among the civil and military curia–ones that Philip hoped Decius could exploit. Thus, the consul was charged with restoring order along one of the Empire’s most problematic borders. Accompanied by his son, Herennius, Decius traveled to Moesia, probably to reclaim the Legio IV Flavia Felix and possibly the Legio XI, both of which were stationed in that province.[[11]]

Shortly before his arrival, Marinus was killed and local troops quickly named Decius emperor, encouraging him to assert this newfound responsibility in a war against Philip. Philip’s inability to deal decisively with the worsening military crises on the borders, the fear of punishment, and the opportunity for enrichment no doubt motivated the soldiers to place the purple on a local leader–a now increasingly common practice. Decius‘ lineage also probably appealed to traditionalists in Rome, who begrudged Philip his humble origins and his possible involvement in the death of Gordian III.[[12]] Philip led out an army in June of 249 to meet his newest rival for the purple and at an unknown location (possibly Verona or Beroea) lost the battle.[[13]] Whether Philip died in the fighting or was assassinated by his own troops–another increasingly common practice–is unknown. Philip’s son, Philip Junior, recently made an Augustus, was quickly put to death by the Praetorian Guard in Rome.[[14]] Decius was the first emperor to come from the Balkans region. How much he wanted to serve is unknown. While this account undoubtedly contains fictional elements, with several popular literary topoi, the rough outlines of the story are undoubtedly true:[[15]] we have epigraphic evidence in July for support among the Pannonian Legio X, suggesting that Decius owed his accession in no small part to local troops[[16]]

Publicity and Power

The victory of an established Senatorial aristocrat was one that seemed to reassert the authority and place of traditional political power, despite the means of Decius‘ ascension. The new emperor, no doubt aware of the perils of his position, seems to have embarked upon a highly conservative program of imperial propaganda to endear himself to the Roman aristocracy and to the troops who had thrust the purple upon him. One of his earliest acts was to take the honorific name of Trajan, whose status as the greatest of all emperors after Augustus was now becoming firmly established.[[17]] The fact that Trajan had commanded legions in Upper Germany and had close links to both Pannonia and Moesia at the time of his accession invited the comparison. The name was cleverly chosen: Trajan had been an active and successful general throughout his reign, but had also established a reputation for a widely popular civil government.

Decius also served as consul in every year of his reign and took for himself traditional republican powers, another way to underscore his authority and conservatism. He even tried to revive the long defunct office of censor in 251, purportedly offering it to the future emperor, Valerian.[[18]] Decius moreover portrayed himself as an activist general and soldier. In addition to leading military campaigns personally, he often directly bestowed honors upon his troops, high and low alike.[[19]] He also holds the dubious distinction of being the first emperor to have died fighting a foreign army in battle. Finally, in 250, he associated his sons Herennius and Hostilianus in his rule by making them Caesars, eventually raising the former (and elder) to Augustus.[[20]] Undoubtedly, Decius sought to create a dynasty in much the same way the Gordians had in the previous decade. This traditionalism may to be a large extent, however, a construction rather than a reality. When we abandon the literary tradition and look instead at other forms of evidence, his imperial aims are less clear. The legal record, extremely thin, is only vaguely supportive of a conservative policy: most of his surviving enactments deal with private law issues consistent with earlier Severan jurisprudence.[[21]]

On the other hand in late 249, when Decius returned to Rome, he embarked upon an active building program in the capital. After a destructive fire, he extensively restored the Colosseum. He later commissioned the opulent Decian Baths along the Aventine. He perhaps also was responsible for the construction of the Decian Portico.[[22]] Such activities contrasted to a twenty-year period of relative building inactivity. Both the kind of building projects and their stylistic qualities suggest an attempt to recall the glories of the past. The numismatic evidence also suggests some degree of traditionalism. It is there that we see the first references to Trajan Decius, as well as an association with both Pannonia and Dacia.[[23]] His Liberitas and Uberitas issues, combined with his wife’s Pudicitia and his sons‘ Princeps Iuventi coins, all seem to rearticulate traditional ideology.[[24]] Legends tend to be conservative, so this is hardly surprising, but there were no great innovations to suggest a new set of ideological principles. In sum, while the literary reconstructions of Decius‘ life are problematic, it seems clear that traditionalism was an important factor in his administration, especially in the wake of Philip’s reign.

The Persecution of Christians

Another possible aspect of this conservatism was a reported wide-scale attack on the growing Christian minority. The third century saw the slow creation of sizeable communities in the Empire’s urban populations. For the first time, if we are to believe Christian sources, an Empire-wide persecution of Christians was begun under Decius.[[25]] The state required all citizens to sacrifice to the state gods and be in receipt of a libellus, a certificate from a temple confirming the act. The rationale for the emperor’s actions, however, is not entirely clear. Eusebius writes he did so because he hated Philip, who purportedly was a secret Christian.[[26]] Probably the enmity was real, but it seems unconnected to the introduction of these policies. More likely, if Decius did indeed seek to persecute Christians, he was reacting to the growing visibility of the religion, especially in the city of Rome itself. One of the more prominent martyrs of the age was Fabian, the bishop of the imperial capital.[[27]]

But the new policy of public religiosity was much more probably a program to reassert traditional public piety, consistent with some of the other conservative initiatives introduced during the emperor’s short reign. The libelli themselves were largely generalized in nature and language, and there is no implication that they were directed at any one group per se.[[28]] Whatever intended effect it may have had on Christianity was thus to a degree unplanned.[[29]] Christians would have no doubt seen it differently. It is possible then that fourth and fifth century Christian polemicists have misinterpreted (whether purposefully or not) Decius‘ libelli. In the particular cases of Eusebius and Lactantius, both wrote in the wake of the great persecution of Diocletian and no doubt magnified upon the theme of the tyrant-persecutor. A hostile tradition notwithstanding, the new requirements did impact Christians most acutely, causing considerable division in the growing ranks of the new religion.[[30]]

Imperial and Military Problems

Like other third century emperors, Decius was not free of threats to his authority, either from within or without. The revolt of Jotapianus, either in Syria or Cappadocia, had actually begun in Philip’s reign, but was quickly quelled after Decius‘ accession.[[31]] Probably the usurper’s own soldiers murdered the would-be emperor, since the accounts state that his body was delivered to Decius while still in Rome in the summer of 249.
A potentially more serious revolt broke out while Decius was out of Rome in 250 fighting the Goths. Julius Valens Licinianus, also a member of the Senatorial aristocracy with some popular support, took the purple at the Empire’s capital.[[32]] It appears to have been relatively short-lived grab for power, ending in a few days with his execution[[33]]. The governor of Macedon, Titus Julius Priscus, also permitted himself to be proclaimed Augustus at Philippopolis towards the end of 251, probably with Gothic collusion.[[34]] The Senate declared him a public enemy almost as soon as he chose usurpation.[[35]] He probably survived Decius, but is likely to have perished when Gallus became emperor.([[36]]

Of greater concern than sporadic rebellions, which were relatively minor, were the vitreous northern borders. For the first time, a new and aggressive Germanic people, the Goths, crossed into and raided Roman territory in the 250’s. At the time of Decius‘ forced accession, the Gepidae and the Carpi were both raiding deep into the Moesian provinces. They, along with the Goths, raided Pannonia and Dacia as well. Decius was forced to fight campaigns each year of his reign, doing his best to keep the borders stable.

His final campaign in 251 led to the death of his son, Herennius, and to his own. Decius led a successful attack on the Carpi, pushing them out of Dacia. But Moesia Inferior had been left largely undefended and Cniva, king of the Goths, led a sizeable portion of his army into the province.[[37]] The emperor, after chasing the Germanic force around the region, engaged Cniva’s forces outside of Philippopolis, which had recently been sacked by the king and held by the rebel, Priscus. It was here that his elder son was slain by an arrow and the emperor, seeking to reassure his troops, famously proclaimed that the death of one soldier was not a great loss to the Republic.[[38]] Cniva then led his troops homeward, laden with the spoils of war. The loss became Decius‘ undoing. Trebonianus Gallus, one of the emperor’s commanders, may have revolted, although it is not entirely clear.[[39]] Instead of regrouping his forces and re-securing the borders, Decius unwisely sought to chase down Cniva before he left Roman territory. His decision may have been motivated by his son’s death (despite his insistence otherwise) or it may have been an attempt to salvage what had been a failed campaign. In either case, it was ill-advised.

It was at Abrittus, about 100 kilometers northeast of Nicopolis that Decius finally met his death.[[40]] Hoping to cut off Cniva’s escape route (and perhaps minimize any help from Gallus), Decius‘ army was itself cut off in the marshy terrain. The details are sketchy, but Cniva divided his seventy thousand man army into three groups and surrounded the emperor’s force. On July 1^st, the emperor and most of his troops were slain. In the aftermath, the survivors named Trebonianus Gallus emperor, a decision subsequently confirmed by the Senate. Some contemporaries called the death tragic; others heroic. An Altar of Decius was erected where the emperor fell, still apparently famous two centuries later.[[41]] Decius and Herennius may have even been deified.[[42]] Christian polemicists, as might be expected, took pleasure in describing Decius‘ body being stripped and left on the battlefield to be devoured by animals.[[43]] Whatever else, his was the first death of an emperor at the hands of an enemy of Rome. But even the account of his death, along with that of his son, must be looked on suspiciously. Their deaths bring to mind the sacrificial devotiones of the famous Republican Decii father and son, P. Decius Mus senior and junior.[[44]] The circumstances of Decius‘ death, therefore, are perhaps as opaque as those of his accession.

Assessment

In spite of gaining some modicum of praise from both ancient and modern observers, Decius‘ reign was not well-suited to the demands of a rapidly changing empire.[[45]] Conservatism may have been popular among a certain portion of the Roman elite, but the old aristocracy’s power and influence all but disappeared in the third century. Decius clearly had a broader vision of what he wanted to accomplish in his reign than many of his contemporaries, and certainly he was vigorous, but he was also a man who was not sufficiently flexible when the moment called for it. His religious policy caused major disruptions in Rome and; in contrast to some of the other barracks emperors, Decius proved himself less than apt when dealing with Rome’s Germanic foes. His death may have been heroic, but it was unnecessary and unsuccessful. This best sums up Decius Trajan’s reign.

Ancient Sources

Relatively little remains about Decius‘ reign. If there were a biography of Decius in the SHA, it no longer survives, although there are scattered references to his rule in the biographies of Claudius II Gothicus and Aurelian. Zosimus, i:21-23, Aurelius Victor, 29-30, Zonaras 12, Eutropius 9, Jordanes Get. 17-8, and Sylvius Polemius 37-40 have brief accounts of his reign. There are fragments in John of Antioch, fr. 148 and Dexippus, fr. 18. Eusebius, vi:39-41, vii:1, 11, 22, and viii:4, discusses his persecution, and there are passing references to his persecution in Socrates and Lactantius. Inscriptions and coinage are relatively abundant; see note 21 below for several epigraphic references.

Bibliography:

Alföldi, A. „The Crisis of the Empire,“ in The Cambridge Ancient History XII, 2^nd ed., Cambridge (1939)165-231.

Badian,E. „P.Decius P.f.Subulo“ JRS 46 (1956) 91-96.

Bennett, J., Trajan Optimus Princeps. A Life and Times, London and New York (1997).

Bird, H.W., trans. Aurelius Victor: De Caesaribus, Liverpool (1994).

Boteva, D. „On the Chronology of the Gothic Invasions under Philippus and Decius (AD 248-251)“ Arch Bulg 5.2 (2001) 37-44.

Clarke,G.W. „Double Trials in the Persecution of Decius“ Historia 22 (1973) 650-663 .

Floca, O. „Un monument sculptural de l’empereur Trajan Decius à Ulpia Trajana-Sarmizegetusa“ Latomus 24 (1965) 353-358.

Gibbon, E. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Modern Library Edition, New York.

Hornblower, S., and Spawnforth, A. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3^rd ed., Oxford (1996).

Kelly, J.N.D. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford (1986).

Keresztes, P. „The Emperor Maximinus‘ Decree of 235 A.D. Between Septimius Severus and Decius“ Latomus 28 (1969) 601-618.

________. „The Emperor Septimius Severus: A Precursor of Decius“ Historia 19 (1970) 565-578.

Kienast, D. Römische Kaisertabelle, Dartstadt (1991).

Knipfling, J., „The Libelli of the Decian Persecution,“ Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923) 345-90.

Mattingly, H. et al. Roman Imperial Coinage, Oxford (1923-81).

Pohlsander, H.A. „Did Decius Kill the Philippi?“ Historia 31 (1982) 214-222.

_______. „The Religious Policy of Decius,“ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 16.3 (1986) 1826-42.

Rives, J.B. „The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire“ JRS 89 (1999) 135-154.

Robinson, Olivia F. „Repressionen gegen Christen in der Zeit vor Decius–noch immer ein Rechtsproblem“ ZRG 112 (1995) 352-369.

Salisbury,F.S./Mattingly,H. „The Reign of Trajan Decius“ JRS 14 (1924) 1-23 .

Der Kleine Pauly. Lexicon der Antike, 5 vols., Stuttgart (1964).

Syme, R. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta, Oxford (1971).

Talbert, R., ed. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton (2000).

Wissowa, G., et al., eds. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart (1893-1963).

Wolfram, H. History of the Goths, trans. T. Dunlop, Berkeley (1988).

Notes:

[[1]] In 251 at his death, Decius was purportedly fifty years of age; Syl. Pol. 40. Much of the surviving statuary and coinage shows a man of advanced age.

[[2]]Syme (1971):195-6.

[[3]]See most recently Kienast (1990):203-5. RE has a full recounting, which is not entirely trustworthy: xv:1251f.

[[4]]The Herenni had been members of the Senatorial aristocracy, ennobled in 93 BCE; Cic. Brut. 166. The Etrusci branch were apparently of Italian origin; DKP vol. ii, 1060.

[[5]]Zos. i:21:2.

[[6]]Zos. i:20:2. Cf. Zon. 12:19.

[[7]]Marinus may have been trying to associate himself with Philip, judging from the few coins that survive; RIC4:3:104-5.

[[8]]Although Zosimus implies that Decius already had some amount of military experience; i:21:3.

[[9]]There are ample references to the Decii gens in the literary and epigraphic record. See RE, xv:1251-2, although the connection between Decius and the Republican gens is doubtful at best.

[[10]]Aur. Vic. 29:1. Another tradition places his home in Budalia (Barrington21, B5), approximately 15 kilometers west of Sirmium; Eutr. 9:4.

[[11]]See OCD3, 841-2. Since most of Decius‘ military operations were in Dacia, which had no known permanent garrison at the time, and Moesia, it stands to reason that he made use of troops in that province.

[[12]] HA Gordian 29-30; Zos. 1:18.

[[13]]John An. (FHG iv) fr. 148, has suggested the latter, although Zos. i:21:2 and Zon. 12:19 suggest Verona. See Pohlsander (1986).

[[14]]Zos, i:21:2, however, states that he was with his father.

[[15]]For the importance of the rhetoric, Syme (1971):198-9.

[[16]]CIL iii:4558.

[[17]]The date of this decision was unclear, but since he is styled Traianus by 250 on coinage suggests it was early. On Trajan’s growing popularity Bennett (1997). Already by the third century, the Senate wished each new emperor on accession: „May you be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan;“ Eut.. Brev. 8:5:3.

[[18]] S.H.A., Val. 5-7. Valerian was princeps senatus (president of the Senate) at the time; SHA Gord. 9:7.

[[19]]He had awarded torques and armbands with his own hands, once giving a young Claudius II the honor; SHA Claud. 13:4.

[[20]]CIL ii:4957, 4958, iii:3746, and 5988.

[[21]]All but one of his surviving laws are either directly or indirectly tied to family issues: gift-giving, dowry issues, testamentary concerns; CJ iv:16:2, v:12:9, vi:30:4, vi:58:3pr. and 1, vii:32:3, and viii:53:3. Of interest, too, is the relatively short period in which the laws were issued: with one exception, all were issued in the second half of 250.

[[22]]See Bird (1994) 128, n. 4, for building references.

[[23]]RIC 12b and 22b.

[[24]]RIC 28, 58b and 59b, 147c. Herennia Etruscilla’s Abundantia issue with the figure of Pudicitia is a variation; RIC 74.

[[25]] It is perhaps noteworthy that Zosimus, an exaggerated proponent of traditional paganism and highly critical of Christianity, fails to mention this event. In fact, outside of Christian sources, we have no record of a comprehensive persecution.

[[26]]Eus. Hist., vi:39.

[[27]]He was also apparently one of the earliest, being executed in January of 250; Kelly (1986), 16-7.

[[28]]Knipfling (1923):389-90.

[[29]]See Pohlsander (1986) for a broad assessment.

[[30]]Socrates notes that the origins of the Novatian movement came out of the persecution; Hist. Eccl. iv:28. It also indirectly encouraged the growing homooisian-homoousian controversy; v:19.

[[31]]For Syria, Aur. Vict. 29. On Jotapianus‘ revolt, Zos. i:21:3 and 22:2. For the revolt in Cappadocia, see Zos. i:20:5 and Polemius Sylvius 37-8.

[[32]]Aur. Vic. 29:5; Epit. 29:3.

[[33]] See Bird (1994)129-30, n. 7. The story is further confused by the claim that Valens had ruled in Illyricum; SHA TT 20. It seems likely that the author of the Thirty Tyrants either mistakenly or purposefully confused Julius Valens with Julius Priscus.

[[34]] Polemius Sylvius 39-40. On the possible help or advocacy of the Goths, see Jor. Get. 18; cf. Dexippus, fr. 18.

[[35]]Aur. Vic. 29:4. Victor’s narrative seems to imply that Priscus died before Decius, but if the Gothic king, Cniva, wanted to weaken Decius, it makes more sense that he moved against Priscus and Macedonia after beating the emperor.

[[36]]Zos. i:24. Ammianus Marcellinus calls them Scythians, but this is a literary synonym; xxxi:5:15-17.

[[37]]Jordanes states that Cniva divided his army in two and took one half into Roman territory for the raids; 18.

[[38]]Aur. Vic. 29:5; Jordanes 18. Again, this statement may be literary artifice, given the nature of the sources.

[[39]]Zosimus claims that he rebelled, in collusion with Cniva; i:23:2. But both Jordanes and Aurelius Victor’s accounts

[[40]]Barrington22, D5.

[[41]]Jor., Get. 18.

[[42]] Eutropius 9:4. This is not repeated elsewhere and there is no archeological evidence to support Eutropius‘ statement, but is quite possible.

[[43]]Lact. Mor. Pers.4, quoting Jer. 22:19 and 36:30.

[[44]]Livy, viii:9 and x:28. See Bird (1994):130, n. 10.

[[45]]Aur. Vic. 29:3, 30.2; SHA Aur. 42:6. Decius was also one of the few emperors in the third century crisis (along with Claudius II and Aurelian, to be deified; Eut., Brev. 9:4. Modern proponents have included Gibbon, v. 1, 206-18; Syme (1971), 199; and Alföldi (1939), 166-8.

Robin McMahon: Another View of Trajan Decius

Place of Birth and Antecedents

The Emperor Decius, whose full name as emperor was Caius Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius, was the first in the long line of Roman emperors who came from the Balkan provinces.[[1]] He was born in the Pannonian village of Budalia near Sirmium which was located at the junction of the rivers Save and Drina about 100 miles west of Belgrade.[[2]] Our sources do not give the year of his birth, but historians place it around the year 190 A.D.. We are „in the dark“ as to Decius‘ parents, but unlike most of the later emperors from this region, Decius had a respectable background and was himself a senator and consul. Most likely he was the son of an army officer stationed by chance in Budalia.[[3]] That his father had an Italian origin can be seen as both names, Decius and Messius, are old Oscan names from Italy. Q. Decius Vindex, the procurator of Dacia, has been suggested as a possible parent or relative.[[4]]

Offices Held Before Becoming Emperor

Rising in rank under the Severans, Decius had a distinguished career before he was acclaimed emperor. Sometime between 215-225 A.D. he served as Quaestor and was admitted to the Senate. In 234 he served as governor of Moesia and it was probably around this time that he was consul suffectus.[[5]] In 238 he was governor of Hispania Tarraconensis. Curiously, during the civil war of 238 A.D.., between Maximinus and the Senate’s nominees, the Gordians, and later Balbinus and Pupienus, he remained loyal to Maximinus.[[6]] This loyalty to the Senate’s enemy was apparently not held against him, and sources favorable to the Senate always spoke highly of him. This was also true of the future emperor, Valerian, who had sided with the Senate’s nominees in 238; but who, nevertheless, was said to have been a close associate of Decius‘ after he (Decius) became emperor.[[7]] Decius married well. His wife, Herennia Cupressenia Etruscilla, came from an old Etruscan family and as Mater Castris and probably accompanied Decius on some of his campaigns. Decius had two sons, Q. Herennius Etruscus Messius Decius, and C. Valens Hostilianus Messius Quintus, who both served in his government.[[8]]

Events Leading Up To His Elevation As Emperor

Zonaras and Zosimus, our best literary sources for Decius‘ reign, give the following circumstances surrounding Decius‘ elevation to the throne. Sometime in the late winter or early spring of 249, the Emperor Philip I was confronted by the news of simultaneous rebellions. One, in the eastern provinces, led by an army officer named Jotapianus, and the other, in the province of Pannonia, led by another officer, Marinus. (Tiberius Claudius Marinus Pacatianus.) Being perplexed and somewhat at a loss as to what course to take, Philip convened a meeting of the Senate, and upon asking for advice, the sole senator to speak was Decius who spoke words to the effect that these types of rebellions were frequent, that neither of these men possessed a large following, and that more often than not these types of rebellions collapsed of their own accord. And, as it happened, that was exactly how it fell out; both rebels were murdered by their own troops shortly thereafter.[[9]]

Philip, impressed by Decius‘ foresight, and still fearing the mood of the legions in Moesia and Pannonia, requested Decius go there in person and place affairs in order, naming him the commander in chief of the legions in both areas. Although Decius told Philip he did not think this was a good idea, Philip, nevertheless, persisted, and Decius went back to his native province, where soon after his arrival the legions forced him to become emperor. In spite of all this, Decius was said to have taken no action but to have sent Philip a conciliatory message indicating he would not accept the position he had been given. Philip, distrusting Decius‘ sincerity, led an army north and met Decius near Verona. Details of the battle are not given in the sources except to state that, although Philip had a larger army, Decius‘ had a well thought-out battle plan, superior leadership and troops with better morale. Philip himself perished in the fighting, and his son either died with him or perished in Rome shortly after the battle.[[10]]

There is no direct evidence to corroborate this account. It may be a little too neat. The noted Roman historian, Sir Ronald Syme, has pointed out that Decius is the „palmary specimen of the reluctant usurper,“ a standard figure throughout the literature of the late Roman Empire.[[11]] Numismatic evidence, however, does support the idea that Decius did not act precipitously. When Pacatianus began his revolt at the end of 248, the Roman mint at Viminacium ceased to mint coins for Philip and Pacatianus restruck Philip’s coins with his own portrait. This revolt must have been suppressed in April of 249, as the mint there resumed striking coins for Philip at that time. Further, it is more than likely that Philip would not have sent Decius to pacify the legions without a substantial amount of money, perhaps even including good arrears of pay. The evidence from coin hoards shows that Decius neither struck his own coinage at this time nor re-struck Philip’s coins. This would seem to indicate that, at least when he left Rome, he had not planned a revolt from the start, and for the first weeks after his arrival did not revolt against Philip.[[12]] Then too, in a similar situation, he had remained loyal to Maximinus during the civil war of 238.

The literary sources we have do not give us any exact dates for these events. However, from inscriptions, papyri and published laws, the general course of events can be established. The first indication of hostile action comes from an inscription dated May 28, 249 where the legion X Gemina calls itself Deciana.[[13]] The date of a law in Justinian’s code show us that Philip was still in Rome on June 17, 249.[[14]] In addition, there are coins of Philip after August 29, showing he was still emperor then. A law in Justinian’s code under Decius‘ name shows us he was emperor by October 16, 249.[[15]] This would place the date of the Battle of Verona sometime between August 29, 249 and October 16 of 249. Given that Decius would have to march to Rome from Verona, it is most likely that the battle took place close to September 1.[[16]]

Arrival in Rome

Whatever may have been the case with the above-mentioned events, it is certain that once Decius became emperor he wasted no time in getting to work on the business of running the Empire. Although literary sources fail to give many details of Decius‘ reign, the coinage, papyri and inscriptions illuminate Decius‘ activities as emperor and the general tone he hoped to set for his reign. His arrival in Rome, probably in October of 249 after his victory over Philip, is announced by his ADVENTUS AUGUSTI coins. It was also at this time that he adopted the name of Trajan, indicating which emperor he hoped to model his reign after.[[17]]One of his first acts upon entering Rome, was to give a monetary distribution to the citizens there known as a „congiarium“ which was announced by his LIBERTAS coinage.[[18]] In that same month he honorably discharged a group of veterans from the fleet after their 28-year term of service was up.[[19]] He issued some new laws regarding inheritances and began to build new baths in the city.[[20]] It is not known whether it was on the Senate’s or Decius‘ initiative, but it was also at this time that the Senate voted Philip’sdamnatio memoriae.[[21]] Nevertheless, in the first four months of Decius‘ reign at least, the Empire received a brief respite from the storms which it had undergone and was shortly to undergo again. The Emperor Decius was twice named consul, in 250 and later in 251. On the second occasion, he was joined by his son, Q. Herennius Etruscus Messius Decius.[[22]]

Gothic Wars

During the winter of 250, possibly taking advantage of a frozen Danube and the fact that troops had been drawn away for the battle at Verona, the Carpi and also the Goths, under their chief,. Kniva, crossed into Moesia. They then divided themselves into two armies and one besieged Novae, while the other moved south and besieged L. Priscus the governor of Moesia, in Philippopolis (located about 100 miles due north of the Aegean Sea.)[[23]] Decius, on being informed of the invasion, sent his son, Herennius, now elevated to the rank of Caesar, ahead to the area with the army Decius had brought with him. The departure was announced by the coins bearing the legends, EXERCITU ILLLYRICUS; GENIUS EXERCITUS ILLYRICIANA AND PANNONIAE.[[24]] Meanwhile, Kniva was beaten back by Gallus, the governor of Upper and Lower Pannonia. The Goths then turned south towards the city of Nicopolis[[25]]

As the crisis escalated, in June or July of 250, Decius hastened to leave Rome to join the army. Before leaving Rome, he appointed the future Emperor, Valerian, to an unspecified post involving the finances and internal affairs of the Empire.[[26]] Initially, after his arrival in the area, Decius had success against the invaders and in bringing a measure of stability to the area. Nicopolis was relieved and inscriptions bearing the legends Dacius Maximus and restitutor daciarum announced the expulsion of the Carpi from the province.[[27]] While these events were taking place, Decius also restored a measure of military discipline and founded military colonies in the regions of Pannonia and Moesia. In addition, communications along the military roads south of the Danube, as well as the roads leading to it were repaired.[[28]] In the west a rebellion was suppressed and there was a victory over the barbarians.[[29]] Besides these measures in the Balkans, Decius inaugurated and completed an Empire-wide project of restoration of roads, bridges and frontier defenses. Numerous milestones from the provinces of Britain, Africa, Galatia, Palestine, and Syria, as well as Pannonia, attest to this work.[[30]] During this period he was hailed imperator twice but it is not possible to connect these acclamations with any specific events[[31]]

At the end of the year 250, following these successes, Decius decided to attack Kniva and his Gothic forces. We do not have any details of what happened next. Perhaps Decius, became overconfident, or something else went wrong. Regardless, when Decius did engage Kniva the Romans suffered a severe defeat. Decius retreated with what troops he had left and joined Gallus.[[32]] While these events were unfolding, Priscus, at Philippopolis, possibly in collusion with the Goths, proclaimed himself emperor. It is not known whether Priscus was trying to use the Goths for his schemes, or the Goths were using Priscus for theirs; but in any case, Philipoppolis was stormed and destroyed with an ensuing massacre of its inhabitants and Priscus disappears from the historical record.[[33]] While these events were taking place in the field, another revolt broke out in the city of Rome where a senator, Julius Valens Licinianus, having secured some support, attempted a coup. The rebellion was, however, quickly suppressed, probably by Valerian.[[34]]

In the Spring of 251 Decius and Gallus again determined to renew operations against Kniva, who was retreating back towards the Danube River. Once again, in the beginning, the campaign went well for the Romans. At some point in the fighting, however, Herennius, who, in the crisis had been elevated to the rank of Augustus, was killed. We are told that, when his soldiers tried to console him for the loss of his son, Decius, replied with words to the effect that: The loss of one soldier is but a small thing.[[35]] Zosimus tells us that while these events were taking place Gallus had begun treasonable communications with the enemy. Accordingly, during the next engagement, after the Romans, had defeated two Gothic detachments and the Romans were in a swampy area near Abrittus (which is between the Black Sea and the Danube River), Gallus, acting according to a pre-arranged plan, gave a signal to the Goths who surrounded and annihilated the Roman force. Decius perished in the battle and his body was never recovered. He is the first, but not the last, Roman emperor to die fighting the barbarians. Gallus himself made a quick and disgraceful peace with the Goths and hurried back to Rome, where for a brief time he shared power with Hostilian, Decius‘ surviving son.[[36]] Hostilian subsequently either died of the plague or was murdered, perhaps by Gallus.

Decius and Gallus

Decius may have had the unusual posthumous fate of first having been deified, then having his memory condemned, and then being restored to his former status. The role which Gallus played in this does cast him in a more sinister light. After the disaster at Abrittus it appears both Decius and Herennius were deified. This must have been in the latter half of June of 251.[[37]] When Gallus returns to Rome he is Augustus and Hostilian, Decius‘ surviving son, is made Caesar. Shortly afterwards there was a new arrangement in which Gallus and Hostilian are Augusti and Volusian, Gallus‚ son, is Caesar. Subsequent to this, Hostilian was said to have died of the plague in August.[[38]] There is, however, convincing evidence that Gallus had ordered the damnatio memoriae of Decius and his family before August, in fact as early as July; thus reversing his position during the aftermath of Abrittus. There are a number of inscriptions where Decius‘ name as well as his sons‘ names were erased; the standard procedure following the Senate’s decree. For some time, it was believed that this was the action of either usurpers, such as Valens, or even of Christians.[[39]] However, the discovery of an army document, where Decius‘ and Herennius‘ name have been suppressed, leaving only the iterations of III et I cos., with no names, indicates that the condemnation was an official policy. Further, some of the documents with erasures or suppression of names can be dated as early as July 15 of 251.[[40]] This would indicate that either Hostilian was dead at this time, or that Gallus took the action while he was still alive. It is quite possible that, rightly or wrongly, as rumors of Gallus‘ treachery began to circulate in the aftermath of the battle, Gallus decided he needed to take action against Decius to protect himself.[[41]] One of those actions may have included the murder of Hostilian. As the number of erased inscriptions was not large compared to Philip’s, and as some were even repaired, it seems the damnatio was carried out with little enthusiasm, thus indicating dissatisfaction with Gallus‘ decree.[[42]]

Decius and Christianity

While engaged in the re-establishment of military order and the revitalization of the Empire’s infrastructure, Decius also initiated a program that he hoped would effect a spiritual revitalization of the Empire as well. It was, however, this plan which set him on a collision course with the growing Christian population in the Roman Empire. In the fall of 249, shortly after becoming emperor, Decius conceived of a novel method to invoke the aid of the gods on behalf of the Roman Empire; all the subjects of the Empire would be required to offer a sacrifice to the gods and all who did so would receive a certificate of compliance. Those who refused would face imprisonment, and possible capital punishment. The original decree of Decius has been lost, but we do have the testimony of Eusebius and Lactantius who were alive during that time and, more importantly, papyrologists have uncovered a number of „libelli“ or what were essentially certificates of compliance with the decree. The „libelli“ tell us a good deal about the nature of the decree and enable historians to develop a good idea of Decius‘ aims.[[43]]

The Nature of Decius‘ Decree

Method of Administration

Prior to the discovery of the „libelli“ it was assumed that Decius‘ decree applied only to Christians or perhaps people suspected of being Christians. From studying the individuals who obtained „libelli“ and wording of the „libelli“ the consensus among scholars today is that all the subjects of the empire were required to sacrifice. In support of this view one of the primary documents cited is a libellus belonging to a woman named Aurelia Ammonous of Egypt, who styles herself “ …a priestess of the god Petesouchos… and priestess of the gods in the Moeris Quarter…“ and therefore hardly likely to be under suspicion of being a Christian.[[44]] Another important point that emerges from the libelli is the fact that the word „Christian“ does not appear on any of the libelli found thus far. Nor does the Emperor’s name appear on any of the extant libelli, indicating that sacrifices and prayers offered were not to be seen as directly for his benefit. Further, there are no specific gods named in the libelli. Thus, Decius was most likely asking for something akin to the Roman supplicatio where prayers and sacrifices were offered on behalf of all the gods possessing temples in the city of Rome. „The objects of the sacrifices which Decius ordered his subjects to perform were the traditional gods of the Roman state including the divi“ (i.e. the deified Roman Emperors).[[45]]

The wording of the libelli appears to be based on a stereotyped formula. They are essentially a petition which is then validated by a signature and date. If the person obtaining one was illiterate, it would be executed by a scribe or perhaps a member of the commission. Thus, a stereotyped beginning is followed by name, parentage, place of birth and residence of the petitioner, followed by a complimentary close.[[46]] A typical example reads, „To the commission chosen to superintend the sacrifices. From Aurelius Asesis, son of Serenus, of the village of Theadelphia [in Egypt]. I have always and without interruption sacrificed to the gods, and now in your presence in according with the edict’s decree have poured a libation and sacrificed and partaken of the sacred victims. I request you to certify this for me below. Farewell. I Aesis, am 32 years of age and injured…[Dated June 12, 250.]“[[47]] We are not certain of the exact method for carrying out such a vast enterprise; the Roman Empire being a heterogeneous place, local conditions may have varied considerably. More than likely, after completing the sacrifice, people would obtain a certificate recording that they had complied with the Emperor’s order. It is quite possible that the procedure followed the method of paying taxes. A time within which the sacrifice had to be made was announced, and on any specific day individuals would submit their names to the officials overseeing the sacrifice beforehand to avoid long lines. Most likely, the commissions varied in size with respect to the size of the town or village.[[48]]

Motives for the Decree

One interesting point of the decree is there does not appear to be any one event which caused Decius to issue it. The third century was a time of great stress and troubles for the Roman Empire. While many of the disasters which befell the Empire lay in the near future, by 250 barbarian invasion, instability at the top and economic problems were all making their presence felt. In addition, Rome had just passed its 1,000-year anniversary and such a general thanksgiving would reaffirm the traditional pax deorum for the new millennium. In addition, it is important to recognize that the Roman state ultimately rested upon religious foundations and the tranquility and prosperity of the Empire depended upon a balance of human and divine forces.[[49]] Therefore, as Decius sought to strengthen the Empire’s physical ability to withstand invasion, he would not neglect the other equally important half of the equation, the spiritual side.

Seen in this light, the Decree itself was not a measure specifically directed against the Christians (or any other group for that matter.) This idea is further corroborated by the literary sources which do not mention any attempt by Decius to follow up his decree to sacrifice with any specific decree or actions against the Christians; no attempt was made to force Christians to apostasize (as under Trajan or later under Diocletian), there is no record of any confiscation of Church property, and, most convincingly of all, Christians were allowed to practice their rights while they were being held in jail awaiting trial.[[50]} Nor were all the Christians who refused to sacrifice executed; many were released from jail having not complied with the order. Thus, „Beyond the requirement to sacrifice, which applied to all…Decius seems to have taken no other measures against the Christians.“[[51]] According to H.A. Pohlsander, what Decius hoped to accomplish was to „lead the masses back to the traditional cults…to secure the favor of the gods by collective piety.“[[52]]

Effects of Decree on the Church

Whatever may have been Decius‘ motives, effects of the Decree were both dramatic in the short run, and the source of many difficulties for the long term. For whatever reason, according to Eusebius in many cities of the Empire there had been an ongoing and spontaneous pogrom against the Christians during the last months of Philip’s reign and into the first months of Decius’reign.[[53]] It is not known if this situation had anything to do with Decius‘ decision since there appears to be no specific context for it. Although not all persons who refused to sacrifice were executed, many were, while many others faced imprisonment and torture. Among the victims was Pope Fabianus, who died at Rome early in 250. There is also the distinct possibility that Decius himself witnessed the trial of one of the Christians.[[54]]

In addition to the trials and tribulations suffered by those in prison, many persons fled their homes only to fall victim to bandits, starvation and barbarians.[[55]] Besides people suffering in prison, another problem for the Church concerned the great numbers of people who either complied with the order or obtained a libellus through bribery, but who later repented, and wanted re-admission into the Church.[[56]] The situation caused a schism in the Church as a faction led by a church leader named Novatius argued that „idolatry was an unpardonable sin, and that the Church had no right to restore to communion any who had fallen into it, their forgiveness must be left to God; it could not be pronounced in this world.“[[57]] The situation would be further complicated when Novatius‘ followers would extend this idea to all mortal sins and Novatius proclaimed himself Pope against St. Cornelius, Fabian’s successor. Novatian was pronounced a heretic and his claims were set aside; but his heresy would last down to the seventh century. We do not know how the action against the Christians ended. Generally, by the spring of 250 ecclesiastical authors speak of it as in the past tense. It may simply be that Decius, faced with serious problems in the Balkan area of the Empire, realized his priorities and let the matter drop.[[58]]

Effects of the Decree on the Roman Empire

Besides the long-term effects Decius‘ action had for the church in terms of how it would deal with its members who had sacrificed, another major, and largely inadvertent, effect of Decius‘ decree was to initiate a trend towards centralization of religion in the Empire. One of the hallmarks of religion in the ancient world was its lack of centralization. This was true of the Roman ruler cult as well. Instead each city arranged its own sacrifices, honors and ceremonies as they saw fit.[[59]] What constituted „paganism“ in the Roman Empire was a myriad of cults, celebrations, rites and deities. The primary emphasis was on worshipping in the same manner that your ancestors had done.[[60]] The effect of Decius‘ decree was to replace this by a centralized Empire-wide religion that had certain expectations of its inhabitants. Further, prior to Decius‘ decree there was no indication that participation in any religious action was mandatory. From this point forward a structure was created „in which religious deviants could be defined and punished“[[61]]; this would be a standard feature of Christianity

Numismatics

Although he ruled for barely two years, and the weight of precious metals in the coinage continued to decline during his reign; nevertheless, the coins from Decius‘ reign are most interesting. Decius was the first of the emperors to use the legends „Dacia Felix“; „Pannoniae“; „Genius Exercitu Illyriciani“; and „Genius Illyrici“; to advertise the legions which were to play such a pivitol role in the history of the Later Empire. [[62]]

Most interesting of Decius‘ coinage was his unique series of ‚Divi‘ antoniniani, or coinage which on its obverse (front) commemorate many of the deified emperors of the past. All these coins have the reverse legend of CONSECRATIO and an altar or eagle.[[63]] Included were Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Septimius Severus, and Severus Alexander. Left out were Julius Caesar, Claudius, Lucius Verus, Pertinax, and Caracalla. The inclusion of Commodus and the exclusion of Caesar, Claudius and Pertinax is curious. There are also a large number of coins showing his wife, Etruscilla, as well as both of his sons: Herennius first as Caesar, later as Augustus, and Hostilian as Caesar and Augustus.[[64]]

Conclusion

Although the ancient non-Christian writers always spoke highly of Decius, his brief reign failed to give the Roman Empire the measure of stability it needed. It is of course impossible to say whether or not the disasters which befell the Empire could have been avoided or mitigated had Decius not been killed. Nor is it possible, given the present state of our sources to know what went wrong during his campaign against the Goths. Probably no one man could have met all the challenges of invasion, usurpation, plague, and fiscal collapse which confronted the Roman Empire during the coming decades. Certainly he attempted to rule well and establish the Empire’s defenses on a firm basis. His legacy has, however, been largely determined by his attempt to establish a measure of religious conformity in the Empire and by the resulting persecution of the Christians.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Barbieri, Guido. L’Albo Senatorio. (Rome, 1952)

Carson, R.A.G. Coins of the Roman Empire. (London & New York, )

Cohen, Henry. Description historique des monnaies frappJes sous l’Empire romain. (Paris & London, 1880-1892).

Kienast, Dietmar. R`mische Kaisertabelle. (Darmstadt, 1990)

Liebenam, Willy. Fasti Consulares Imperii Romani. (Bonn, 1909)

Magie, D. (ed.) Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Cambridge, MA. 1982.

Mommsen, T. (ed.) Mounumenta Germania Historica 5.1 Jordanis Romana et Getica. (Berlin, 1892).

________.. (ed.) Monumenta Germania Historica 9.1 Chronica Minora. Chron. A.D. 354; Polemii Silvii. (Berlin, 1892).

Oulton, J.E.L. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. (Cambridge, MA. 1980).

Paschoud, F. (ed.) Histoire Nouvelle [par] Zosime. (Paris, 1971).

Rea, J.R. „Date Clauses of AD 250 and 251.“ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri LI (1984): 19-24.

Rolfe, John C. (ed.) Ammianus Marcellinus. (Cambridge, MA. 1984).

Wilcken, Ulrich. Grundzhge Und Chrestomathie Des Papyruskunde. (Berlin, 1912).

Zonaras, Annales. ed. M. Pinder. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantium. Bonn, 1844.

Modern Works:

Clarke, G.W. „Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius.“ Antichthon 3 (1969) : 63-76.

Eckhel, Joseph. Doctrina Numorum Veterum. (Vindobonae, 1828).

Gerov, Boris. „Zur Identität des Imperators Decius mit dem Statthalter C. Messius Q. Decius Valerinus.“ Klio 39 (1961): 222-226.

Gilliam, J.F. „Trebonianus Gallus and The Decii:L III et I cos.“ Studi in Onore Di Aristide Calderini E Roberto Paribeni. (Milan, 1956): 305-311.

Gross, K., Liesering, E. „Decius.“ Reallexikon Fhr Antike Und Christentum. III (Stuttgart, 1957), 611-629.

Hohl, Ernst. „Vopiscus und die Biographie des Kaisers Tacitus.“ Klio 11 (1911): 178- 229.

Kerestes, P. „The Decian Libelli and Contemporary Literature.“ Latomus 34 (1975) :763-779.

Knipfing, John. „The Libelli of the Decian Persecution.“ Harvard Theological Review 16 (1923) :345-390.

Molthagen, Joachim. „Der römische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert.“ Hypomnemata 28 (G`ttingen, 1975).

„Novatian and Novatianism.“ The Catholic Encyclopedia. (1913).

Pohlsander, H.A. „The Religious Policy of Decius.“ Aufstieg Und Niedergang Der Romischen Welt. II 1b: 1826-1842.

________. „Did Decius Kill The Philippi?“ Historia XXXI (1982): 213-222.

Potter, D.S. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. (Oxford, 1990).

Rives, J.B. „The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire.“ Journal of Roman Studies 89 (1999) : 135-154.

Salisbury, F.S & Mattingly, H. „The Reign of Trajan Decius.“ Journal of Roman Studies 14 (1924): 1-23.

Stein, Arthur. „Zur Chronologie der römischen Kaiser.“ Archiv fhr Papyrusforschung Vol 7. Berlin, 1924.

Syme, Ronald. Emperors and Biography. (Oxford, 1971)

Wittig, K.“Decius.“ Paulys Real-Encyclopedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol 5 (Stuttgart, 1932) cols 1244-84 (Messius No. 9).

Notes:

[[1]] For Decius‘ name see Dietmar Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle,

(Darmstadt, 1990) p. 204. For a detailed discussion of the variations See, Wittig, „Messius No. 9“, Paulys Real-Encyclop@die Der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, XV.1246. ( Hereafter, Wittig, RE, XV.)

[[2]]Ernst Hohl, „Vopiscus und Die Biographie des Kaisers Tacitus,“ Klio XI (1911) p. 204, Combining the reports of Aur. Vict., Caes. 29.1, „Simiensium vico ortus„; Eutrop. IX.4, „E Pannonia Inferiore Budaliae Natus„; Epitome 29.1, „Pannonia Inferiore Bubaliae Natus„. All of these sources are presumed to have used a lost history known as the Kaisergeschichte. Guido Barbieri, L’Albo Senatorio, No. 1662 Messius.

[[3]]Wittig, RE, XV, col. 1250.

[[4]]Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography, (Oxford, 1971) pp 195-196.

[[5]]For a summary of Decius‘ career before he became emperor, see op. cit. Wittig, RE, XV, cols. 1251-1252; op. cit. Kienast,. 204; op. cit. Barbieri, p. 295 No. 1662.

[[6]]Syme, op. cit. pp 196-197; Also Wittig, RE, XV, 1251; Boris Gerov, „Zur Identität des Imperators Decius mit dem Statthalter C. Messius Q. Decius Valerinus,“ Klio 39 (1961) pp 222-226.

[[7]]Magie, D., ed. Scriptores Historiae Augustae, Loeb Edition (Cambridge, 1982) Vita Aurelian XLII, „…the Decii who in their lives and deaths should be likened to the ancients.“ Although the SHA is notoriously unreliable, its favorable estimate of Decius indicates its author had disassociated him from Maximinius. Zonaras, Ann. 12.20, says Valerian was appointed to some internal fiscal position.. The story in the SHA that Decius appointed Valerian Censor has been rejected as fiction of the authors. See H.A. Pohlsander, The Religious Policy of Decius“ Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II, 16.3 (1986) p. 1830.

For Valerian’s role, see SHA „The Three Gordians“ IX.7

[[8]]For sons, see Wittig, RE, XVcols. 1261-1267, 1284-1286; F.S. Salisbury and H. Mattingly, „The Reign of Trajan Decius,“ Journal of Roman Studies, XIV (1924) pp 12-16. Op. cit. Barbieri, No. 1595 & No. 1736.

[[9]]Zosimus I. 20- 21; Zonaras 12.19 – 20.

[[10]] The sources for these are collected and analyzed by H.A. Pohlsander, Historia, XXXI (1982) pp 213-222

[[11]] Syme, op. cit. p. 198.

[[12]]Salisbury and H. Mattingly, op. cit. p 3; D.S. Potter, p. 257. There is a very different account of all this given by John of Antioch (FHG IV 597-598) who claims that Decius stirred up a rebellion against Philip and had him murdered. Most historians reject this account. See op. cit. H.A. Pohlsander, (1982) pp 213-222. Pohlsander argues that since Decius was in Pannonia at the time, he would have had to have stirred up the people in Rome through intermediaries; further, the account states that Philip left Rome to campaign after he had sent Decius. The coins that were re-struck are the younger Philip’s minted after their deaths. For the coinage see R.A.G. Carson, 85

[[13]]CIL III, 4558.

[[14]]C.J. X.16.3.

[[15]]C.J. 10.16.3.

[[16]]Wittig RE, XV, 1252-1257, esp. 1257; Arthur Stein, „Zur Chronologie der römischen Kaiser,“ Archiv Fur Papyrusforschung, VII pp 40-42; also J.R. Rea, „Date-Clauses of A.D. 250 and 251,“ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, LI (1984) p. 19 Nos. 3608-3610.

[[17]]Op. cit. Rives, p. 142; and p. 142 note 46. „Like most of the other Balkan emperors, he was apparently devoted to Roman tradition. The most striking evidence for this is found in his own self-presentation. Shortly after becoming emperor he added the name ‚Traianus‘ to his nomeniclature. Trajan was one of the great heroes of Rome, remembered not only as the optimus princeps but also as a great general and victor; hence the very name of the new emperor Trajan Decius promised the return of the good old days.“ Also Pohlsander (1986) p. 1831. For coins, Henry Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies FrappNes Sous L’Empire Romain, (Paris & London, 1880-1892) p. 186, No. 2 et. al.

[[18]]T. Mommsen, (ed.) Monumenta Germania Historica, 9.1, Chronica Minora, Chron. A.D. 354, p. 186; op. cit. Cohen p. 192, No. 71 et al.op. cit. Pohlsander (1986) p. 1835.

[[19]]CIL III,2; CIL XI, 373.

[[20]]Eutropius, 9.4; Victor 29.1.

[[21]]Wittig, RE XV col. 1267.

[[22]]Liebenam, op. cit. p. 30.

[[23]]Wittig, RE, XV, 1269; Lactant. De Mort. Pers. IV.3; Zosimus I.23.

[[24]]Wittig, Ibid; Vict. Caes. 29.1; Coins: Cohen V Decius, Nr. 37,38; 43-76; Herrenius, No. 6.

[[25]]Jordanes XVIII

[[26]]Syme, op. cit. p. 215; This is reported (at some length) in the SHA in the partial life of Valerian where the author says Decius appointed Valerian Censor, thereby reviving an office which had for many years been absorbed by the emperor. See Scriptores Historia Augusta, Loeb Edition (Cambridge, 1982) ed. David Magie volume III p. 8 note 3″ The attempt to revive the censorship, as described here, is as fictitious as the ‚Senatus consultum‘ itself…“ It is better described by Zonaras XII.20 as some important position.

[[27]]Wittig, RE XV 1270; CIL II 4949; CIL III 1176.

[[28]]For a list of all the inscriptions relating to Decius‘ work on roads see Mattingly & Syndenham, pp 4-8.

[[29]] Wittig, RE XV, cols 1268-9; Eutrop. Brev. IX.4. Wittig rejects the idea that the VICTORIA GERMANIA legend on coins comes from the suppression of a revolt there, especially since the legends appears on Herennius‘ and Hostilian’s coins also: „Das klingt [that it was for the suppression of the revolt] nicht nur unwahrscheinlich, sonder lasst auch ausser acht, dass je eine Mhnze des imp. Herennius… Aug und Hostilianus Caes.

mit VICTORIA GERMANIA (Cohen, nr. 41 & 70) existiert.“ Also see an interesting comment in Joseph Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, (Vindobonae, 1828) p. 345.

[[30]]Ibid.Mattingly & Sydenham.

[[31]]Michael Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, p. 30., Peachin doubts if these titles were official. Although no papyri display them, there are coins with the reverse legend VICTORIA GERMANIA and DACIA FELIX. Nonetheless, Peachin remains unconvinced.

[[32]]Wittig, RE XV, 1270-1273; op. cit. Potter, pp 44-45; Jordanes, 18.

[[33]]Wittig, RE XV, 1271; Amm. XXXI 5.17; Vict. Caes. 29.3; T. Mommsen, (ed.) Monumenta Germania Historia, 9.1, Chronica Minora, Polemius Silvanus, p. 521.

[[34]]Wittig, RE XV, 1272; Vict. Epit. 28. Also at this time the eastern provinces were experiencing serious problems as an adventurer named Mareades led a band of followers on expeditions which ravaged the area, even capturing cities. See op. Cit. Potter, pp 44-45.

[[35]] Jordanes, XVIII; Aur. Vict. 29.5.

[[36]]Wittig, RE XV, 1271; Vict. Caes. 29. 4; Zon. XII.20; Jordanes 18 (who gives the fullest account.)

[[37]]J.F. Gilliam, „Trebonianus Gallus and the Decii: III ET I COS,“ Studi in Onore Di Aristide Calderini E Roberto Paribeni, (Milan, 1956), pp 305-311.

[[38]]Ibid., p. 308.

[[39]]Ibid. 307; The idea that it was Valens was Mommsen’s.

[[40]]CIL IX, 4086; CIL XIV, 352; for the document from Dura-Europos, see J.F.Gilliam, Yale Classical Studies, 11 (1950) pp 76-77.

[[41]]Ibid. pp 309-311

[[42]]Ibid p. 310 note 25; CIL VI 32559; 32560.

[[43]]Since their discovery, many historians have carefully examined these documents. For a complete collection (up to 1923), translations and analysis, see Knipfing, Harvard Theological Review, 16 (1923) pp 345-390. Besides Knipfing, the Libelli and the action of Decius have been examined by a number of historians including Joachim Molthagen, Hypomneta, 28 (1970) esp. 61ff; K. Gross, (E. Liesering,) „Decius,“ Reallexikon Fur antike und Christentum, Vol. III (Stuttgart, 1957), cols 611-629; H. Last „Christenverfolgung II (juristisch)“ Reallexikon für Antike Und Christentum, (Stuttgart, 1954) p1227; J.B. Rives Journal of Roman Studies, 89 (1999), 135-154; Hans A. Pohlsander, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II, (Berlin, New York, 1986), 1826-1842

[[44]]Knipfing, p. 365 No. 4. Discussed in H.A. Pohlsander, „The Relgious Policy of Decius,“ Aufsteig und Neidergang Der Römischen Welt II 1 p. 1832-3; Joachim Molthagen, „Der römische Staat und die Christen im zweiten und dritten Jahrhundert,“ Hypomneta, 28 (1970) pp 80-82.

[[45]]Pohlsander, (1986) 1836. Also, Last, p. 1227; Vogt, p. 1185; . Gross, p. 623. The lone dissenter is P. Keresztes Latomus, 34 (1975) pp 761-781. That the priestess was a closet Christian sp. 763 seems far-fetched. Precendents can be found in Livy, III, 5.14, 7.6; XXII, 10.8; XXXIV, 55.3; Suet. Claudius 22; Tacitus, Ann. XV, 44.1

[[46]]Knipfing, op. cit. p. 347.

[[47]]Knipfing, p. 367, No. 6.

[[48]]D.S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire, (Oxford, 1990), pp 42-43.

[[49]]Pohlsander, op. cit. (1986) pp 1837-1838.

[[50]]J.B. Rives, „The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire,“ Journal of Roman Studies, 89 (1999) p. 142; Potter, p. 265

[[51]]Pohlsander (1986) p. 1839.

[[52]]Ibid. 1838; Vogt, Reallexikon fhr Antike und Christentum II (1954) pp. 1185-1186.

[[53]]Eusebius, VI. xli

[[54]]G.W. Clarke, „Some Observations on the Persecutions of Decius,“ Antichthon, 3 (1969): 63-76.

[[55]]Eusebius. VI. xlii

[[56]]Eusebius, VI, xli . 12-14.

[[57]]Eusebius, VI. xliii-xlviiii; Catholic Encyclopedia, XI „Novatian,“ p. 139.

[[58]]Clarke, op. cit. p. 63, note 1.

[[59]]Rives, op. cit.135, 152.

[[60]]Ramsey MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, (New Haven, 1981) esp. pp 1-18.

[[61]]Rives, op. cit. 153.

[[62]]Syme, op. cit. p. 193; op. cit. Cohen, pp V 190-193. Also in the Cambridge Ancient History Plates V (1939) 236-237.

[[63]]Carson op. cit. p. 86.

[[64]]Cohen, op. cit. pp 223-235.

Copyright (C) 2002, Geoffrey Nathan and Robin McMahon. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Geoffrey Nathan / Robin McMahon: Trajan Decius (249-251 A.D.) and Usurpers During His Reign. De Imperatorbibus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [02.07.2007], http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/decius.htm.

Philip the Arab and Rival Claimants of the later 240s

von Michael L. Meckler (Ohio State University)
und Christian Körner (University of Bern)

[Abb.en zu Philip I. Pacatianus, Iotapianus, Silbannacus, Sponsianus, Philip II.]

Michael L. Meckler: Philip the Arab (244-249 A.D.)

Marcus Julius Philippus rose from obscure origins to rule for five and one-half years as Rome’s emperor. Only sketchy details of his life and reign have survived in the historical record. One of those details — his ethnicity — was latched onto by later historians, who called the emperor by the name Philip the Arab.

Background and Early Career

Philip the Arab seems to have been born sometime during the reign of Septimius Severus. [[1]] He was born in the Roman province of Arabia, in what today is the village of Shahba, roughly 55 miles south-southeast of Damascus. The village was obscure at the time of Philip’s birth, though once he became emperor, Philip renamed the community Philippopolis and embarked on a major building campaign. Little is known of Philip’s father, save the name Julius Marinus. This name, however, indicates that the family held Roman citizenship and must have been locally prominent. Nothing is known of Philip’s mother. At some point, probably in the 230s, Philip married Marcia Otacilia Severa. A son was born by 238 and named Marcus Julius Severus Philippus. Philip’s early career is also obscure, though it was undoubtedly helped by that of his brother, Julius Priscus. Priscus was appointed praetorian prefect by Gordian III and had previously served as prefect of the Roman province of Mesopotamia. If a fragmentary inscription from Rome can be connected to Priscus, Philip’s brother rose quickly during Gordian III’s reign through a variety of equestrian offices, including procurator of Macedonia, vice prefect of Egypt, and judge at Alexandria. [[2]]
Priscus‘ appointment as praetorian prefect probably came at the beginning of the Roman campaign to reconquer upper Mesopotamia in the spring of 242. The success of the campaign must have reflected well on Priscus, and when his colleague Timesitheus (who was also Gordian III’s father-in-law) died the following year, Priscus‘ brother Philip joined him as praetorian prefect. [[3]] The brothers remained the young emperor’s most powerful deputies during the disastrous campaign against the Persians in the winter of 243-44. On the retreat back up the Euphrates after the Roman defeat at Misikhe, Gordian was killed sometime during the winter months of 244. Most sources state that Philip was involved in Gordian’s death; some claim that Philip engineered a mutiny by diverting the grain that was supposed to feed Gordian’s troops. [[4]]

The Emperor and the Military

Philip was acclaimed the new emperor and was firmly in control by late winter 244. [[5]] Like his predecessor Macrinus, Philip faced, as his first important task, the problem of ending a war in the East. Philip was more fortunate in his negotiations than Macrinus had been. Philip made a peace treaty with the Persian king Shapur in which Philip agreed to pay the equivalent of 50 million sesterces, and possibly an annual tribute. The treaty enabled the new emperor to travel westward to Rome. [[6]] It remains unknown why Philip was displayed before the soldiers as their new emperor instead of his more accomplished brother Priscus, but Priscus went on to have extraordinary power in the East during the new regime. Priscus is described in one inscription as rector Orientis, and he exercised supreme authority over armies and provinces from his headquarters in Antioch. [[7]]

The following year the Carpi, a people native to the northern bank of the lower Danube, crossed the river and attacked settlements in the Roman province of Moesia (today, northern Bulgaria), where Philip’s brother-in-law Severianus had been put in command. [[8]] Fighting lasted several years and may have spread westward into Pannonia because of incursions by German tribes. Victory was proclaimed in 248, but the legions in Moesia and Pannonia were dissatisfied with the war’s results. The armies there revolted, proclaiming Tiberius Claudius Marinus Pacatianus as emperor. [[9]] While Philip could point to some success on the Danube frontier, he could not claim victory in his battles with the Moors. The emperor preferred to pay for an ignominious peace rather than lose an ignominious war. The heavy-handedness of his brother Priscus in collecting taxes in the East caused another revolt, this one led by a man named Iotapianus, who claimed to be a kinsman of Severus Alexander. [[10]] Coins that may also be from this period show two other men who tried to become emperors, Silbannacus and Sponsianus. [[11]] Neither is otherwise attested, and each revolt must have been short-lived.

The Millennium and Christianity

Despite growing instability in the provinces, Romans in the year 248 were fascinated by the celebrations of the 1,000th anniversary of their city’s foundation. The festivities may have been patterned after the Secular Games (last held under Septimius Severus 44 years earlier) and included magnificent spectacles for the arena. [[12]] Millennarianism extended into the literary world, with the author Asinius Quadratus honoring the event by writing his Thousand-Year History. [[13]]

Philip’s religious beliefs have garnered the most attention from modern historians. Writing but 75 years after Philip’s reign, the Church father Eusebius relayed a report that Philip was a Christian who was once compelled by a church official to confess his sins before being allowed to attend an Easter service. [[14]] Later sources locate the story in Antioch and connect the tale to Babylas, a bishop later martyred in the persecution mounted by Philip’s successor, Decius. [[15]] The Decian persecution is itself blamed by Eusebius on Decius‘ personal hatred for Philip. [[16]] Eusebius also reported that the Christian teacher and apologist Origen wrote one letter to Philip and another to Otacilia Severa. [[17]] While it is quite likely that Philip was well acquainted with Christianity and may even have been respectful of its teachings and leaders, he could not have been a Christian in any meaningful way. Philip appears indistinguishable from other third-century emperors in his use of pagan symbols and titles. Philip made no improvements in the legal status of Christians or their religion. Moreover, Philip’s alleged Christianity was never corroborated by non-Christian authors. [[18]]

Within six months of the beginning of his reign, Philip had appointed his son as Caesar and heir. Three years later, in the summer of 247, the boy was named Augustus and co-ruler, even though he was probably not yet 10 years old. His mother, Otacilia Severa, is last named on coins in the year 248, leading to speculation that she may have died in that year. Nothing is known of the emperor’s brother Priscus after the outbreak of Iotapianus‘ revolt: and it seems likely that he died either naturally or as a result of the uprising.

Defeat and Death

Iotapianus was eventually defeated and killed in the East, as was Pacatianus along the Danube. [[19]] To restore discipline among the Danubian troops, Philip sent as the new commander Decius, a native of the region. The appointment proved a dangerous blunder. The disgruntled soldiers, still eager for decisive leadership and decisive victories, revolted yet again in the late spring of 249 and proclaimed Decius emperor. Philip marched out from Rome to face the approaching troops of Decius. In late summer, the two armies met outside Verona. Philip’s troops were bested, and the emperor either died in the battle or was assassinated by his troops. When news of Philip’s defeat and death reached Rome, the praetorian guard murdered Philip’s son and colleague. [[20]]
Philip the Arabian remains an enigmatic figure because different authors evaluated his reign with wildly divergent interpretations. Christian authors of late antiquity praised the man they regarded as the first Christian emperor. Pagan historians saw Philip as indecisive, treacherous and weak. Our lack of detailed knowledge about the reign makes any analysis highly speculative. Nonetheless, Philip’s provincial and administrative background represents continuity with features of Severan government. His career has its closest parallel with that of Macrinus, an equestrian from the provinces who, a quarter of a century earlier, capped an administrative career by moving from the office of praetorian prefect to that of emperor. In the struggle to maintain legitimacy, Philip faced revolts and upheavals in several corners of the empire. He was able to overcome these challenges for half a decade. The empire remained fundamentally sound and stable during his reign. The great disruptions of the third century were yet to come.

Primary Sources:

• Zosimus, New History, 1.19-22 (available in English translations of Ronald T. Ridley [Canberra: Australian National University, 1982]; James J. Buchanan and Harold T. Davis [Austin: University of Texas, 1967]).
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.34-39 (available in English translation in the Loeb Classical Library).
• Historia Augusta, Life of Gordian 28-34 (available in English translation in the Loeb Classical Library).
• Aurelius Victor, Lives of the Caesars 28 (available in English translation in the Liverpool series Translated Texts for Historians).
• Eutropius, Breviarium 9.2-3 (available in English translation in the Liverpool series Translated Texts for Historians).
• Epitome de Caesaribus 28.
• Zonaras, Epitome 12.18-19.

Bibliography:

• Denis Feissel and Jean Gascou, „Documents d’archives romains inédits du moyen Euphrate (IIIe siècle après J.-C.),“ Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (CRAI) 1989, 535-61.
• Xavier Loriot, „Chronologie du règne de Philippe l’Arabe (244-249 après J.C.),“ Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.2 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1975), pp. 788-97.
• Michael Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284 (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1990).
• David S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).
• Hans A. Pohlsander, „Philip the Arab and Christianity,“ Historia 29 (1980), 463-73.
• id., „Did Decius Kill the Philippi?“ Historia 31( 1982), 214-22.
• Irfan Shahîd, Rome and the Arabs (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1984)
• Dennis E. Trout, „Victoria Redux and the First Year of the Reign of Philip the Arab,“ Chiron 19 (1989), 221-33.
• Ruprecht Ziegler, „Thessalonike in der Politik des Traianus Decius und der Tod des Philippus Arabs,“ Roma Renascens (Festschrift Ilona Opelt, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1988), pp. 385-414.

Notes:

[[1]] The Chronicon Paschale, in an imaginative tale, claims that Philip was 45 years old at the time of his death in 249, which would place his birth in 204. Aurelius Victor 28.10 writes that Philip’s body was weakened by age in the year 249. One would expect a praetorian prefect, the office held by Philip in 243, to be at least in his 40s. A year of birth ca. 200 is probably not far off the mark.
[[2]] ILS 1331; see Potter, Prophecy, pp. 213-15.
[[3]] Zonaras 12.18; HA Gord. 28.1, 29.1.
[[4]] e.g., Zosimus 1.18; Zonaras 12.18; HA Gord. 29.2-30.9; on the confused tradition, see Potter, pp. 204-12.
[[5]] On Philip’s dies imperii, see Peachin, Titulature, pp. 29-30; Loriot, „Chronologie,“ pp. 788-89.
[[6]] Trout, „Victoria Redux“; Res Gestae Divi Saporis, line 9.
[[7]] Zosimus 1.19.2, 1.20.2; ILS 9005. Priscus is described in one petition from the year 245 as „holding consular authority,“ which may indicate a special appointment as governor of Syria, see Feissel and Gascou, pp. 552-54.
[[8]] Zosimus 1.19.2.
[[9]] Peachin, p. 63; Zosimus 1.20.2.
[[10]] Aurelius Victor 29.2; Zosimus 1.20.2-21.2.
[[11]] RIC 4.3, pp. 66-7, 105-6.
[[12]] Both HA Gord. 33.1 and Epitome de Caesaribus 28.3 call the festivities Ludi Saeculares; the list given in HA Gord. of exotic animals killed at Philip’s games should not necessarily be trusted.
[[13]] Fr. Gr. Hist. no.97.
[[14]] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.34.
[[15]] John Chrysostom, Saint Babylas; Chronicon Paschale.
[[16]] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.39.1.
[[17]] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.36.3.
[[18]] Pohlsander, „Philip and Christianity.“ For a contrasting view, see Shahîd, Rome and Arabs, pp. 65-93.
[[19]] Zosimus 1.21.2.
[[20]] The Latin historiographical tradition uniformly places the battle at Verona, the murder of Philip’s son at Rome. Zosimus 1.22.2 claimed that both father and son died in an unlocated battle fighting Decius. A fragment from the seventh-century Byzantine historian John of Antioch ( fragment 148 in Carolus Müller, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 4 [Paris: Firmin Didot, 1851], pp. 597-98) places the battle in Beroea. The sources have been well sifted by Pohlsander, „Decius.“ On the dating, see Peachin, pp. 30-31; Loriot, pp. 795-96. Ziegler, pp. 397-400, argued for Macedonian Beroea (modern Véroia) as the site of the battle.

Christian Körner: Rebellions During the reign of Phillip the Arab (244-249 A.D.): Iotapianus, Pacatianus, Silbannacus, and Sponsianus

1. Introduction

In the ancient and Byzantine sources, several rebellions against the reign of Philip the Arab (A.D. 244-249) are mentioned: these include the revolts of Iotapianus in the Near East, and of Pacatianus and Decius in the Danube Area. The usurpations of Mar. Silbannacus, probably near the Rhine frontier, and of Sponsianus, pehaps in Transylvania, are only known because of numismatic evidence. [[1]]
The following essay deals separately with Iotapianus, Pacatianus, Silbannacus and Sponsianus. In the end, there will be an attempt to compare these usurpers and to integrate them into the historical context of the third century. [[2]]

2. Iotapianus

Iotapianus, known from accounts in Aurelius Victor, Zosimus and Polemius Silvius, revolted in the East against Philip. [[3]] The coins which he had minted give his full name: M. F. Ru. Iotapianus. [[4]] According to Victor, Iotapianus claimed a connection to an Alexander. Most scholars think he was claiming descent from the Severan dynasty of Emesa in Syria through Severus Alexander. [[5]] However, it is also possible that the usurper claimed to be a descendant of Alexander the Great of Macedonia: the name Iotapianus sounds similar to those of the queens Iotape I and II of the royal house of Commagene. The kings of Commagene, mainly Antiochus I, famous for his building on the Nemrud Dagh, claimed descent from Alexander the Great. Therefore, Iotapianus may have belonged to the Commagenian royal family (which had lost the throne under Vespasian). [[6]] In any case, Iotapianus came from the local aristocracy of the Near East, but what position he held when he was proclaimed emperor is unknown. According to Zosimus, Iotapianus‘ rebellion was directed against the taxes raised by C. Iulius Priscus, Philip’s brother. Priscus was rector Orientis and governed several provinces in the East. [[7]] It was a revolt of the provincials in Syria and Cappadocia rather than a military usurpation (according to Victor and to Polemius Silvius). Philip’s reign was obviously not popular in Syria. In one passage of the Sibylline Oracles, the Syrian author shows his jealousy against the flowering of Arabia with the cities Bostra and Philippopolis under Philip. [[8]]
Iotapianus‘ revolt should be dated near the end of Philip’s reign. The rebellion seems to have ground to a halt while Philip was still emperor (Zosimus); Iotapianus himself was probably not put to death until Decius‘ reign (Victor). The circumstances under which the rebellion ended are unknown except for the fact that Iotapianus was killed by his own soldiers. It is unknown how or if Philip reacted against the rebellion. [[9]] After all, Iotapianus and Pacatianus were not really a threat to the Empire; according to Zosimus, both rebellions could be suppressed easily. [[10]] Some coinage of Iotapianus is extant. The obverse sides show the usurper and give his full name. The reverse sides read Victoria Aug(usti), showing Victory with a wreath and a palm. Although this imagery could refer to a victory of the rebels against Philip’s troops, perhaps it is only propaganda claiming „the power of the Emperor to conquer“ [[11]]. Iotapianus was not a military usurper like Pacatianus and Decius and had led a rebellion of provincials against the tax policy of Rome. He can be seen as a precursor of Uranius Antoninus of Emesa (A.D. 253) and Odaenathus of Palmyra who did not plan to seize power in the entire Roman empire, but gained an outstanding position in the East and used the title „Augustus“ to mark this.

3. Pacatianus

The evidence about the reign of Pacatianus is similar in nature to that for the reign of Iotapianus: there are some small notices in the Byzantine authors Zosimus and Zonaras as well as some coins which give his full name: Ti. Cl(audius) Marinus Pacatianus. [[12]] The passages in Zosimus and Zonaras show many similarities; both authors may have used the same source. [[13]] Perhaps Pacatianus may be identified with C[l(audius) …] Marinus, c(larissimus) p(uer), who is mentioned, together with his father Cl(audius) Sollemnius Pac[atianus?], on an inscription from Bostra. [[14]] According to the inscription, Claudius Sollemnius was governor of the province of Arabia under Severus Alexander and later served as consular governor of Coele Syria . [[15]] According to Zonaras, Pacatianus was in the Roman army stationed on the Danube frontier. The term can define several military ranks: military tribune, centurio, legate of a legion. [[16]] Most scholars assume that Pacatianus was of senatorial rank, and may have commanded troops of several provinces near the Danube. [[17]] Yet Zonaras also writes that Pacatianus was not worthy of ruling. Bleckmann deduces from this passage that the usurper cannot have been a military commander; moreover, he notes, Zonaras uses the term for officers of low rank. [[18]]
No causes of the revolt are mentioned in the sources, but the Danube area is known to have been threatened by the Goths. There was a general unrest among the troops generating several rebellions in the region. Zosimus speaks of problems with the discipline of the army stationed on the Danube frontier. [[19]] The usurpation of Pacatianus can be dated from his coins: one coin has the reverse legend Romae Aeter(nae) an(no) mill(esimo) et primo, which gives April 248 as terminus post quem. [[20]] Pacatianus was raised to the purple by the troops of Moesia (Zosimus, Zonaras) and possibly also of Pannonia (Zosimus). Perhaps he obtained possession of the mint of Viminacium because there were no coins of Philip apparently minted at Viminacium in the year X of the local era, i. e. A.D. 248/9. [[21]] The obverse sides of Pacatianus‘ coins show the usurper and give his name and title (Imp. Ti. Cl. Mar. Pacatianus p. f. Aug.). The reverse sides celebrate the harmony among the soldiers and the fidelity of the troops (Concordia Militum, Fides Militum), prosperity and everlasting peace (Felicitas Publica, Pax Aeterna), Rome’s eternity (Romae Aeternae anno millesimo et primo), return of the emperor (Fortuna Redux, perhaps an allusion to a planned march to Rome?). We find exactly the same types also with Philip’s coins. [[22]] Therefore, Pacatianus‘ coins do not show a program different from Philip’s propaganda.
According to Zosimus, Philip was very worried about the rebellions of Iotapianus and of Pacatianus. He spoke to the senate and offered to abdicate if the senators were not content with him as emperor any longer. The senator Decius predicted the breakdown of both rebellions. In fact, Pacatianus and Iotapianus were killed by their own soldiers and, unfortunately, the sources do not give any explanation. Perhaps Pacatianus proved to be unsuccessful in repelling the Goths. [[23]] In any case, this description of Philip’s panic is due to the negative picture Zosimus gives of this emperor. Therefore, we should not accord too much credibility to the account of Philip’s reaction. That the emperor himself was a capable general is shown by his successful campaigns against the Carpi earlier in his reign.
The rebellion of Pacatianus, like the later one of Decius, shows that among the troops in the Danube area there was a strong wish for the presence of the emperor with the soldiers (Castritius and Hartmann call this „Bedürfnis nach Kaisernähe“ [[24]]). The Danube area was the centre of several rebellions in the third century: Trebonianus Gallus, Aemilianus, Ingenuus and Regalianus, to name but a few, were proclaimed emperors in this region. This shows that the soldiers wished the emperor to be near them: firstly, this guaranteed the regular paying of the troops; secondly the Danube region was particularly threatened by the Germans and other tribes.

4. Mar. Silbannacus

Silbannacus is known only from one antoninianus, said to have been found in Lorraine. On the basis of stylistic criteria, the coin is dated to Philip’s reign. [[25]] The obverse side gives the portrait of the emperor Silbannacus with the legend Imp. Mar. Silbannacus Aug. On the reverse side, Mercury is depicted holding a Victory and a caduceus and the legend of the text reads Victoria Aug. Hartmann, in his study on the usurpers of the third century, tries to reconstruct the circumstances of the rebellion and comes to the following conclusions [[26]]: Silbannacus, whose name indicates Celtic origin, revolted against Philip near the Rhine frontier in Germania Superior, which was threatened by the German tribes. Silbannacus may well have commanded auxiliaries of other Germans that were serving in the Roman army. The rebellion must have ended under Decius, because Eutropius speaks of a bellum civile in Gaul, suppressed by Decius. [[27]]
Hartmann’s conclusions, drawn on analogy with other usurpers of the third century, are very speculative. For example, we do not hear anything of German tribes threatening the Rhine frontier in Philip’s reign. Even the dating of the coin and of the usurper under Philip are far from certain, as well as is the hypothesis that Silbannacus was a commander of auxiliary troops. Perhaps we can only say that Silbannacus may have had connections with Gaul, as the reverse side of the coin may well show: Mercury appears to have been an eminent god in Gaul and also appears in the later coins of Postumus, emperor of Gaul in the second half of the third century. [[28]] Therefore we can only say, that at some date — perhaps during the 240s — a man named Silbannacus was proclaimed emperor in Gaul or in one of the provinces of Germania, and that he may have been of Gallic origin.

5. Sponsianus

Sponsianus is known from very mysterious aurei, found in Transylvania in 1713. [[29]] Because coins of Philip and Gordian III were found in the same context, Sponsianus is believed to have been proclaimed emperor in the forties of the third century. The main problem is the reverse side of Sponsianus‘ coins, which is identical with a republican reverse of the Minucii from the second century B.C. Hartmann deduces from this reverse side that Sponsianus may have been the leader of a „senatorial resistance“ against Philip and therefore minted a republican reverse side. [[30]] This hypothesis is totally unfounded: if there existed something like a „senatorial resistance“ against Philip, they would not have minted coins with a rare republican reverse side which was of interest only for the members of the republican gens Minucia which undoubtedly had died out long ago; the coins of a „senatorial resistance“ would probably show types referring to the emperors Balbinus and Pupienus elected by the senate in A.D. 238. Furthermore, no senator really thought of returning to the days of the republic. (Most republican senatorial families had died out already in the first century A.D. [[31]])

In the last century, Cohen declared the coins to be modern forgeries of very poor quality. [[52]] In any case, a hybrid coin, be it a modern forgery or a barbarous coin of late antiquity, is not strong enough evidence to base any conclusions upon.

6. Conclusions

Toward the end of Philip’s reign there were three or perhaps four rebellions: those of Iotapianus in the East, Pacatianus and Decius in the Danubian provinces, and perhaps Silbannacus near the Rhine frontier. [[33]] The three usurpers we know better fit well into the context of the third century. Their rebellions reveal the two main problems of the third century: (1) the invasions of the tribes from outside the empire caused unrest among the troops who had to protect the frontiers, and (2), the economic and financial crisis caused the emperors to raise high taxes among the provincials. Concerning their origin, all three came from the „upper-classes“: Decius was a senator, Pacatianus probably came from senatorial stock, while Iotapianus came from the local elite in the East. Until the reign of Gallienus (253-268), almost every usurper had a senatorial background. [[34]]
Decius and Pacatianus were proclaimed emperor by the army and owed this to their military rank. This shows the crucial role the army (especially the troops stationed near the Danube) played in the crisis of the third century. This development is due to the fact that the frontier was threatened by the Germans and other tribes, and that the soldiers wanted their emperors to be near them. Iotapianus, on the other hand, was the leader of an uprising of the Eastern provincials who felt that the government did not regard their interests sufficiently. Philip needed cash during his reign: he, for example, had to pay the Persians for the peace at the beginning of his reign, he launched the building of his hometown in Arabia, Philippopolis, and the celebration of the thousandth anniversary of Rome was certainly very expensive. The more mundane costs of paying the troops have not even been taken into account.
All three rebellions also show the charisma the Roman emperors had won in the eyes of the soldiers and of the provincials during the preceding two and a half centuries: by electing an emperor who was near them, they hoped that security (or victory in the case of the soldiers) and economic stability would be guaranteed. The revolts of Pacatianus and of Iotapianus soon broke down. Both had lost their charisma, maybe as a result of military defeat. Decius on the other side succeeded when he defeated Philip in A.D. 249 in the battle of Verona.

Bibliography

1. Abbreviations

• ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, ed. by H. Temporini, Berlin/ New York 1972ff.
• Barbieri, 1952 G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-285), Rome 1952.
• Bland, Roger. „The coinage of Jotapian“ in M. Price, A. Burnett, and R. Bland, eds., Essays in Honour of Robert Carson and Kenneth Jenkins (London, 1993), 191-206.
• Bleckmann, 1992 B. Bleckmann, Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Untersuchungen zu den nachdionischen Quellen der Chronik des Johannes Zonaras, München 1992 (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt, Vol. 11).
• Cohen 5² H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’Empire romain communément appelées Médailles impériales, Bd. V², Paris 1885.
• DNP Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, ed. by H. Cancik and H. Schneider, Stuttgart/ Weimar 1996ff.
• Hartmann, 1982 F. Hartmann, Herrscherwechsel und Reichskrise. Untersuchungen zu den Ursachen und Konsequenzen der Herrscherwechsel im Imperium Romanum der Soldatenkaiserzeit (3. Jahrhundert n. Chr.), Frankfurt a. M./ Bern 1982 (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Ser. III, Vol. 149).
• Kienast, 1996 D. Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie, Darmstadt ²1996.
• KlP Der Kleine Pauly. Lexikon der Antike, ed. by K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, Stuttgart 1964ff.
• Potter, 1990 D. S. Potter, Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. A historical commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, Oxford 1990.
• PIR² Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I. II. III, Second edition, ed. by E. Groag and A. Stein, Berlin/ Leipzig 1933ff.
• RE Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. by G. Wissowa, Stuttgart 1893ff.
• RIC 4.3 H. Mattingly et al., The Roman Imperial Coinage, Vol. IV, Part III: Gordian III – Uranius Antoninus, London 1949.
• s.v. sub verbo

2. Literature on Iotapianus

• Barbieri, 1952, p. 405, no. 17; p. 654, no. 17.
• G. M. Bersanetti, L’abrasione del nome del prefetto del pretorio C. Iulius Priscus in un’iscrizione palmirena e la rivolta di Iotapiano, in: Laureae Aquincenses memoriae Valentini Kuzsinszky dicatae, Vol. 2, Budapest 1941 (Dissertationes Pannonicae. Series II, Fasc. 11), pp. 265-268.
• T. Franke, s.v. Iotapianus, DNP 5, 1998, col. 1093.
• R. Hanslik, s.v. Iotapianus, KlP 2, 1967, col. 1444.
• F. Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC – AD 337, Cambridge (Mass.)/ London 1993, pp. 156f.
• L. Petersen, PIR IV², Fasc. 3, 1966, p. 114, no. 49
• A. Stein, s.v. Iotapianus, RE IX.2, 1916, col. 2004f.

Sources:

• Cohen 5², pp. 183f., no. 1-3.
• RIC 4.3, pp. 66; 105.
• Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, transl. and comm. by H. W. Bird, Liverpool 1994.
• T. Mommsen, Polemii Silvii Laterculus, Abhandlungen der Kgl. Sächs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss. 8, 1861, pp. 547-696 (shortened in: Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 7: Philologische Schriften, Berlin 1909, pp. 668-690).
• Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, Vol. 1: Livres 1-2, ed. and transl. F. Paschoud, Paris 1971.

3. Literature on Pacatianus

• Barbieri, 1952, p. 268, no. 1522.
• A. Birley, s.v. Claudius no. II.46, DNP 3, 1997, col. 19.
• J. Fitz, Die Vereinigung der Donauprovinzen in der Mitte des 3. Jahrhunderts, in: Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms. Vorträge des 6. Internationalen Limeskongresses in Süddeutschland, Köln/ Graz 1967, pp. 113-121.
• E. Groag, PIR II², 1936, p. 216, no. 929.
• R. Hanslik, s.v. Claudius no. II.36, KlP 1, 1964, col. 1214f.
• Kienast, 1996, p. 201.
• L. Petersen, PIR VI², 1998, p. 2, no. 6.
• A. Stein, s.v. Claudius no. 235, RE III.2, 1899, col. 2771f.
• A. Stein, s.v. Claudius no. 352, RE III.2, 1899, col. 2871.
• A. Stein, PIR II², 1936, p. 216, no. 930.
• A. Stein, Die Legaten von Moesien, Budapest 1940 (Dissertationes Pannonicae, Series I, Fasc. 11), pp. 56f.
• B. E. Thomasson, Laterculi praesidum, Vol. 1, Arlöv 1984, col. 107, no. 52; col. 117, no. 41; col. 129, no. 54; col. 145, no. 139; Vol. 2, Fasc. 2, Lund 1978, pp. 53f.

Sources:

• Cohen, 5², pp. 181-183, no. 1-8.
• RIC 4.3, pp. 65f., 104f.
• Zonaras, in: Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 134, ed. J.-P. Migne, Paris 1864.
• Zosimus: see above under 2.

4. Literature on Silbannacus

• Kienast, 1996, p. 202.

Sources:

• RIC 4.3, pp. 66f. 105.
• A. S. Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet. University of Glasgow, Vol. 3: Pertinax to Aemilian, Oxford/ London/ Glasgow/ New York 1977, pp. Xf. XX, Anm. 2. XCV.

5. Literature on Sponsianus

• Kienast, 1996, p. 203.

Sources:

• Cohen, 5², 1885, pp. 184f.
• RIC 4.3, 1949, pp. 67. 106.

Notes:

[[1]] In addition, Byzantine sources (mainly Zonaras 12,18) mention also two emperors elected by the senate in Rome A.D. 244, after Gordian III was killed at the Euphrates and while Philip was still in the East: Marcus Philosophus and Severus Hostilianus. They are distortions of the Byzantine tradition, Marcus being a confusion with Marcus Aurelius, known for his philosophical interests, and maybe with Marcus Iulius Philippus (Philip the Arab), Severus Hostilianus being a contamination of the names of Severus and of Decius‘ younger son Hostilianus.
[[2]] As there will be a special biography of Decius, his rebellion will not be treated in detail in the following abstract. I would like to refer here also to my thesis on Philip the Arab which is being prepared now and where the usurpers will be treated in detail.
[[3]]Aurelius Victor, Caesares 29,2; Polemius Silvius, Laterculus (Th. Mommsen, Chronica minora, Vol. I, p. 521, l. 38; cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 7, p. 644); Zosimus 1,20,2 and 1,21,2. According to M. Sprengling (Third Century Iran. Sapor and Kartir, Chicago 1953, p. 87) and E. Kettenhofen (Die römisch-persischen Kriege des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. nach der Inschrift Sahpuhrs I. an der Ka’be-ye Zartost (SKZ), Wiesbaden 1982, pp. 84f.), Iotapianus may also be mentioned in the Sibylline Oracles (13,89-102), but Potter (1990, pp. 268-273) convincingly argues that this passage refers to Mareades.
[[4]]RIC 4.3, p. 105; Cohen 5², pp. 183f. Ru. may be completed to Ru(fus) (Cohen 5², p. 183; Kienast, 1996, p. 202), F. to Fulvius (Cohen, loc. cit.).
[[5]] Stein, RE IX.2, 1916, col. 2004f.; Barbieri, 1952, pp. 405. 654; Hartmann, 1982, pp. 73f.; Potter, 1990, pp. 248f.; Kienast, 1996, p. 202; Franke, DNP 5, 1998, col. 1903.
[[6]]E. Honigmann, s.v. Kommagene, RE Suppl. IV, 1924, col. 988; R. Syme, Emperors and biography. Studies in the Historia Augusta, Oxford 1971, p. 202; H. W. Bird (following Syme) in his commentary on Aurelius Victor, Liverpool 1994, p. 129, n. 5. For the dynasty of Commagene see R. D. Sullivan, The dynasty of Commagene, ANRW II.8, 1977, pp. 732-798. For the alleged descent of Alexander the Great see H. Dörrie, Der Königskult des Antiochos von Kommagene im Lichte neuer Inschriften-Funde, Göttingen 1964, and F. K. Dörner, Die Ahnengalerie der kommagenischen Dynastie, in: F. K. Dörner (Ed.), Kommagene. Geschichte und Kultur einer antiken Landschaft, Antike Welt 1975, Sondernummer, pp. 26-31.
[[7]]Cf. Papyrus Euphratensis 1, in: D. Feissel/ J. Gascou, Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (III^e siècle après J.-C.), CRAI 1989, pp. 545-557; D. Feissel/ J. Gascou, Documents d’archives romains inédits du Moyen Euphrate (III^e s. après. J.-C.): I. Les pétitions (P. Euphr. 1 à 5), Journal des Savants 1995, pp. 67-84.
[[8]] Oracula Sibyllina 13,64-73; see also Potter, 1990, pp. 247-249.
[[9]]According to Zosimus (1,21,1-2), Philip was struck with panic when he heard of the revolts of Pacatianus and Iotapianus, and Decius tried to calm him (see also below under Pacatianus). This seems to be an invention of the historian who paints a black-and-white portrayal of the „coward“ Philip versus the „hero“ Decius (cf. especially the chapters 21 and 22 of Book One).
[[10]] Zosimus 1,21,2: ___ („without much effort“).
[[11]] RIC 4.3, p. 66.
[[12]] Zosimus 1,20,2-21,2; Zonaras 12,19. Coins: RIC 4.3, pp. 104f.; Cohen 5², pp. 181-183.
[[13]]Bleckmann, 1992, pp. 277-283 passim, mainly pp. 278f., n. 15, and p. 281, n. 23. He uses the term „Leoquelle“ to denote the common source of Zosimus and Zonaras.
[[14]]CIL III, 94, add. p. 969. The following scholars vote for the identity of C[l. …] Marinus with the usurper: Groag, 1936, p. 216; Stein, 1940, p. 57; Barbieri, 1952, pp. 203. 268; Petersen, 1998, p. 2. The usurper may also be identical with a Pacatianus appearing in another inscription from Bostra with his mother Cornel(ia) Optata A[…] Flavia and his sister Pacata: Ann. ép. 1965, 21.
[[15]] Ann. ép. 1933, 227.
[[16]] H. G. Liddell/ R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. H. S. Jones/ R. McKenzie, Oxford 1968, s. v. .
[[17]]Cohen, 5², p. 181; Stein, 1940, p. 56 (Stein first supposed that Pacatianus was an officer [Stein, 1899, col. 2771f.], but later changed his mind); Barbieri, 1952, p. 268; Hanslik, 1964, col. 1214; Fitz, 1967, p. 113; A. Mócsy, Pannonien und die Soldatenkaiser, ANRW II.6, 1977, p. 563; Thomasson, 1984, col. 107; Birley, 1997, col. 19.
[[18]] Bleckmann, 1992, pp. 280f.
[[19]] Zosimus 1,21,2.
[[20]] RIC 4.3, p. 105, no. 6 = Cohen 5², p. 182, no. 7. Birley wrote that, according to a personal statement of Loriot, the coins with the legend Romae Aeter(nae) an(no) mill(esimo) et primo are fakes and therefore to be dismissed: A. R. Birley, „Decius Reconsidered,“ in: Les empereurs illyriens. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (11-13 octobre 1990) organisé par le Centre de recherche sur l’Europe centrale et sud-orientale, ed. by E. Frézouls and H. Jouffroy, Strasbourg 1998 (Université des Sciences humaines de Strasbourg. Contributions et travaux de l’Institut d’Histoire romaine, 8), p. 67, n. 85. But as long as there is no publication of Loriot’s examination of the coins, we hold on to their authenticity and therefore to the common dating of Pacatianus‘ revolt. (Birley too maintains the dating to A.D. 248 in his article in the DNP: Birley, 1997, col. 19.)
[[21]] RIC 4.3, p. 65; Stein, 1936, p. 216; Stein, 1940, p. 56; A. Mócsy, s.v. Pannonia, RE Suppl. IX, 1962, col. 567; Fitz, 1967, p. 121.
[[22]] Cf. the following coins minted by Philip: RIC 4.3, p. 72, no. 32-34 (Fides Militum); p. 73, no. 40f. (Pax Aeterna); p. 73, no. 44f. (Romae Aeternae); p. 75, no. 63 (Fortuna Redux).
[[23]] The events that followed Pacatianus‘ end are part of the biographies of Philip and Decius: Philip sent Decius (against the latter’s own will) to the Danubian troops to put things in order. The soldiers who had supported Pacatianus prevented punishment by proclaiming Decius emperor. (See Zosimus and Zonaras)
[[24]] H. Castritius, Rezension Baldus, Gnomon 46, 1974, p. 595; Hartmann, 1982, pp. 140-148.
[[25]] RIC 4.3, pp. 66 and 105 n; Robertson, 1977, p. XCV; Hartmann, 1982, pp. 63. 94. 161f.; Kienast, 1996, p. 202.
[[26]] Hartmann, 1982, pp. 63. 82. 94, n. 1.
[[27]] Eutr. 9,4: Bellum civile, quod in Gallia motum fuerat, oppressit (sc. Decius). J. P. Callu („L’empire gaulois selon J. F. Drinkwater,“ JRA 2, 1989, p. 363), followed by Potter (1990, p. 248, Anm. 125), think that there may be a mistake in the text: One should read Galatia instead of Gallia, the text therefore referring to Iotapianus‘ rebellion which, according to Aurelius Victor (Caesares 29,2), ended under Decius (see above).
[[28]] For the importance of Mercury in Gaul, cf. Caes., bell. Gall. 6,17,1; Min. Fel., Oct. 6,1; K. Ziegler, s.v. Mercurius no. II, KlP 3, 1969, col. 1230. Postumus‘ coins bearing the picture of the emperor with the god Mercury: RIC 5.2, p. 337, no. 13; p. 357, no. 255.
[[29]] RIC 4.3, p. 106, no. 1; Cohen 5², pp. 184f., no. 1; R. Münsterberg, Ein Siebenbürgischer Goldmünzfund aus dem Jahre 1713, Blätter für Münzfreunde 58, 1923, pp. 425-428, v.a. 428.
[[30]] Hartmann, 1982, p. 121, n. 1.
[[31]] See K. Christ, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zu Konstantin, München 1988, p. 403.
[[32]] Cohen, 5², p. 184: „… des coins modernes ridiculement imaginés, et très mal faits.“ Hartmann (1982, p. 82, n. 10) too, in spite of his far-reaching hypotheses, speaks of the „zweifelhafte Identität“ of the usurper.
[[33]] In the following lines, I also include Decius, who was not treated in the article above. He cannot be omitted in an examination of the events at the end of Philip’s reign.
[[34]]Hartmann, 1982, pp. 140f.; Bleckmann, 1992, p. 287, n. 42.

Copyright (C) 1999, Michael L. Meckler and Christian Körner. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Michael L. Meckler / Christian Körner: Philip the Arab and Rival Claimants of the later 240s. De Imperatorbibus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [07.06.1999], http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/philarab.htm

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Pupienus (238 A.D.) and Balbinus (238 A.D.)

Garrett G. Fagan

New York University

Abb. 1: http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/pupienus.gif

Abb. 2: http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/balbinus.jpg

Following the deaths of Gordian I and II and the collapse of their rebellion against Maximinus Thrax in April of 238, the Senate found itself in an extremely difficult position. Having declared the Emperor Maximinus, a public enemy, it had to face the prospect of an imminent invasion as Maximinus, at the head of his army, had already crossed into Italy from his winter quarters at Sirmium.[[1]] Acting with unusual alacrity, the Senate, meeting in an emergency session in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, elected two emperors, Clodius Pupienus Maximus and D. Caelius Calvinus Balbinus[[2]] Both men were previously elected members of an emergency committee, known from inscriptions as the XX Viri Ex S.C. Rei Publicae Curandae, selected earlier by the Senate to prepare for the invasion of Maximinus.[[3]]

However, while the Senate was meeting to elect new emperors, a large crowd of the urban plebs began to gather outside the temple, and as news of the election spread throughout Rome, rioting broke out, most likely at the instigation of partisans of the Gordians, with the crowd demanding that a relative of the Gordians be elected.[[4]]

As the rioting escalated, the new emperors rallied a group of young men from the Equestrian Order and attempted to force their way through the crowd. Driven back by a shower of stones and sticks, they resorted to the expedient of naming the son of Gordian I’s daughter (the future emperor, Gordian III) as Caesar. This had the effect of calming the crowd and the two emperors could turn to the business at hand. It was agreed that Balbinus would remain in Rome, while Pupienus, having greater military experience and connections, departed for Ravenna.[[5]] Arriving in Ravenna in late April or early May, Pupienus was joined by a number of German troops in preparation for his attack on Maximinus, who himself had run into serious and unforeseen problems while besieging the city of Aquileia.[[6]]

Pupienus was probably around 60 at the time of his election. Although he may have been poor at the beginning of his career, his upward mobility, largely through military positions, was rapid; he was a primus pilus (chief centurion), a military tribune, praetor, proconsul of Bithynia, Greece and Narbonensis, and legatus of either Upper or Lower Germany. He won victories over the Sarmatians and the Germans. He was consul twice, the first time possibly in 207, and the second in 234, when he was prefect of the city of Rome. He was also a member of the XX VIRI. According to Herodian, our best narrative source for these events, Pupienus had a reputation for severity when he was prefect in Rome, and this was reported to be one of the reasons why the plebs were so unhappy with his choice as Emperor. Nevertheless, Herodian says that he was a popular governor of Germany, and while he was in Ravenna, he had no trouble raising troops from his old province in order to confront Maximinus.[[7]]

Pupienus had at least one son, Ti. Clodius M.f. Pupienus Maximus (who would himself become consul in 236), a daughter Pupiena Sextia Paulina Cethegilla, and possibly a second son, M. Pupienus Africanus. Pupienus‘ family may also have had connections to some of the richest individuals in Athens.[[8]]

As events turned out, things went from bad to worse for Maximinus at Aquileia. His supply train had broken down and his foraging parties could find little food, as the senatorial commanders at Aquileia had ordered all the food from the surrounding countryside removed or destroyed.[[9]] Adding to his woes was the fact that many of Maximinus‘ soldiers had families in the camp at Albanum near Rome, who now became de facto hostages. Finally, just as Pupienus was preparing to depart from Ravenna, a group of Maximinus‘ own soldiers assassinated him, together with his son. Their severed heads were conveyed first to Ravenna, and on to Rome. Thus, by the middle of May, Pupienus entered Aquileia in triumph without ever having engaged in a battle[[10]]

Pupienus paid the troops of Maximinus a substantial donative, which, if it did not endear them to the Senate’s emperor, did at least keep them quiet. He then returned to Rome to take up the business of governing, along with his co-emperor, Balbinus. In Rome, however, matters had not gone well for Balbinus. While Pupienus had been in Ravenna, the brutal murder of two unarmed soldiers in the Senate had convulsed Rome in rioting, which eventually escalated into a civil war between the urban plebs, led by partisans of the Gordians, and the soldiers. The fighting in the city between the two sides resulted in a conflagration in which nearly half the city was burned down.[[11]]

Although that situation appeared to have calmed down when Pupienus returned to Rome, mutual suspicions between the two emperors began to plague their government from the start. None of this dissension had escaped the „watchful eyes“[[12]] of the Praetorian guard, who knew that „Emperors at variance could be slain more easily.“[[13]] Matters quickly came to a head, as the Praetorian Guard, frustrated over the election of Senatorial emperors, and fearful that they would be cashiered by Pupienus and replaced by his German bodyguard who had accompanied him back from Aquileia, marched on the palace in order to stage a coup d‘ état. Pupienus, having learned of the danger, pleaded with Balbinus to summon the German bodyguard. Balbinus, for his part, fearful that the whole affair was being staged by Pupienus to assassinate him, refused, and a fierce argument broke out between the two just as the guard, in a murderous rage, burst into the room, seized both emperors and dragged them back to their camp where, amid a hail of sword-blows and insults, they were hacked to death. By the time the bodyguard did come to their aid, the deed had been done and the Praetorian Guard had, in the meantime, proclaimed the young Gordian as Emperor Gordian III. Their deaths and the elevation of Gordian III occurred in July of 238.[[14]]

Thus ended the rule of two emperors elected by the Senate. Before their deaths Pupienus was planning an expedition against the Persians and Balbinus against the Germans [[15]] The length of their joint rule is generally given as 99 days.[[16]] Although always spoken well of by the literary sources, there are several extant inscriptions where both emperors had their names removed.[[17]] They certainly deserved a better fate.

Although the reign of the two Emperors was brief, there are a number of extant coins from their period of rule. Since Pupienus and Balbinus were in Rome, the coins probably feature a good likeness of the emperors.Pupienus appears as rather thin with a full beard, in sharp contrast to the „heavily jowled“ and short-bearded Balbinus. Coins featured the double „GG“ in the abbreviation „AUGG“ (Augustus) to show that power was shared equally between the two men. The reverses often featured two clasped hands to indicate cooperation, a goal that eluded them in their brief tenure in power.[[18]]

Because of the absence of accurate dating in the literary sources, the precise chronology of these events has been the subject of much study. The present consensus among historians assigns the following dates (all in the year 238 A.D.) to these events: March 22^nd Gordian I, II were proclaimed Emperors in Africa; April 1^st or 2^nd they were recognized at Rome; April 12^th they were killed (after reigning twenty days); April 22^nd Pupienus and Balbinus were proclaimed Emperors; June 24^th Maximinus and his son were assassinated outside of Aquileia; July 29^thPupienus and Balbinus were assassinated and Gordian III proclaimed as sole Augustus.[[19]]

Bibliography

Sources

Barbieri, Guido. L’Albo Senatorio Da Settimio Severo a Carino (193-285). Angelo Signorelli: (Rome 1952.)

Cagnat R., Besnier. ed. L’Année Epigraphique. (1909) No. 173. (Paris, 1909).

________. Merlin, Alf. ed. L’Année Epigraphique. (1934) No. 230. (Paris, 1935).

Cohen, Henri. Description Historique des Monnaies FrappéesSous L’Empire Romain. (Paris & London 1880-1892).

Dessau, Hermann. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. (Berlin,1892.)

Liebenam, Willy. Fasti Consulares Imperii Romani. (Berlin, 1909.

Magie D. ed. Scriptores Historiae Augustae. 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1982).

Mommsen, T. ed. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. vol 1. Chronica Minora. Chron. A.D. 354. (Berlin, 1892)

Oliver, James. „The Sacred Gerusia“ Hesperia Supp. VI (1941).

Paschoud, F., ed. Histoire Nouvelle [par] Zosime. (Paris, 1971)

Whittaker, C.R. ed. Herodian 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1970).

Woodhead, A.G. Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. XXI (1965) No. 505.

Secondary Works

Brandt, Hartwin. Kommentar zur Historia Augusta. vol 2 v. Maximi et Balbini. (Bonn, 1996)

Buecheler, F, Usener, H. „Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaisergeschichte.“ Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 58 (1903) 538-545.

Cagnat, R, Besnier, M. L’Année Epigraphique (1929) No. 158; (1934) No. 230.

Carson, R.A.G. „The Coinage and Chronology of A.D. 238.“ Spec. Issue: Centennial Publication of The American Numismatic Society (1958) 181ff.

Kienast, Dietmar. Römische Kaisertabelle. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1990.

Loriot, Xavier. „Les Premieres Années de la Grande Crise du IIIe siécle: De L’avenement de Maximin le Thrace (235) la mort de Gordien III (244)“ Aufstieg u. Niedergang der Rõmischen Welt II, 2 659-718 [1972-]

Sarte Maurice. „Le Dies Imperii De Gordian III: Une Inscription Inedite De Syrie.“ Syria LXI (1984) 49-61.

Stein, A. Clodius No.50 in Paulys Real Encyclopädie der Classichen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol 4 cols 88-98. (Stuttgart, 1899)

Syme, Ronald. Emperors and Biography. (Oxford, 1971).

Townshend, P.W. „The Revolution of A.D. 238: The Leaders and Their Aims.“ Yale Classical Studies 14 (1955) 49-105.

Notes:

[[1]]Herodian VIII.1.1.4. He probably left Sirmium around March 24. (Whittaker, p.213 footnote 2).; Scriptores Historiae Augustae, XVIII.

[[2]]Herodian, VII.10.1-5. Even Sir Ronald Syme (Emperors and Biography, p. 175) was moved to remark: „In the war Against Maximinus, the Senate displayed an energy which confounded all prediction.“ The events are also analyzed by P.W. Townsend, „The Revolution of 238: The Leaders
and Their Aims,“ Yale Classical Studies 14 (1955) pp 50-53. However, where Townsend sees elaborate planning, Syme sees the revolt of Gordian as in a much more fortuitous event, seeing parallels to the revolt of Vindex against Nero in 68 A.D.

[[3]]Literary sources of the XX VIRI are in Zosimus, 1.14.2; Victor, Caes. 26.7; S.H.A. Gordians, 14.3, 22.1. The full name of the committee is also found in Hermann Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae No.’s 1186 and 8979. Of the twenty members the names of 6 are known.

[[4]]Herodian, VII, 5-6; SHA, Maximus & Balbinus, VIII. 1.

[[5]]Herodian VII 6-10. The rioting after the nomination of Pupienus and Balbinus is evidence that there was a two-way struggle for power by the opponents of Maximinus.

[[6]]Herodian, VIII 6.6.

[[7]]Full name:ILS 496; his age: Syme, Emperors and Biography, p. 171; his career is outlined by Whittaker, Herodian, p. 229, note 2 and also by Dietmar Kienast, Rõmische Kaisertabelle p. 190 and Willy Liebenam, Fasti Consulares Imperii Romani (Bonn, 1909), p. 29. The exact date of the first consulship is unknown. Statements regarding Pupienus‘ severity may also be rhetorical exaggerations in order to contrast him with Balbinus. (Max. Balb. VII.7; XV.1) See Stein in Pauly-Wissowa, Vol. 4, col 97 (Clodius) No. 50: „Im übrigen aber scheint es, dass gerade diese Seite seines Charakters von dem Biographen zu stark hervorgehoben wird, um ihn entschiedener seinem Mitkaiser Balbinus gegenüberzustellen.“

[[8]]. On Pupienus‘ family see R. Syme, Emperors and Biography, pp 171-174; his son, Dessau ILS, No.1185; Second son: Groag and Stein, Prosopographia Imperii Romanii No.804; On his possible connections in Athens see Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, XXII (1965), No. 505; James H. Oliver, „The Sacred Gerusia“ Hesperia Supp. VI (1941): On an inscription which honors M. Ulpius Eubiotius for relieving Athens of a famine, mention is made of a „Pupienus Maximus.“ According to Oliver: „The similarity of the name and social rank of the Athenian family at least invite speculation on the subject“ that this man and the Emperor are one and the same.

[[9]]Herodian VIII. 6.6; removal of all food, Herodian, VIII.1.4

[[10]]Herodian VIII.5.9.

[[11]]The details of the fighting are given in Herodian VII. 11-12. The SHA Max. & Balb. X, incorrectly places these events after the nomination of Pupienus and Balbinus, thus confusing this riot with the earlier one.

[[12]]Stein, cols.96-98.

[[13]]SHA, Max. & Balb. XIV.1

[[14]]Herodian VIII. 8.2-7; SHA, Max. & Balb. XIV. The partisans of the Gordians may have been at work here too. See Whittaker, Herodian, vol II, page 303, note 3

[[15]]SHA, Max. Balb.13.5.

[[16]]Mommsen T. (ed) Monumenta Germaniae Historica 9.1 Chronica Minora, Chron. A.D. 354. See below, n. 19.

[[17]]On the erasure of their names see Whittaker, Herodian II, page 308, note 1. This was quite possibly the action of the Gordian Party. The names were erased even at Aquileia (at Aquileia, Année Epigraphique, (1934) no. 230. Also erased on CIL VII, 510. However, there are inscriptions where their names survived intact: CIL VIII 10342, 10343, 10365

[[18]]The coinage of the reign is discussed by Whittaker, Herodian II, p. 303, note 3; R.A.G. Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum VI 99-104; 250-260; plates 43-47; Cohen, vol 5, pp 14-19.

[[19]]The chronology of these events is discussed by Xavier Loriot, „Les Premieres Années de la Grande Crise du IIIe Siécle,“ Aufstieg ü. Niedergang der Rõmischen Welt 2.2, 720-721; C.E. Van Sickle, „A Hypothetical Chronology for the Year of the Gordians,“ Classical Philology, XXII (1927), 416-417

Copyright (C) 2001, Robin Mc Mahon. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: Robin Mc Mahon.

Updated:8 April 2001

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Robin Mc Mahon: Pupienus (238 A.D.) and Balbinus (238 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [08.04.2001], http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/pupi.htm.

prospectiva imperialia Nr. 27 [30.11.2014]

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

hrsg. v. Jan van der Crabben u.a.

Gordian Emperors

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 25 November 2013

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu/Gordian_Emperors/]

When Maximinus Thrax was named Roman emperor upon the death of Alexander Severus, the news was not well-received by many in Rome and the Roman Senate considered him an illiterate barbarian. His financial excesses, principally used to fund his military expeditions in Germany, weighed heavily on the minds of many of the senators. An opportunity soon arose to free themselves of this unpopular emperor when Gordian I was proclaimed emperor by enraged noblemen in Carthage. Unfortunately, it would not be that easy a task to eliminate Maximinus.

Gordian I

Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus, known to history as Gordian I, was born in 159 CE to an unknown father and mother, although there were claims that he was descended from Roman Emperor Trajan on his mother’s side and the Republic reformers Gracchi, Tiberius and Gaius, on his father’s. Gordianus was a wealthy landowner who served as Roman senator and consul as well as the governor of several provinces including Lower Britain. Although he was eighty-years-old, Emperor Maximinus appointed him governor of Africa; something he would soon regret.

Maximinus’s expeditions in Germany had proven to be a considerable drain on the empire’s finances. He confiscated the estates of many of the wealthy and cut grain subsidies, something that affected everyone, especially the poor. There were repercussions throughout the empire. One of the emperor’s many agents was collecting taxes in Gordianus’ North African province (present-day Tunisia) when several young provincial nobles mobilized their tenants and killed him. Angry with Maximinus’ tax policies, they decided they wanted a new emperor and chose their governor Gordianus, who, although taken by surprise, reluctantly accepted. Historian Herodian in his History of the Roman Empire remarked on this election to the imperial office.

It happened that on the day these events occurred (the killing of the tax collector) Gordian was at home resting, enjoying a brief respite from his labors and duties. Accompanied by the entire band with drawn swords, the youths (those who had killed the tax collector) overpowered the guards on duty at the gates and burst into the house…. Standing around him, they draped him in a purple cloak and greeted him with the imperial honors.

Confused, the newly proclaimed emperor threw himself on the floor, begging for his life. After being reassured of their intentions, he was given a stern warning by one of the youths.  “…death awaits you this very day if you decide against us and refuse to join us, and we shall die ourselves, if need be, after we have killed you.”

Gordian II

The Gordians pledged the suppression of all informers, a return of exiles, and bonuses for the army. Assuming the additional name of Africanus, on March 22, 238 CE, he left his home in Thysdrus and arrived in Carthage with his son Gordianus, a former governor and consul in his own right, at his side. Upon their entrance into the city, he declared to the citizenry his son to be Augustus as well – the only difference is that the forty-six-year-old Gordian II did not receive the additional title of high priest or pontifex maximus. Without delay, a message was forwarded to the Roman Senate who approved them both as co-emperors. While neither would ever step foot in Rome, the new emperors pledged the suppression of all informers, a return of exiles, and bonuses for the army. After accepting the Gordians as co-emperors, the Senate voted to deify the slain Emperor Alexander Severus and declare Maximinus an enemy of the state; with many of his supporters in Rome being murdered.

Next, word was sent out to all of the provincial governors to pledge their allegiance to the new emperors. Capellianus, governor of Numidia and an ally of Maximinus, was angered by the Senate declaring his friend an enemy of the state and mobilized his legions to march on Carthage. Although the governor resented the Senate’s decree, he also had a personal vendetta against Gordian I. Herodian explained the nature of the feud, “Gordian was hostile to Capellianus because they had earlier been involved in a lawsuit. When he assumed the title of emperor, Gordian sent a man to replace Capellianus and ordered the governor to leave the province.” The governor’s troops were too much for the small militia defending Carthage. In the skirmish Gordian II was killed.  When he received word of his son’s death, the elder Gordian became distraught and hanged himself. The date was May 12, 238 CE. They had served only twenty-two days.

According to Herodian’s account, Capellianus “put to death all the prominent men who survived the battle, plundered the temples, and seized the public and private funds.” The death of the emperor – their one hope against the cruel Maximinus – caused many of the people of Rome and Carthage to live in fear. Herodian wrote,

When the death of the elder Gordian was reported at Rome, the people and the senate particularly were completely bewildered, dumfounded to learn that Gordian, in whom they had placed their hope, was dead. They knew that Maximinus, who was naturally hostile and antagonistic toward them, would spare no one. Now that he had good reason for hatred, he would as a matter of course vent his rage upon them as upon acknowledged enemies.

Gordian III

When notified of the emperors’ deaths, the Roman Senate deified them both and quickly appointed new co-emperors – Decius Caelius Calvinus Balbinus and Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus. As with the Gordians, a Council of Twenty was named to give them assistance. However, regardless of the Senate’s approval, neither man was well-received by the Roman populace who wanted the throne to remain in the Gordian family, namely the thirteen-year-old nephew of Gordian II, Marcus Antonius Gordianus. To appease the public and prevent riots, the young Gordianus was named Caesar. Just as the people had feared, after hearing the news of Gordian I and II’s appointment as co-emperors (he did not receive word of their deaths), Maximinus marched on Italy. He arrived at the city of Aquileia where he met with considerable resistance. Tired and hungry, the Praetorian Guard turned on him and his son and killed them as they slept.

After defeating Maximinus Thrax’s forces at Aquileia, the victorious Emperor Pupienus returned to Rome a hero. Yet, the jubilation would be short lived for he and Balbinus were seized by the Praetorian Guard and murdered; their bodies were dragged through the Roman streets. The young Gordian III was proclaimed emperor.  Herodian added, “Leaving the corpses exposed in the street, the praetorians took up Gordian Caesar and proclaimed him emperor, since at the moment they could find no other candidate for the office.”

Gordian III, born in 225 CE, was only thirteen when he ascended to the imperial throne; however, because of his age, he was given little if any real authority and most of the power remained in the hands of the Roman Senate. Luckily for both Gordian and the empire, a man who had risen through the military ranks and several imperial offices came to exert considerable influence on the young emperor, especially after he was named commander of the Praetorian Guard. His name was Gaius Furius Sabina Aquila Timesitheus He would gain even more sway when Gordian married his young daughter Furia Sabinia Tranquilliana in 241 CE.

Unfortunately for the youthful emperor, his short reign would see considerable unrest. He did have one small victory, however, the soldiers that had killed his uncle and grandfather were all drummed out of the army – sadly this would leave North Africa poorly protected. Due to the reduced number of legions in Africa, in 240 CE Marcus Asinius Sabinianus, the new governor of Africa, declared himself to be emperor; however, his self-proclaimed ascension did not last long, the governor of neighboring Mauretania quickly suppressed it. Next, and more importantly, problems brewed in the east: the new Persian king Shapur I began calling himself the King of Kings of Iran and Non-Iran. He boldly invaded the Roman province of Syria and threatened the capital city of Antioch. Regrettably, because of a continuing battle with the Goths along the Danube, the Roman army was unable to answer the attack. After suppressing the rebellion, Timesitheus mobilized his troops and with the assistance of the Roman fleet moved eastward, saving Antioch. Not only were the Persians defeated at Rhesaina in Mesopotamia but the Romans were also able to recapture the fallen cities of Carrhae and Nisibis.

Before any further action could be taken against the Persians, Timesitheus became ill and died. His successor, Philip the Arab, a commander in the Guard and suspect in the death of Timesitheus, named himself the young emperor’s regent.  When Gordian III chose to march on the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, Philip resisted; he had realized the imperial throne was within his grasp. According to the Historia Augusta, Philip engineered a plot against the emperor, “Philip spread talk among the soldiers to the effect that Gordian was young and could not manage the Empire, and that it were better for someone to rule who could command the army and understood public affairs.”

When Philip refused to follow his orders, the angry Gordian gave the troops a choice: him or Philip. Because of their lack of confidence in the nineteen-year-old emperor, they chose Philip. On February 25, 244 CE, Gordian III was killed near the city of Zaitha on the Euphrates River; his body was returned to Rome and the Senate was told the emperor died of natural causes. The memory of Gordian III is recorded in the Historia Augusta:

He was a light-hearted lad, handsome, winning, agreeable to everyone, merry in his life, eminent in letters; in nothing, indeed, save in his age was he unqualified for empire. Before Philip’s conspiracy he was loved by the people, the senate, and the soldiers as no prince had ever been before.

Supposedly, after he had killed the emperor, Philip, “… called him divine, even among the soldiers with whom he had made his conspiracy, and worshipped him with a mixture of a serious spirit and the shrewdness of an alien.” Philip the Arab quickly negotiated a peace with the Persians and returned to Rome where he was officially acclaimed as the empire’s new emperor

Written by Donald L. Wasson, published on 25 November 2013 under the following license: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms.

Bibliography

• Anonymous. Historia Augusta. Harvard University Press, 1932.
• Grant, M. The Roman Emperors. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985.
• Herodian. A History of the Roman Empire.
• Potter, D. The Roman Emperors. Metro, 2007.
• Scarre, C. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors. Thames & Hudson, 1995.

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

hrsg. v. Jan van der Crabben u.a.

Maximinus Thrax

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 18 November 2013

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu/Maximinus_Thrax/]

The young Roman Emperor Alexander Severus secured the imperial throne after the assassination of his cousin Elagabalus by the Praetorian Guard in 222 CE. Thirteen years later in 235 CE, after unsuccessful assaults against the Parthians and Germans, the army, tired of his inability to command, murdered him and his mother, Julia Mamaea, and rallied behind a semi-illiterate barbarian commander named Maximinus Thrax. Unfortunately, his lack of support in the Roman Senate and several costly military expeditions would spell his own demise three years later.

Gaius Julius Verus was born in 172 or 173 CE in Thrace, a region northeast of Macedonia near the Black Sea, to a peasant father and an Alanic mother. Because of his place of birth, he became identified with the name of Thrax. In 190 CE he entered the military and because of his immense size and strength, quickly rose through the ranks, eventually commanding a legion in Egypt in 232 CE, governing the Roman province of Mesopotamia, and lastly, in 234 CE leading recruits in Germany. At a very opportune moment, Maximinus would be acclaimed as the empire’s new leader.

In the early spring of 235 CE Alexander Severus and his mother attempted an offensive against the Germans with the sole intent of resurrecting the young emperor’s image with the army and people of Rome. Unfortunately, he chose to negotiate instead of fight. The army was furious and rallied behind Maximinus against Alexander. After the assassination of the emperor and his mother – their bodies were returned to Rome – Maximinus was proclaimed emperor near the present-day city of Mainz on March 20, 235 CE. The Roman Senate reluctantly approved, even though they considered him a barbarian and below their social standing. His son Gaius Julius Verus Maximus would be named Caesar. Historian Herodian in his History of the Roman Empire wrote of the new emperor,

His character was naturally barbaric, as his race was barbarian. He had inherited the brutal disposition of his countrymen, and he intended to make his imperial position secure by acts of cruelty, fearing that he would become an object of contempt to the Senate and the people, who might be more conscious of his lowly origin than impressed by the honor he had won.

After assuming the imperial title, the new emperor recognized his lack of the necessary support in the Senate and remained cautious. Those in Rome, as well as many in the army, preferred a senator named Magnus; however, when news of the plot became known, several of his followers met their untimely death on the orders of Maximinus. Others, who remained loyal to Alexander, chose Titus Quartinus as emperor, but unfortunately he met his death as he slept at the hands of one of his most vocal supporters, a man named Macedo who elected to change sides and support Maximinus instead. Herodian noted,

Although he had no reason for enmity or hatred, Macedo killed the man whom he himself had chosen and persuaded to accept the empire. Thinking that this act would win him great favor with Maximinus, Macedo cut off Quartinus‘ head and brought it to the emperor. When he learned of the deed, Maximinus, though he believed that he had been freed from a dangerous enemy, nevertheless had Macedo killed, when the man had every reason to hope and believe that he would receive a generous reward.

Building a pontoon bridge and crossing the Rhine, the new emperor moved further into Germany, plundering and burning villages as he went. After a fierce battle near Wurttemberg and Baden and despite heavy losses, he was proclaimed Germanicus Maximus. Peace in the region was restored. From 235-236 CE he advanced towards the Danube, earning the titles of Dacius Maximus and Samaticus Maximus. However, his problems lay not in Germany but back in Rome – a city he would actually never see. His push into Germany had drained the finances of the empire, and his cuts in subsidies on the city’s grain supply harmed his reputation with the people, especially the poor. Herodian remarked,

After Maximinus had impoverished most of the distinguished men and confiscated their estates, which he considered small and insignificant and not sufficient for his purposes, he turned to the public treasuries; all the funds which had been collected for the citizens‘ welfare or for gifts, all the funds being held in reserve for shows or festivals, he transferred to his own personal fortune.

Realizing they could no longer tolerate the excesses of Maximinus, the Senate threw their support behind the eighty-year-old governor of Africa, Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus or Gordian I. Maximinus was declared an enemy of the state.

Gordianus and his son Gordian II, who was proclaimed Augustus by his father, may have had the support of the Senate but their days on the throne were numbered. Capellianus, governor of Numidia and an ally of Maximinus, advanced his legions to Carthage and after defeating the small militia killed the forty-six-year-old Gordian II. His father, hearing of his son’s assassination, hanged himself. They had been in power for only twenty-two days. Still refusing to accept Maximinus as emperor, the Senate appointed co-emperors –  Decius Caelius Calvinus Balbinus and Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus. They also named a Council of Twenty to advise them. Regrettably, the new emperors were not welcomed warmly by the people of Rome, indeed the two received a hail of stones are they walked through the streets and the citizens preferred the thirteen-year-old nephew of Gordian II, Marcus Antonius Gordianus. To appease the citizenry, the boy who would become Gordian III was named Caesar.

After hearing of the Gordian appointment and despite the growing animosity of his troops, Maximinus moved his army towards Italy. He reached the city of Emosa but found it to be evacuated. He travelled further to the walled city of Aquileia, but his repeated attacks on the city failed. Emperor Pupienus set out from Rome to meet Maximinus. The losses at Aquileia, combined with the shortage of food, were too much for the Praetorian Guard and in May of 238 CE they murdered both the emperor and his son with their heads being escorted back to Rome. Pupienus entered Aquileia a hero. Herodian, who refers to the victorious co-emperor as Maximus, wrote that the city opened their gates and welcomed Maximus into the city. According to Herodian, many of the defeated men of Maximinus remained angry, grieving their fallen commander,

The men cheered Maximus and scattered leaves in his path. The soldiers who were besieging Aquileia came forward carrying laurel branches symbolic of peaceful intent, not because this represented their true feelings but because the presence of the emperor forced them to pretend respect and good will.

The death of Maximinus brought about what many historians consider a period of crisis and chaos. Pupienus returned to Rome a hero but soon quarreled with the jealous Balbinus. Tired of both men the Praetorian Guard stormed the imperial palace. seized the emperors, and dragged their bodies through the streets of Rome. Gordian III was proclaimed the new emperor, the last in the Year of the Six Emperors.

Written by Donald L. Wasson, published on 18 November 2013 under the following license: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms.