Probus (276-282 A.D.) and Rival Claimants (Proculus, Bonosus, and Saturninus) of the 280s

von Robin Mc Mahon (New York University)

Probus’s Background

M. Aurelius Probus was most likely born in Sirmium in 232 A.D. It is difficult to reconstruct Probus‘ career before he became emperor because of the unreliable nature of the account in the Historia Augusta, but it is certainly possible that he was a tribune under Valerian. Perhaps all that can be said with any reliability is that he served in the military and was on Aurelian’s staff during his Eastern campaigns.[[1]] There is a certain amount of confusion in the sources about him because of the fact that he has often been confused with a certain Tenagino Probus, who served as prefect in Egypt under Claudius II Gothicus.[[2]]

Accession to Power

After the murder of Aurelian, the Senate chose as his successor the septuagenarian senator, Tacitus, who took up the burdens of state and headed with the army to the East. The Eruli had overrun Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and finally Cilicia, where Tacitus, with help from his half-brother Florianus, defeated them.[[3]] Tacitus, however, either died of an illness or was killed by his own troops; he was succeeded by Florianus.[[4]] In the meantime, Probus had been declared Emperor by his own troops in mid-276, and prepared to meet Florianus, who was marching from the Bosporus, having broken off his victorious engagement against the Eruli. Florianus was acknowledged in Rome and was supported by Gaul, Spain, Britain, and Italy; Probus was supported by Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and Egypt. The two fought a desultory campaign near Tarsus. With a much smaller force, Probus decided his best strategy would be to avoid a pitched battle and let the heat overcome the troops of Florianus. The latter, having reigned barely two months, was murdered by his own troops.[[5]] Probus became sole Emperor, possibly by August 276.[[6]]

Probus in the West: 276-279

His first order of business was to punish the murderers of Aurelian, who may have also had a hand in the murder of Tacitus.[[7]] On the basis of numismatic evidence, Probus appears to have traveled from the east across the Propontis, and then through the provinces of Thrace, Moesia and Pannonia. It is at this time that he must have defeated the Goths because he already had the title Gothicus by 277 A.D. Shortly after he arrived at the Rhine River he made a trip to Rome to have his powers ratified by the Senate.[[8]]

Following the death of Postumus in 258, the situation in Gaul had rapidly deteriorated and numerous bands of invaders had swept across the Rhine. In the south, the Longiones, together with the Alamanni, had advanced through the Neckar valley into Gaul. The Franks had crossed the Rhine further north. In order to meet this simultaneous threat, Probus divided his forces having his generals campaign against the Franks, while he himself fought against the Longiones and Alamanni. Both Probus and his generals were victorious; in fact, Probus even captured Semnon, the leader of the Longiones, with his son. Both groups of invaders agreed to terms and booty and prisoners were returned; in the end, Probus allowed Semnon and his son their freedom.

Probus is next reported to have fought victoriously against the Burgundians and to have secured his victory with some ingenuity. Because his forces were smaller than those of the invaders, he wanted to engage the enemy on terms as favorable as possible; the Romans were on one side of the river and the barbarians were on the other. Probus was able to induce them to cross the river by having his soldiers hurl insults at them, and being enraged, they began crossing the river. Before the barbarians were able to organize themselves, the Roman army soundly routed them. Smarting from their defeat, the enemy did not live up to their end of the treaty, with the result that, in a second battle, they were again worsted by Probus.[[9]]The barbarians who were taken prisoner were enrolled in the Roman Army and sent to Britain.

Not content with merely defeating the barbarians along the Rhine, Probus took important steps to secure the boundary for the future. He planned and constructed a series of forts and depots on the German side of the Rhine at various crossing points, which he garrisoned with troops. Further, Probus apparently took measures to restore economic stability to Gaul by encouraging the planting of vineyards. Probus‘ titles Gothicus Maximus and Germanicus Maximus suggest claims to the success of his operations in the area.[[10]]

Events in the East 279-280

The sources do not give many details of Probus’s activities in Raetia and Illyricum, but Zosimus does say he repulsed an invasion of Vandals from Illyricum in a battle along a river generally identified as the Lech. In 279, theatre of operations was Lycia. Zosimus records the curious story of the adventures and death of a robber chieftain name Lydius who may be the same individual called Palfuerius in the Historia Augusta. In order to prevent further troubles, Probus constructed fortresses, and settled large groups of veterans in this area, giving them land in exchange for the promise that their sons would also serve in the legions when they were old enough.[[11]]

Probus’s Military and Economic Activities In Egypt

Meanwhile, Probus had sent his generals to Egypt, where the Blemmyes were stirring up trouble in 280; they had broken through the border, advanced up the Nile, and, in league with the city of Ptolemais, captured the city of Koptus. They were eventually expelled and order was restored by Probus‘ generals. Once Probus had restored order, he set about the task of a large-scale reconstruction of the dikes, canals, and bridges along the Nile, something which not been done since it had been undertaken by Augustus in the years 27-25 B.C. More specifically, the Vita Probi notes, „On the Nile, moreover, he did so much that his sole efforts added greatly to the tithes of grain. He constructed bridges and temples porticos and basilicas, all by the labour of the soldiers, he opened up many river-mouths, and drained many marshes, and put in their place grain-fields and farms“(9.3-4). The importance of this type of work cannot be underestimated since a large percentage of the food supply for Rome came from Egypt and the African provinces.[[12]]

The Revolts of Proculus, Bonosus, and Saturninus

According to the Historia Augusta, although the Persian King, Vahram II, had made peaceful overtures, Probus had rejected these and was planning to push the war forward when he was faced with a series of revolts both in the West and East. It is difficult to place them in their exact time-frame since the sources do not agree. Nevertheless, the situation was serious enough for Probus to cancel his plans for war with Persia and hurry back to the West. On his return Probus settled large numbers of barbarians in the Empire.[[13]] Perhaps this was done to repopulate areas which had been left abandoned by the effects of invasions and plague. This policy, which Probus did not begin, and which was continued by his successors was, however, destined to bring trouble to Rome in the future.

The writer of the Vita Probi in the Historia Augusta indicates that in 280 A.D. Proculus revolted in the vicinity of the city of Lugdunum, which had been severely dealt with by Aurelian and, for reasons not given, spurred on by this fear, had adopted a hostile attitude towards Probus. Proculus apparently had some connections to the Franks and he had hoped to rally them to his cause. They appear, however, to have handed him over to Probus when he arrived on the scene.[[14]]Probably at the same time, Bonosus revolted. His rebellion seems to have been serious as it appears to have required considerable force to be suppressed. Bonosus, an officer in charge of the Rhine fleet, had somehow let the Germans slip over the border and burn the fleet. Fearful of retribution, he apparently took shelter in proclaiming himself emperor. He was, in spite of his lapse with the fleet, an excellent soldier. The fighting was only stopped when Bonosus, despairing of his position, hanged himself. Probus spared the lives of his sons as well as that of his wife.[[15]]

Julius Saturninus, one of Probus ’s commanders in Syria, probably seized power in the year 281. A close friend and associate of Probus, he may have been compelled to adopt the purple by his unruly troops. Although he initially rejected a request of the people of Alexandria to put on the purple, he later changed his mind and proclaimed himself Augustus. In any case, Probus planned to put down the rebellion. However, Saturninus was killed by his own troops before Probus had a chance to act.[[16]]

The sources do not provide much in the way of material to analyze the extent of these revolts and how widespread the feeling was against Probus in the West. There are indications that the revolts were more than local affairs because inscriptions from as far away as Spain have been found where Probus’s name has been erased.[[17]]

In 281 Probus was in Rome to celebrate his victories. Although the Historia Augusta goes into great detail to describe the events of Probus’s triumph and celebrations of his victories in respect to the number of animals and prisoners involved, there may be some truth to its description because Zosimus states there was a uprising which at this time required a force of soldiers to suppress. On a more substantial note, Probus completed the wall around Rome which had been begun by Aurelian.[[18]]

Probus‘ Assassination

Probus was too anxious to push ahead with his plans for an invasion of Persia, which had been postponed due to the revolts and unrest in the West, and, to this end, he left Rome in 282 and proceeded first to his native town of Sirmium when news came that M. Aurelius Carus, Perfect of the Guard, had been proclaimed emperor. When troops sent by Probus to quell the rebellion went over to Carus, Probus‘ remaining troops killed the emperor. His death occurred sometime between September or October 282.[[19]]

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Chastagnol, André. Histoire Auguste. (Paris, 1994).

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

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

Zonaras, Annales (12.27.). ed. M. Pinder (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), Bonn 1844.

Cohen, Henry. Description Historique des Monnaies Frappées Sous L’Empire Romain. (Paris & London, 1880-1892).

Grenfell, Bernard and Hunt, Arthur S. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol XII (London 1916) No. 1409.

Secondary Works

Barnes, T.D. „Some Persons in the Historia Augusta.“ Phoenix 26 (1972): 140ff.

R. Hanslik, „Aurelius (28).“ Kl. P.. 1: col. 769.

________. „Bonosus (1).“ Kl. P. 1: col. 928.

________.“Proculus (8a).“ RE 23: col. 75-76.

Henze, W. „Aurelius (194).“ RE 2.2: col. 2516-2523.

________. „Bonosus (1).“ RE 3: col. 713-714.

Jones, A.H.M., J.R. Martindale, and J. Morris. „Probus 3.“ The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. (Cambridge, 1971) 1.736.

Kienast, Dietmar. Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge römischen Kaiserchronologie. (Darmstadt, 1990).

Lépaulle, Emile. Étude historique sur M. Aur. Probus d’après la numismatique du Regne de Cet Empereur. (Lyon, 1884).

Lippold, A. „Saturninus (2).“ Kl. P. 4: col. 1570.

Peachin, Michael. Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology A.D. 235-284. (Amsterdam, 1990).

Pomeroy, Sarah B. „The Revolt of Saturninus.“ Schweizer Münzblätter 19 (May, 1969) 54-56.

Schwartz, Jacques. „L’empereur Probus et l’Egypte.“ Chronique d’Egypte 45 (1970), 381-386.

Stein, A. „Saturninus (6).“ RE 2A: col.213ff.

________.“Tenagino Probus.“ Klio, 29 (1936): 237-242

Syme, Ronald. Emperors‘ Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta. (Oxford, 1971).

Vitucci, G. L’imperatore Probo. (Rome, 1952).

Westermann, W.L. „The Papyri and the Chronology of the Reign of the Emperor Probus.“ Aegyptus 1 (1920): 297-301.

Winkler, G. „Proculus (2).“ Kl. P. 4: col. 1150.

Notes:

[[1]]For Probus‘ full name and his year of birth, see Dietmar Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge römischen Kaiserchronologie, (Darmstadt, 1990), 250; Probus‘ place of birth and lineage: it is unclear whether his father was a certain Maximus who rose through the ranks to become a tribune (SHA, Vita Probus, 3.1-2) or a certain Dalmatius who was a gardener (Aur. Vict., Epit., 37.1); W. Henze, RE 2.2, s.v. „Aurelius (194),“ col.2517ff; Probus‘ early career under Valerian and subsequent emperors through Aurelian: SHA, Vita Probus, 5.6-7, 6.1ff; Kienast sifts through the farrago of data in the SHA for the reader and points out what material is worth believing (Römische Kaisertabelle, 250).

For the most recent full treatment of Probus‘ reign, see G. Vitucci, L’imperatore Probo. Rome, 1952; for a more concise and recent treatment, see R. Hanslik, Kl. P. 1, s.v. „Aurelius (28),“ col. 769.

[[2]]The confusion in the Historia Augusta may be intentional since Probus is the hero and his biographer certainly wanted to attribute as many valiant deeds to him as he could. The problem is carefully gone over by A. Stein („Tenagino Probus,“ Klio, 29 [1936], 237-242). Stein gives documentary evidence for the career of T. Probus as well as the name Tenagino (which he says is Etruscan in origin). The confusion is also noted in, among other sources, A.H.M Jones (The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, s.v. „Probus (3),“ 1.736), T. Barnes, („Some persons in the Historia Augusta,“ Phoenix, 26[1972],156), and Kienast (Römische Kaisertabelle, 250).

[[3]]Zosimus, 1.63.1-64.3; SHA, Vita Taciti, 13.1ff; Zonar., 12.28 ([Bonn ed.], 2.608.5ff); for an introduction to the events surrounding Tacitus‘ campaign in the east and its sources, see F. Paschoud, Zosime, Histoire Nouvelle, (Paris, 1971), 55, 172, n. 92 , and David Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, (Cambridge, 1982), 3.318, n.3. The exact family relationship between Tacitus and Florian is unclear.

[[4]]Zosimus, 1.63.1-2; Zonar., 12..28 (2.608.13-22); SHA, Vita Tacitus, 13.5.

[[5]]Zonar., 12 29(2.608. 23-609.6); SHA, Vita Taciti, 13.6-14.2, Vita Probi, 14.1-2; Zosimus, 1.63-64; Henze, RE 2.2, col. 2519; David Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3. 320 n. 4, 3.321, n.5 ; for a discussion of the chronology of these events, see F. Paschoud, Zosime , 1.172-3, nn. 92-93.

[[6]]Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle , 250; Peachin, 46-117; David Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3.354-355, n.2; ; Henze, RE 2.2, col. 2519; Vitucci, Probo, 24ff; Paschoud provides a general survey of the scholarship on the dating of Probus‘ sole emperorship (Zosime, 1.172ff, n. 93).

[[7]]Zosimus indicates that Probus invited them to a banquet and, while observing the proceedings from above, then gave a signal for the soldiers to attack them.(1.65.1-2) It seems, however, somewhat implausible that they could be so gullible. In Zonaras, Probus rebukes them in person and later put them to death.(12.29[2.609.1ff]). The author of the Vita Probi (13.2-3) in the Historia Augusta indicates some retribution was taken upon the murderers. Probus did not, however, take any action against the followers of Florianus (ibid., 13.3 ); F. Paschoud, Zosime , 1.57, n.94; Henze, RE 2.2, col. 2519.

[[8]]E. Lépaulle, Étude historique sur M. Aur. Probus d’après la numismatique du Regne de Cet Empereur, (Lyon, 1884), 52-53; Henze, RE, 2.2, col. 2520; Henry Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies Frappées Sous L’Empire Romain, (Paris and London, 1880), Adventus series for Probus, 29-73. Probus‘ title Gothicus: CIL, 11.1178b; SHA, Vita Probi, 13.5; David Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3.363, n.5

Probus‘ trip to Rome is discussed by Henze (RE, 2.2, col. 2520) and Lépaulle (54).

[[9]]The fullest treatment of Probus‘ wars with the Germans remains that of Zosimus (1.67-68); the account of these events in the SHA (Vita Probi, 13.5-14.7) is not as detailed as that in Zosimus. Zonaras‘ narrative (12.29 [2.609.20ff]) is cursory at best; Henze, RE, 2.2, col. 2520-2521; the sources and the secondary literature are treated in depth by Paschoud (Zosime,. 1.58, 173, n. 96, 1.59, 175, n. 97); the chronology of these operations is discussed by Vitucci (Probo, 48ff).

[[10]]Probus‘ use of prisoners of war as troops: Zosimus, 1.68.3; Henze, RE, 2.2, col. 2521; Probus‘ fortifications along the Rhine: SHA, Vita Probi,14.1-7; Henze, RE, 2.2, col. 2520ff; vineyards in Gaul: SHA, Vita Probi,18.8; Henze, RE, 2.2, col. 2521.

Probus“ victory titles: Gothicus Maximus, infra, n. 8;.Germanicus Maximus, C.I.L., 8.11931; his victories are reflected in his coinage by such legends as Temporum Felicitas (Cohen 728-731), Securitas Perpetua (ibid, 625-627), and Victoria Germanica (ibid.,754-777); Henze, RE, 2.2, col. 2521.

[[11]]Kienast dates events in Asia Minor, Egypt, and Illyricum to 279-280 A.D. (Römische Kaisertabelle, 250); Zosimus, 1.69.1ff; SHA, Vita Probi, 16.1ff; the story of Lydius/ Palfuerius, Zosimus, 1.69.1-70, SHA, Vita Probi, 16.4-7; Henze, RE, 2.2, col.2521; Paschoud, Zosime,. 1.60, 175ff, n. 98; settlement of veterans: SHA, Vita Probi, 16.6; Henze, RE, 2.2, col.2521.

[[12]]Revolts in Egypt: Zosimus, 1.71.1; SHA, Vita Probi, 17.2, 6; Henze, RE, 2.2, 2522; reconstruction of dikes, canals, and bridges along the Nile: SHA, Vita Probi, 9.2; David Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3.351-352, n.3 ; the reconstruction of the dikes can by dated from P. Oxy. 12.409; for a full discussion of the papyrus and its dating, see W.L.Westermann, „The Papyri and the Chronology of the Reign of the Emperor Probus“, Aegyptus, 1 (1920), 297-301. On Probus in Egypt, see J. Schwartz, „L’empereur Probus et l’Egypte“ in Chronique d’Egypte 45 (1970), 381-386.

[[13]]Probus‘ peace with the Persians (SHA, Vita Probi, 18.1) may have been a stop-gap action since he eventually planned to go to war with them (ibid., 20.1); he may have made peace in order to deal with the usurpers in the west (ibid., 18.4; Probus and his dealings with the Persians: Henze, RE, 2.2, col.2522ff; David Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3.371, n. 5); Probus‘ settlement of barbarians within the boundaries of the empire: SHA, Vita Probi, 18.2, Zosimus, 1.17.1.

[[14]]Chronology of Proculus‘ revolt: Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle 252; sources that deal with his revolt: SHA, Vita Probi, 18.5, Vita Firmi, 12.1, 13.1, 4; G. Winkler, Kl. P. 4, s.v. „Proculus (2),“ 1150; R. Hanslik, RE 23, s.v. „Proculus (8a),“ col. 75-76; Henze, RE, 2.2, col.2522; although Kienast accepts the outline of events spelled out in the SHA, he rightly believes that many of the details included about Proculus‘ life should be considered dubious (Römische Kaisertabelle , 252-253); Barnes rejects all the details of Proculus‘ career contained in the SHA (Phoenix, 26 [1972], 168).

[[15]]Chronology of Bonosus‘ revolt: Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle , 251-252; sources that deal with his revolt: SHA, Vita Probi, 18.5, Vita Firmi, 14-15; W. Henze, R.E. 3, s.v. „Bonosus (1),“ col. 713-714; ibid., RE, 2.2, col.2522; R. Hanslik, Kl. P. 1, s.v. „Bonosus (1),“ col. 928; other sources mention Bonosus‘ revolt in passing: Aur. Vict., Caes. 37.3, Epit., 37.2; Eutrop., 9.17.1; although Kienast accepts the outline of events spelled out in the SHA and apparently the details about his command on the Rhine and his suicide (15.1-3), he rejects the details contained in 14.1-5 of the Vita Firmi (Römische Kaisertabelle, 251-252); Barnes rejects all the details of Bonosus‘ career contained in the SHA (Phoenix, 26 [1972], 150ff).

[[16]]Chronology of Saturninus‘ reign: Kienast, Römische Kaisertabelle , 253; sources that treat Saturninus‘ reign: Zosimus, 1.66.1 (where Saturninus is described as a Mauretanian); Zonar., 12.29 (2.609.10ff); SHA, Vita Probi, 18.4, Vita Firmi, 7-9; Although Kienast rejects Saturninus‘ career which is spelled out in the Vita Firmi at 9.5, he appears to accept the fact that he was dux limitis Orientalis under Aurelian and governor of Syria under Probus (Römische Kaisertabelle , 253), aspects of his career not accepted by Barnes (Phoenix, 26 [1972], 171ff); Saturninus‘ reign is discussed by Vitucci (Probo, 58ff), Lippold (Kl. P. 4, s.v. „Saturninus (2),“ col. 1570), Stein (R.E. 2A, s.v. „Saturninus (6),“ col.213ff), Henze (RE 2.2, col. 2522), and Pomeroy (Sarah B. Pomeroy, „The Revolt of Saturninus“, Schweizer Münzblätter, 19 (1969), 54-56); a good survey of the literature and discussion of the chronology of the revolt is provided by Paschoud (Zosime, 1.57, 173, n. 95). See also A. Chastagnol, „Sur la chronologie des années 275-285“ in Festschrift Jean Lafaurie (Paris, 1980), 75-82.

[[17]]There are several inscriptions where Probus‘ name was later erased; see C.I.L., 2.3738, 8.100, 1353, 10.3728; Henze, RE 2.2, col. 2522-2523.

[[18]]Dating of Probus‘ triumph: Henze, RE 2.2, col. 2523; description of triumph: SHA, Vita Probi, 19.1-8; uprising at Rome: Zosimus, 1.73.1; the wall of Aurelian: Ibid., 1.49.2; Henze, RE 2.2, col. 2523; F. Paschoud, Zosime , 1.43,163-164, n.77.

[[19]]Zosimus, 1.71.4-5; Zonar.,12.29 (2.609.10ff); Magie, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3.378-9, n. 1; according to the SHA (Vita Probi, 21.1-4), a tumult occurred and the exasperated soldiers pursued Probus to an „ironclad“ lookout tower and he was killed there. Magie notes, “ The same account of his death is given in Aur[elius] Victor, Caes. 37,4 and Eutropius, ix, 17, 2; on the other hand, this version [preserved in Zosimus and Zonaras}…seems more credible….Probus‘ death took place after 29 Aug., 282 since there are Alexandrian coins of his eighth year, which began on that day….“(Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 3.378-9, n. 1); Paschoud discusses the chronological problems in the sources surrounding the dating of Probus‘ death (Zosime, 1.62, 177-178, n.101).

Copyright (C) 1999, Robin Mc Mahon. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Das Archiv der Monumenta Germaniae Historica verfügt über eine umfassende Sammlung von Königs- und Kaisersiegel-Replikaten von Karl dem Großen bis zum Ende des Mittelalters. Nahezu von allen Herrschern ist zumindest ein Abguss vorhanden, gelegentlich sind es auch mehr. Zu den Königs- und Kaisersiegeln kommen wenige weitere Siegel, besonders bei der Teilsammlung nach den Beständen des Vatikanischen Archivs. Außerdem sind Blei- und Goldbullen in Wachskopie beigefügt.

© Text: Christian Lohmer

M. Annius Florianus

von P. v. Rohden

Kaiser im J. 276 n. Chr. Leiblicher Bruder des Kaisers (M. Claudius) Tacitus (275–276), Hist. Aug. Tac. 14, 1. 9, 6. Unter ihm Praefectus praetorio (ὕπαρχος), Zonar. XII 28. Zosim. I 63. Nach dem Tode seines Bruders wird er nach der einen Überlieferung (Zonar. XII 29. Zosim. I 64) in Rom vom Senat zum Kaiser gewählt, nach der andern (Vict. Caes. 36, 2. Hist. Aug. Tac. 14, 1) wird er weder vom Senat noch von dem Heere zum Kaiser erhoben, sondern besteigt aus eigenem Antrieb den Thron. In der That erscheint auf seinen zahlreichen Münzen (Eckhel VII 499. Cohen VI² 239–252 nr. 1–108) weder SC noch p. m. noch tr. p.; dagegen findet sich sein vollständiger Titel pont. max., trib. potest., p(ater) p(atriae), procos. auf Inschriften aus Spanien (CIL II 1115), Gallien (Orelli 1036) und Germanien (CIRh 1964), auf der spanischen Inschrift sogar cos., was wahrscheinlich ein Irrtum ist, vgl. Hist. Aug. Tac. 9, 6. Da ihm ausserdem auch in Britannien (CIL VII 1156) und Dalmatien (CIL III Suppl. 10061) Inschriften gesetzt sind, andererseits aber alexandrinische Münzen von ihm fehlen, so wird damit die Angabe des Zonaras XII 29 bestätigt, dass Florianus von Cilicien an im ganzen Westen anerkannt wurde, sein Gegenkaiser (M. Aurelius) Probus dagegen in Syrien und Ägypten herrschte. Der Name des von den Schriftstellern nur Florianus genannten Kaisers lautet auf den Inschriften und Münzen (hier mehr oder weniger abgekürzt): Imp. Caes. M. Annius Florianus pius felix invictus Augustus. Er regierte nur 2 Monate 20 Tage (etwa April–Juli 276), Eutrop. IX 16 (nach anderen Angaben: 84 Tage, Cassiod. chron. J. 276; 88 Tage, Hieron. chron. J. 276; nicht ganz drei Monate, Zonar. XII 29; 60 Tage, Vict. epit. 36, 2; kaum 2 Monate, Hist. Aug. Tac. 14, 2. 5; 1 oder 2 Monate, Vict. Caes. 37, 1). Er wurde in Tarsus von seinen Soldaten getötet, Hist. Aug. Tac. 14, 2; Prob. 10, 8. 13, 4. Vict. Caes. 37, 1. Cassiod. chron. 276. Hieron. chron. 276. Zonar. XII 29. Zosim. I 64 (nach vereinzelter Angabe Vict. epit. 36, 2 soll er sich selbst die Adern geöffnet haben).

Quelle: https://de.wikisource.org/w/index.php?oldid=2939299; Lizenz: CC BY-SA 3.0;

Tacitus (275-276 A.D.)

von Robin Mc Mahon (New York University)

Historia Augusta regarding Tacitus‘ earlier career, including the claim he was related to the historian Tacitus, have been rejected by historians as fictitious.[[3]] The most reliable sources for Tacitus‘ reign, Zosimus and Zonaras, state that he was chosen Emperor by the army following the assassination of Aurelian in the fall of 275, most likely in November.[[4]] At the time of his elevation he was in Interamna (modern Terni, about 60 miles north of Rome). From there he made his way to Rome where he was confirmed
as Emperor by the Senate.[[5]] Tradition has it that he was 75 years old at the time, but there is no way to confirm this.[[6]]

As Emperor, Tacitus first had Aurelian deified, then seized and executed many individuals involved in plotting Aurelian’s murder.[[7]] Tacitus then turned his attention to the defense of the Empire. Although the Franks, Alamanni, and Longiones posed threats in the north, Tacitus determined that the greater danger lay in the East.[[8]] Aurelian had enlisted the aid of several barbarian tribes, including the Heruli and Maeotidae (referred to as Scythians in the sources), for a projected invasion of Parthia.[[9]] Aurelian’s murder cancelled these plans. Feeling cheated of their opportunity for plunder, the tribes attacked the Roman provinces in Asia Minor, overrunning Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Cilicia, and caused terrible destruction.[[10]] Tacitus appointed his half-brother Florian Praetorian Prefect. They campaigned in the East against the invaders, winning Tacitus the title Gothicus Maximus.[[11]]

Tacitus, however, did not long enjoy his victory: on his way back to Europe, he died. Zosimus and Zonaras preserve the report that Tacitus had appointed a relative of his, Maximinus, as governor of Syria. Maximinus was murdered; then the assassins, fearing Tacitus’s reaction, murdered him. It was alleged that some of them had also had a hand in murdering Aurelian.[[12]] The Historia Augusta more eccentrically reports that Tacitus became ill with a fever and started showing signs of megalomania: but as the month September Tacitus allegedly wanted named after himself dates his accession incorrectly, the story appears to be a fabrication.[[13]] Tacitus died some time in June of 276.[[14]] His memory was neither condemned nor deified.

Tacitus held the consulship at least twice, first in 273 and again in 276.[[15]] There is numismatic evidence of a third consulship but there is no record of a third in any of the fasti, that is, the lists of consuls.[[16]] Because of the paucity of the sources and the brevity of his reign, little can be said of his policies. It is unlikely that the military would choose as Emperor anyone like the contemplative, abstemious civilian the Historia Augusta portrays.[[17]] A hint may be given by the fact that Tacitus’s colleague in the consulship of 273, Julius Placidianus, commanded an army corps in Narbonensis and later went on to be a Praetorian Perfect.[[18]] Nevertheless, some numismatic and epigraphic evidence suggests that Tacitus sought to strike a milder tone than his predecessor. Prominent among his coin legends is Clementia Temporum.[[19]] Unlike both Aurelian and Tacitus‘ successor, Probus, Tacitus did not take the title, deus et dominus natus [„born god and master“].[[20]] He also issued no Sol Invictus coins honoring Aurelian’s favorite deity.[[21]] Some of his coins revive the SC (senatus consulto) marking senatorial authority for the issue, which had been missing in previous reigns. Tacitus also used the Genius Senatus, inscriptions which had disappeared under Valerian.[[23]] Further, in some inscriptions he is styled auctor verae libertatis [„originator of true liberty“], and on coins restitutor rei publicae [„restorer of the state“].[[22]]

Historiography

Tacitus largely fell out of the ancient historiographical record. The best sources are Zosimus and Zonaras. The Historia Augusta creates its own fiction of Tacitus out of forged documents, bogus names and faulty chronology.[[25]]

Two problems emerge from the evidence for Tacitus’s short reign. The first is the six-month interregnum said to have intervened between the death of Aurelian and Tacitus‘ accession. The years 260-285 have been the subject of close chronological scrutiny, and it has been shown that, although there might have been a brief interval between emperors (something not uncommon), amounting to a few weeks, anything longer is not possible.[[26]] The error appears to have originated in the Latin historians, who confused the duration of Tacitus‘ and Florian’s reign with the
brief period between the reigns of Aurelian and Tacitus.[[27]]

The second question is whether or not the edict of the Emperor Gallienus, which had excluded senators from military commands and any other dealings with the military, was set aside during the reigns of Tacitus and Florian.[[28]] Aurelius Victor reports that Gallienus, acting largely through fear of revolts and usurpation, replaced the senators in military offices with Equites. Several passages in the Historia Augusta claim that these edicts were suspended for the duration of the reigns of Tacitus and Florian. The overwhelming consensus among historians, however, is that the passages in the Historia Augusta are unhistorical: no credible evidence suggests that Gallienus‘ edicts were even temporarily set aside.[[29]]

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Chastagnol, André (tr.). Histoire Auguste. Paris, 1994.

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

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

Festy, Michel (ed.). Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Abrégé des Césars. Paris, 1999.

Grenfell, Bernard; Hunt, Arthur. „Horoscope of Sarapammon.“ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Part II. No. 1476. London, 1916.

________. Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol XII. No. 1409. London, 1916.

Hazzard, J.C. (ed.). Eutropius. New York, 1898.

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

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

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

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

Rea, J.R. „The Corn Dole Archive.“ Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol. 90. London, 1972.

Zonaras, Annales (12.27). ed. M. Pinder. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae. Bonn, 1844.

Modern Works:

Alföldi, Andreas. Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche. Darmstadt, 1970.

Anderson, J.G.C. „The Genesis of Diocletian’s Provincial Re-Organization.“ The Journal of Roman Studies. Vol. XXII (1932). Pp. 24-32.

Baynes, Norman. The Historia Augusta: Its Date and Purpose. Oxford, 1926.

________. „Three Notes on the Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine.“ Journal of Roman Studies. Vol. XV (1925) Pp. 195ff.

Den Hengst, Daniel. „Some Notes on the Vita Taciti.“ In Giorgio Bonamente and François Paschoud (eds.), Historiae Augustae Colloquium Genevense. Bari, 1994.

Gilliam, J.F. „The Governors of Syria Coele from Severus to Diocletian,“ AJP, 89 (1958).

Groag, Edmund and Arthur Stein. „Imp. Caesar M. Claudius Tacitus Augustus.“ Prosopographia Imperii Romani. Part II. Claudius, No. 1036. Berlin, 1936.

Hohl, Ernst. „Vopiscus und die Biographie des Kaisers Tacitus.“ Klio. Vol 11 (1911).

Jones, A.H.M., Martindale, J.R. Morris, J. „M. Claudius Tacitus,“ p. 873; „M. Annius Florianus,“ p. 367. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, 1971.

Jones, Tom B. „Three Notes on the Reign of Marcus Claudius Tacitus“. Classical Philology vol. xxxiv (1939). Pp. 366-369.

Keyes, Clinton W. The Rise of the Equites. Princeton, 1915.

Kienast, Dietmar. Römische Kaisertabelle: Grundzüge römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt, 1990.

Kramer, Ida and Tom Jones . „Tribunicia Potestate: A.D. 270-285.“ American Journal of Philology. Vol. lxiv (1943).

Merton, Elke W. Stellenbibliographie zur Historia Augusta. 4 vols. Bonn, 1987.

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

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

Stein, Arthur. „Tacitus.“ Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Vol. 3, cols. 2872-2881 (Claudius No. 361). Stuttgart, 1899.

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

________. Historia Augusta Papers. Oxford, 1983.

Notes:

[[1]]Arthur Stein, „Claudius (no. 361),“ Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, (Stuttgart 1899) [hereafter PW], vol. 3, cols. 2872ff; Theodor Mommsen, ed., Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum [hereafter CIL], vol. VIII Supp. 18844.

[[2]] Willy Liebenam (ed.), Fasti Consulares Imperii Romani (Bonn, 1909), Year 273; CIL VIII, 18844.

[[3]] Edmund Groag & Arthur Stein, Prosopographia Imperii Romani [hereafter PIR], Pars II (Berlin, 1936), p. 251, no. 1036: „A Cornelis Tacitus rerum Sciptore Orgininem trahit Vita,“ 10.3, originem absurde. Also, Dietmar Keinast, Römische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt, 1996), p. 247.

[[4]]Arthur Stein, „Zur Chronologie der römischen Kaiser,“ Archiv für Papyrusforschung 7 (1924), p. 46. Aurelian died in November 275, and Tacitus was probably emperor by December 10, 275 and no later than January 1, 276. Also Michael Peachin, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284, (Amsterdam, 1990), p. 92; PIR p. 252 No. 1036.

[[5]] David Magie, The Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Cambridge, MA, Loeb edition) „Vita Taciti,“ vii.5 [hereafter, SHA, Vita]; Zonaras, Annales, XII.28, ed. M. Pinder, Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1844).

[[6]]SHA, Vita Taciti, VII. 5; Zonaras XII. 28. See, however, Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography (Oxford, 1971) p. 271. Syme casts substantial doubt over the entire portrayal of Tacitus by the Latin Historians.

[[7]] SHA, Vita Taciti, XIII 1-2.

[[8]] German attacks are mentioned in the SHA, Vita Taciti, III.4. Tacitus’s successor, Probus, campaigned along the German border.

[[9]] SHA, Vita Taciti, XII.2-4; Zosimus, 1.63.1; Zonaras, XII.28.

[[10]] See Magie, SHA, Vita Taciti, p. 318 note 3.

[[11]] Appoints his brother prefect, Zonaras, XII.29; victory: Zonaras XII.20; Zosimus I.63; SHA, Vita, XIII.2; CIL XII 5563; Herman Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae [hereafter, Dess.], (Berlin, 1936) vol. 1, 591; Henry Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’Empire romain (Paris & London, 1880-1892), Tacitus, Victoria Gothica: pp. 157-164, Mars Ultor: pp. 55-58, Victoria Aug. pp. 150-156, Victoria Perpetua: pp. 123-124.

[[12]]Zosimus, I.63.2; Zonaras XII.28; J.F. Gilliam, „The Governors of Syria Coele from Severus to Diocletian,“ AJP, 89 (1958).

[[13]]SHA, Vita Taciti, XIII.6.

[[14]] Arthur Stein, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Vol. VII (1924) p. 46 note 5. The latest known dates for Tacitus from papyri are P. Oxy VI 907 June 7, 276; Wessely Text GR. 74 June 23, 276; and P. Strassb. 8 June 8, 276.

[[15]]Op. cit. Leibman (Fasti), p. 271 (276 A.D.)

[[16]]H. Webb, The Roman Imperial Coinage, vol 5, pt.1 (London, 1923)[hereafter, RIC]. A third consulship appears on coins from Ticinum, Tacitus 120-121. The possibilities are discussed J.R. Rea, „The Corn Dole Archive,“ Oxyrhynchus Papyri. vol XL (1972) pp. 27-28.

[[17]] Ronald Syme, Emperors and Biography (Oxford, 1971), p. 247. „…Nothing precludes the hypothesis that Tacitus was a known and eligible character to generals and officers at Caenophrurium… When Tacitus acceded to power, the Danubian armies… made no stir…Tacitus, if the truth could be known, was perhaps one of the Danubian military. He was extracted from his retirement in Campania by the call of duty and the recognition of old friends.“

[[18]] Ibid., Syme; Dess. 569; PIR 468.

[[19]] R.A.G. Carson, Coins of the Roman Empire (London & New York, 1990), p. 124.

[[20]] Tom B. Jones, „Three Notes on the Reign of Marcus Claudius Tacitus,“ Classical Philology, XXXIV (1939), p. 367.

[[21]] Ibid.

[[22]]VERAE LIBERTATIS AUCTOR, CIL XII 5563; REISTITVT. REIPVBLICAE b , Cohen, Tacitus, 107.

[[23]] Andreas Alföldi, Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (Darmstadt, 1980), p. 135; RIC vol. 5. p. 333 no. 75; pp. 346-347, nos. 205 and 209. SC, Cohen. „Tacitus,“ nos. 3, 116, 117, 120 et. al..

[[24]]Daniel Den Hengst, „Some Notes on the Vita Taciti,“ Historiae Augusta Colloquium Genevense (Bari, 1994): p. 104, quantifies, „…less than 10% of the lines deal with facts attested elsewhere“; Syme, op. cit.(1983): p. 214, „…none of the names [in the biography] is genuine save those of emperors.“

[[25]] Ronald Syme, Historia Augusta Papers, (Oxford, 1983) p.116. The major themes the author uses the biography for are „…hostility to hereditary monarchy, boy emperors, eunuchs, bureaucrats.“

[[26]]Stein, op. cit. See note 4.

[[27]] Syme, op. cit. (1971), pp. 237-238.

[[28]] Michael Festy (ed.), Pseudo-Aurelius Victor, Abrégé des Césars (Paris, 1999), 33,33 „...senatum militia vetuit et adire exercitum.“

[[29]]Vita Taciti, 19.2-4; and Vita Probi, 13.1. The veracity of the statements was accepted by L. Homo, „L’empereur Gallien et la crise de l’empire romain au iii^e Sieclè,“ Revue Historique, cxiii (1913), pp. 1-22; 225-267. But this view was convincingly argued against by Norman Baynes, „Three Notes on the Reforms of Diocletian & Constantine,“ Journal of Roman Studies, xv (1925): esp. pp. 198-199; J.G.C. Anderson, „The Genesis of Diocletian’s Provincial Re-Organization,“ Journal of Roman Studies xxii (1932): esp. pp. 27-28. Also see Clinton W. Keyes, The Rise of the Equites in the Third Century of the Roman Empire, (Princeton 1932), pp. 36-37; and Lukas de Blois, The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden, 1976), esp. pp. 39-89.

Copyright (C) 2000, Robin Mc Mahon. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Claudius II Gothicus [und Quintillus]  (268-270)

von Richard D. Weigel (Western Kentucky University)

[http://www.roman-emperors.org/Claudius_Gothicus.jpg]

M. Aurelius Claudius, known to history as Claudius Gothicus or Claudius II, was born in either Dalmatia or Illyria on May 10, probably in A.D. 213 or 214.[[1]] Although the most substantive source on Claudius is the biography in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae (SHA), this account is riddled with fabrications and slanted with fawning praise for this particular emperor, who in the fourth century was viewed as an ancestor of Constantine’s father and thus of the ruling imperial family. This biography, attributed to one Trebellius Pollio, must be read with extreme caution and supplemented with information from other sources, including Aurelius Victor, the Epitome de Caesaribus, Eutropius, Orosius, Zonaras, and Zosimus, as well as coins and inscriptions.

The SHA account describes Claudius as being tall, with fiery eyes, and so strong that he could knock out the teeth of man or beast with one punch. It also says that Trajan Decius rewarded him after Claudius demonstrated his strength while wrestling another soldier in the Campus Martius.[[2]] The SHA author suggests that Claudius may have been descended from the Trojan King Ilus and even from Dardanus, son of Zeus and ancestor of the Trojan royal family, but these suggestions are very likely fabricated to further ennoble Claudius and his putative descendants, the family of Constantine.[[3]] The SHA biography also includes false letters attributed to the emperors Trajan Decius, Valerian, and Gallienus, all attesting to their high opinions of Claudius. Reference is made in these letters to Claudius‘ service as tribune in an otherwise unattested legion V Martialis and also as general in command of Illyria, but these positions may also be fictitious. [[4]] One can assume that Claudius had served for some time in the army, at least under Gallienus and perhaps also under several earlier emperors.

There is some evidence that Claudius was wounded in Gallienus‘ campaign to put down the revolt of Ingenuus and that he later served with Aureolus under Gallienus in the war with Postumus.[[5]] By 268, when Gallienus took his troops into Italy to put down Aureolus‘ revolt, Claudius had emerged as heir-apparent to Gallienus and may also have been involved in the plot to assassinate the emperor.[[6]] Aurelius Victor says that when Gallienus was killed by his own troops besieging Aureolus in Milan, Claudius as tribune was commanding the soldiers stationed at Ticinum, some twenty miles to the south, and that prior to dying Gallienus designated Claudius as his heir. Victor goes on to claim that after succeeding to the purple Claudius forced the Senate to deify Gallienus.[[7]] The SHA account states that the soldiers mutinied after Gallienus‘ death and had to be quieted with a donative of twenty aurei each before settling down and accepting their new emperor.[[8]] Once in power, Claudius quickly dealt with Aureolus, who surrendered and was killed almost immediately. The new emperor also demanded clemency for the supporters of Gallienus.[[9]]

The story of Gallienus‘ deathbed selection of his successor is doubtful at best and is very likely an attempt to deflect blame for the assassination plot from Claudius. The suggestion that the new emperor pressured the Senate to deify Gallienus is more difficult to assess. It is true that securing divine status for one’s predecessor is generally seen as a pious act (e.g. Antoninus Pius requesting deification of Hadrian) that reflects positively on the initiator and the story, recorded only in Aurelius Victor, could just be a fabrication used to build up Claudius‘ moral reputation. What is difficult to penetrate is the biased condemnation
of Gallienus that particularly dominates the Latin sources. They make it hard to see why anyone would want to deify Gallienus and so the story seems out of place. However, deification of a predecessor could also be interpreted as the expected thing to do and the act could have fostered legitimacy of the new emperor and gained support from those who were still loyal to Gallienus so it may well have taken place.

The first major challenge facing the new emperor was that of the Alemanni, who had invaded Raetia and Italy. After an early defeat, Claudius replaced some irresponsible officers and soldiers, designated Aurelian as cavalry commander, and led the army to a decisive victory over the Alemanni.[[10]] This victory earned Claudius the title of Germanicus Maximus and several of his coin-types appear to refer to victory over the Germans.[[11]]

In 269 Claudius served as consul with Paternus.[[12]] This year would also feature his major campaign against the Goths. There are indications that Spain separated itself from the Gallo-Roman Empire of Postumus and Tetricus and recognized Claudius, at least nominally, as emperor. In addition, rebellion within Gaul itself demonstrated the weakening of this independent state, although Claudius avoided engagement at Augustodunum and chose only to send a small force to protect Narbonese Gaul.[[13]] While Claudius concentrated on protecting Roman territory against the Alemanni and Goths, Zenobia extended her Palmyrene Empire by taking Antioch, parts of Asia Minor, and most of Egypt.[[14]] Although Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus portray the period between the reign of Valerian and that of Diocletian as a peaceful pause in the persecution of Christians, the Acts of the Martyrs does list some individuals allegedly martyred during Claudius II’s reign.[[15]]

The coins issued by Claudius II provide some limited insight into his reign.[[16]] In addition to the standard „personified virtues“ coins that are common with most emperors of the second and third centuries, Claudius struck coin-types proclaiming the security of the Empire (SECVRITAS PERPETVA and PAX AETERNA), the fidelity of the army (FIDES MILITVM), and military victories over the Germans and Goths (VICTORIA GERMAN and VICTORIAE GOTHIC).[[17]] In addition, Claudius Gothicus‘ mints struck some other interesting and unusual coin-types. For example, Claudius is one of very few emperors who issued coins portraying the god Vulcan. These must have been limited issues because they are struck only by the Antioch mint and are very rare. The type shows Vulcan standing, with his special tools, the hammer and tongs, and features the unique inscription REGI ARTIS. A variant type with a similar image has been described as carrying another unique coin inscription, DEO CABIRO, and interpreted as depicting one of Vulcan’s sons, the Cabiri, with the same tools. However, the existence of this variant type is doubtful.[[18]] Although the reason for honoring Vulcan (and his sons?) with these coins is unclear, there may be a connection to the fact that the Cabiri were patron gods of Thessalonica who had protected that city against an attack by the Goths.[[19]] Although a connection between Claudius Gothicus and the Cabiri as defenders against Gothic attacks is relatively attractive, it is weakened somewhat by the fact that Valerian and Gallienus had also issued coins with Vulcan in a temple so there may be some other reason for his reappearance on coins in this period.[[20]]

Claudius II issued an unusual and scarce series of coins that features a pair of deities, who are presumably conservatores Augusti, on each reverse. The AETER AVG type depicts Apollo and Diana, who, as gods of the sun and moon, are associated with the concept of aeternitas.[[21]] A type featuring Serapis and Isis is combined with a CONSER AVG inscription and one of Hercules and Minerva with one of CONSERVATORES AVG.[[22]] Apollo and Diana are depicted with a SALVS AVG inscription, Aesculapius and Salus with one of SPES PVBLIC, and Vulcan and Minerva with VIRT AVG. [[23]] The general message is that these deities will protect the future of the empire and the emperor.[[24]]

Other unusual coin-types include MARS VLTOR, the god Augustus had honored with a temple for securing revenge for Caesar’s assassination. This deity had appeared on Roman coins in the reigns of Galba and Severus Alexander.[[25]] Claudius II also minted coins with rarely-seen NEPTVN AVG and SOL AVG types.[[26]] The latter coin indicates some early interest in the god who would become so dominant a few years later on the coins of Aurelian, yet Claudius also used the INVICTVS AVG inscription that Gallienus had paired with an image of Sol with one of Hercules.[[27]] ROMAE AETERNAE coin-types were fairly common in the mid-third century, but Claudius II issued an unusual variant type on an aureus that showed the goddess in her temple and echoed the SAECVLVM NOVVM images associated with Philip I.[[28]] In addition, Claudius introduced a IOVI VICTORI reverse combined with the image normally paired with a IOVI STATORI inscription and a IOVI FVLGERAT reverse inscription, both of which had not been used by any of his predecessors.[[29]] Andreas Alföldi suggested that Claudius‘ GENIVS SENATVS type signified improvement of the relationship between emperor and Senate following the senatorial hostility toward Gallienus.[[30]]

Claudius Gothicus also produced coin-types with reverses of goddesses customarily found paired on coins with images of the Roman empresses. The deities portrayed include Ceres, Diana, Diana Lucifera, and Diana Victrix, Minerva, Venus, and the goddess naturally associated with the image of an empress, Juno Regina.[[31]] One might suggest that Claudius issued these images because he had no empress with which to pair them, but an examination of other emperors‘ reigns during this period reveals that those emperors who did not issue coins bearing the empress‘ image also did not strike these particular goddess types. Although Ceres and Venus images are sometimes paired with an emperor’s portrait, Diana Lucifera is rarely found on emperors‘ coins and Claudius II is the only emperor paired on coins with Juno Regina. In addition, Claudius was the first emperor to issue imperial coins that featured an isolated image of the exotic Egyptian goddess, Isis Faria.[[32]]

Claudius II’s short reign was vulnerable to internal as well as external attack. There may have been a revolt in 269-270 led by a Censorinus, although the date and even the existence of this usurper remain in doubt. The SHA includes him as the last of the „thirty tyrants“ and lists a whole series of offices for him, including two consulships, but no other record exists to confirm such service. The SHA account states that he was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers, but soon afterwards killed by them because of his enforcement of strict discipline. His tomb is listed as being in Bologna, which may provide some idea of the location for the revolt. Henry Cohen dates the revolt to the beginning of the year 270, perhaps on the basis of a reference in the Epitome de Caesaribus, but suggests that coins attributed to Censorinus in earlier works may not exist.[[33]]

The Gothic challenge in 269 proved to be the greatest that Claudius II would face. The Goths assembled a large invading force, reportedly amounting to 320,000 men transported on a fleet of at least 2,000 ships, and first attacked coastal cities along the Black Sea in Moesia. After passing into the Aegean the Goths besieged Thessalonica. At this point, in 269, Claudius left Rome to stop the invasion. The Goths then sent the larger segment of their troops on land toward the Danube, while the fleet took the remaining group to continue the naval attack on Aegean coastal cities. Claudius sent Aurelian’s cavalry to Macedonia to protect Illyria from attack, while he commanded the forces blocking the route to the Danube. In the area of Doberus and Pelagonia, the Goths lost 3,000 men to Aurelian’s cavalry. At Naissus in Moesia, Claudius‘ force succeeded in killing some 50,000 Goths. There were follow-up operations on both land and sea, but the Gothic War had essentially been won.[[34]] Staving off the attacks of the Goths was a major contribution to the survival of the Roman Empire. It was a significant step leading to the subsequent success of Aurelian and the resurrection of the Empire under Diocletian and Constantine. When the Goths eventually succeeded in taking parts of the western Empire in the fifth century, their disruption to the course of civilization was likely much less violent than it would have been had they succeeded in the third century.

In addition to bad weather, a lack of supplies, and hunger, plague was a major factor in the defeat of the Goths. Many of the Gothic prisoners were either impressed into Roman military service or settled on farms as coloni. [[35]] Claudius received the title Gothicus in recognition of his triumph over the Goths. At some point he had also been given the title Parthicus, but the unlikelihood of any conflict with the Parthians in his short reign makes this difficult to explain. Perhaps Damerau was correct in his suggestion that a Parthian unit may have been involved in one of the battles with the Palmyrenes, although on this front there were few achievements to claim.[[36]] In any case, Claudius‘ victory over the Goths was short-lived. The emperor himself caught the plague and died at Sirmium early in 270. He was 56 years old.[[37]] Claudius‘ brother, Quintillus, became emperor briefly before losing out to Aurelian. Claudius also had another brother, Crispus, and the SHA traces the link to Constantius through Crispus‘ daughter Claudia.[[38]]

The Roman Senate showed its respect for Claudius Gothicus by setting up a gold portrait-shield in the Curia and by approving his deification. He was also honored with a golden statue in front of the great temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and a silver statue set on a column on the Rostra.^[[39]]

In many ways, Claudius II received more adulation and honor in his Nachleben than he had during his lifetime. In the fourth century, attempts to link Constantine’s family to Claudius resulted in the phrases of adoration and outright fabrication that dominate the SHA life and most of our other sources. Constantine even issued commemorative coins honoring Claudius. These carried inscriptions such as: DIVO CLAVDIO OPT[IMO] IMP[ERATORI], MEMORIAE AETERNAE, and REQVIES OPT[IMORVM] ME[RITORVM].[[40]] A tradition grew that changed the story of Claudius‘ death in some sources.
In this version, Claudius, instead of dying from the plague, had actually performed a devotio, in response to an oracle found in the Sibylline Books, and sacrificed his life so that Rome could win the Gothic War.[[41]] One of the most surprising things about the SHA account is that it ignores this more dramatic tradition and has Claudius simply dying from the plague.[[42]]

One must, of course, reject the excessive claims of the SHA to the effect that Claudius II was „destined to rule for the good of the human race“ and would, had he lived longer, „…by his strength, his counsel, and his foresight have restored to us the Scipios, the Camilli, and all those men of old.“[[43]] However, Claudius Gothicus was clearly a good emperor who made a significant contribution to protecting and restoring the Empire. In the third century there aren’t too many emperors who merit such an assessment.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources:

Alföldi, A. „The Crisis of the Empire“ chapter 6 in Cambridge Ancient History 12, 165-231

________.“Zur Kenntnis der Zeit der römischen Soldatenkaiser“ in Zeitschrift für Numismatik (1927), 197-212

Ancona, M. Claudio II e gli usurpatori (Messina, 1901)

Baldini, A. „Claudio Gotico e Costantino in Aurelio Vittore ed Epitome de Caesaribus“ in G. Bonamente and F. Fusco, editors, Costantino il Grande 1 (2 vols., Macerata, 1992-1993), 73-89

Barnes, T. „Some Persons in the Historia Augusta“ in Phoenix 26 (1972), 140-182

Bird, H., translator, Liber de Caesaribus of Sextus Aurelius Victor (Liverpool, 1994)

________. „The Historia Augusta on Constantine’s Lineage“ in Arctos 31 (1997), 9-17.

Cohen, H. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire romain 6 (Paris, 1880-1892)

Cope, L. „The Nadir of the Imperial Antoninianus in the Reign of Claudius Gothicus“ in Numismatic Chronicle (1969), 145-161

Damerau, P. Kaiser Claudius II. Goticus (Leipzig, 1934)

Duncker, A. Claudius Gothicus (Diss: Marburg, 1868)

Henze, W. „Aurelius Claudius #82“ in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. II, 2458-2462

Homo, L. De Claudio Gothico, Romanorum Imperatore (268-270) (Paris, 1903)

Kettenhofen, E. „Die Einfälle der Heruler ins Römische Reich im 3. Jh. N. Chr.“ in Klio 74 (1992), 291-313

Kotula, T. Cesarz Klaudiusz II I Bellum Gothicum lat 269-270 (Wroclaw, 1994)

Lippold, A. „Constantius Caesar, Sieger über die Germanen. Nachfahre des Claudius Gothicus?“ in Chiron 11 (1981), 347-369

________. „Kaiser Claudius II. (Gothicus), Vorfahr Konstantins d. Gr., und der römische Senat“ Klio 74 (1992), 380-394

E. Merten, Stellenbiographie zur Historia Augusta 4 (Bonn, 1987)

Parker, H. A History of the Roman World A.D. 138-337 (London, 1958)

Robertson, A. Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet IV (Oxford, 1978)

Stein, A. „Censorinus #4“ in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E.. III.2, 1908

________. „Zeitbestimmungen von Gallienus bis Aurelian“ in Klio 21 (1927),, 78-82

Stevenson, S. A Dictionary of Roman Coins (London, 1889)

Strootmann, W. „Der Sieg über die Alamannen im Jahre 268“ in Hermes 30 (1895), 355-360

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

________. „The Ancestry of Constantine“ in J. von Straub, editor, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1971 (Bonn, 1974), 237-253

Watson, Alaric, Aurelian and the Third Century (London, 1999)

Webb, P. Roman Imperial Coinage 5.1 (London, 1927)

Weigel, R. „Juno Regina and the Roman Empresses“ in SAN 12 (1981), 31-32

Wolfram, H. History of the Goths (Translated by T. Dunlap, Berkeley, 1988)

Notes:

[[1]] Damerau, 39. Henze (2458) suggests 219 or 220, but the earlier date has greater support.

[[2]] SHA Claud. 13.5-8.

[[3]] SHA Claud. 11.9.

[[4]] SHA Claud. 14-17; see Damerau, 21-24 and Syme, 215-216.

[[5]] SHA Gall. 7.1; Damerau, 43.

[[6]] Zosimus 1.40.

[[7]] Aur. Vict. 33; Bird, Liber, 34-35, 143 n.26, and 144 n.27.

[[8]] SHA Gall.15.1-2.; Parker, 187

[[9]] Aur. Vict. 33; SHA Claud. 5; Parker, 187.

[[10]] SHA Aur.18.1; SHA Claud. 11.6-9; Damerau, 52-54, Parker, 187-188.

[[11]] CIL 3.3521 and 12.2228; RIC 108 and 247-250; Damerau, 53, Henze, 2459. For lists of inscriptions pertaining to the reign of Claudius II, see Damerau, 103-107 and Homo, 97-106.

[[12]] Damerau, 38.

[[13]] Henze, 2459-2460; Parker, 188.

[[14]] Zos. 1.44-45; SHA Claud. 11.1-2;
SHA
XXX Tyr. 30.3, 11; Ancona, 32-44; Damerau, 54-61; Henze, 2460-2461;
Parker, 190-191.

[[15]] Homo, 116-118.

[[16]] A. Markl published a seies of articles on the coins of Claudius II in Wiener Numismatische Zeitschrift over the period from 1876 to 1905. Several are referenced in Henze, 2458 and Webb, xi. In addition to Cohen, Robertson, and Webb, see the lists in Homo, 107-115 and Damerau, 92-103.

[[17]] See RIC 230, 237-239, 243, 246-252, 282.

[[18]] RIC 204 and 215. A. Robertson (p. lxxii, n.3) raised the possibility that the DEO CABIRO coin is only a misreading of the REGI ARTIS type, but the scarcity of these coins makes that difficult to verify. See also Homo, 108, citing Markl.

[[19]] P. Webb, 203-204. Webb cites Banduri as his source.

[[20]] RIC Valerian 1, Gallienus 633, and Valerian II 2.

[[21]] RIC 198.

[[22]] RIC 202 and 203.

[[23]] RIC 219, 222, and 224.

[[24]] Three other scarce issues from Antioch, RIC 200 (CONCOR AVG with two veiled figures holding torches and ears of corn), 206 (FELIC AVG with Felicitas and a female figure), and 211 (IOVI CONSERV AVG with Jupiter and the Emperor) could also be included in this series.

[[25]] Stevenson, 541; RIC 66-67 and 126..

[[26]] RIC 214 and 221.

[[27]] RIC 50, RIC Gallienus 640; Homo, 109, citing Markl, doubted the authenticity of this piece.

[[28]] RIC 132.

[[29]] RIC 6, 51, 53, and 124.

[[30]] Alföldi, Crisis, 191. An improved relationship between emperor and Senate is certainly in accord with the reported senatorial honors given to Claudius II following his death. See below.

[[31]] RIC 24, 29, 144, 205, 212, 236, and 245. Weigel, 31-32.

[[32]] RIC 217-218; see also 202 with Isis and Serapis, discussed above.

[[33]] SHA XXX Tyr. 33; Epitome de Caesaribus 34.3; Cohen VI, 173; Henze, 2461; Stein, „Censorinus“, 1908.

[[34]] Zos. 1.42-46; SHA Claud. 6-9, 11.3-4, 12.1; Damerau, 62-75; Henze, 2460.

[[35]] Zos. 1.46; SHA Claud. 9.4-7; Wolfram, 55.

[[36]] Damerau, 61; Henze, 2461.

[[37]] SHA Claud. 12.2-3; Oros. 7.23; Eutr. 9.11; Henze, 2460. Alaric Watson (221-222) places Claudius‘ death in August of 270, citing evidence from Egyptian coin issues, but this view was raised over a century ago and has not generally prevailed. See Stein, „Zeitbestimmungen“, 80-82.

[[38]] SHA Claud.13.1-4; see Watson, 47, 222.

[[39]] SHA Claud.3.3-5; Eutrop. 9.11; Oros. 7.23; Henze, 2462; Parker, 191-192.

[[40]] RIC V.1, pp. 203, 236-237 (coins 292-299); Damerau, 82-84; Homo, 92-96.

[[41]] Aur. Vict. 34; Amm. Mar. 16.10.3 and 31.5-7; Syme, 203-205, 234-235; Lippold, „Kaiser“, 389-390.

[[42]] SHA Claud. 12.2-3; Syme, 203-205, 234-235.

[[43]] SHA Claud. 1.3 (Loeb translation by David Magie).

Copyright © 2001, Richard D. Weigel. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

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.

WIKIPEDIA

Die freie Enzyklopädie

Severus Alexander

Von der Wikipedia-Community als lesenswert ausgezeichneter Artikel
Version v. 9. November 2012, http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=110279929

Severus Alexander (* 1. Oktober 208 in Arca Caesarea, Arqa im heutigen Libanon; † im März 235 in der Nähe von Mogontiacum) war vom 13. März 222 bis zu seinem Tod römischer Kaiser. Die in älterer Literatur gängige Namensform Alexander Severus ist nicht authentisch. Sein ursprünglicher Name war Bassianus Alexianus. Ab Juni 221 nannte er sich Marcus Aurelius Alexander, als Kaiser trug er den Namen Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander.

Im Juni 221 wurde der noch nicht dreizehnjährige Alexander von seinem nur vier Jahre älteren Vetter, Kaiser Elagabal, zum Caesar erhoben und damit zum Nachfolger bestimmt. Im folgenden Jahr konnte er nach Elagabals Ermordung problemlos die Herrschaft antreten. Zeit seines Lebens stand er unter dem dominierenden Einfluss seiner Mutter Julia Mamaea. Sie war die eigentliche Herrscherin und arrangierte auch seine Ehe. Da sie sich aber weder bei den hauptstädtischen Prätorianern noch im Heer Autorität verschaffen konnte, war ihre Machtausübung stets prekär.

Nach einem verlustreichen Perserkrieg mit unentschiedenem Ausgang musste der Kaiser zur Abwehr eines Germaneneinfalls an den Rhein eilen. Dort wurde ihm seine Unbeliebtheit im Heer zum Verhängnis. Er fiel mit seiner Mutter einer Soldatenmeuterei zum Opfer.

Mit Alexanders Tod endete die Dynastie der Severer. Es begann die Epoche der Soldatenkaiser und mit ihr die „Reichskrise des 3. Jahrhunderts“, eine krisenhafte Verschärfung der von den Severern hinterlassenen strukturellen Probleme.

Herkunft, Kindheit und Aufstieg zur Macht

Alexander war von mütterlicher wie von väterlicher Seite syrischer Herkunft. Sein Vater, der Procurator Gessius Marcianus, war ein Ritter aus Arca Caesarea, wo Alexander am 1. Oktober 208 geboren wurde. Seine Mutter Julia Mamaea gehörte dem Senatorenstand an, war also von vornehmerer Abstammung als sein Vater. Sie war eine Tochter der Julia Maesa, der Schwester der Kaiserin Julia Domna, und war, bevor sie die Ehe mit Gessius Marcianus schloss, in erster Ehe mit einem Konsular verheiratet gewesen. Ihre Familie stammte aus der syrischen Stadt Emesa (heute Homs) und war dort sehr angesehen.^[1] Julia Domna, Alexanders Großtante, war die Frau des Kaisers Septimius Severus (193–211), der die Dynastie der Severer gegründet hatte. Alexander war also mit dem Dynastiegründer nicht verwandt, sondern war nur ein Enkel von dessen Schwägerin. Dennoch wird er zu den Severern gezählt.

Alexanders Urgroßvater Julius Bassianus, der Vater von Julia Domna und Julia Maesa, hatte in Emesa das Amt des Oberpriesters des Sonnengottes Elagabal ausgeübt, das in der Familie erblich war. Nach diesem Urgroßvater erhielt Alexander seinen ursprünglichen Namen Bassianus. Schon als Kind wurde er in den Elagabal-Kult eingeführt und mit einer priesterlichen Funktion betraut.^[2]

Am 8. April 217 wurde Kaiser Caracalla, der Sohn und Nachfolger des Septimius Severus, in Mesopotamien auf einem Feldzug ermordet. Nach anfänglichem Zögern erhob das Heer den Prätorianerpräfekten Macrinus, der das Attentat auf Caracalla organisiert hatte, zum neuen Kaiser. Dies bedeutete einen Dynastiewechsel; Macrinus bestimmte sogleich seinen unmündigen Sohn zum künftigen Nachfolger. Damit war die syrische Sippe, der Alexander angehörte, von den Schalthebeln der Macht entfernt. Julia Domna nahm sich das Leben.

Da die männliche Nachkommenschaft von Septimius Severus und Julia Domna nun ausgestorben war, wollte Alexanders Großmutter Maesa ihren eigenen Nachkommen die Kaiserwürde verschaffen. Dafür war ihr vierzehnjähriger Enkel Elagabal, Alexanders Vetter, ausersehen. Er war der Sohn von Julia Soaemias, der älteren Schwester von Julia Mamaea.

Der neue Kaiser Macrinus konnte nur durch einen Militäraufstand zugunsten Elagabals entmachtet werden. Um Elagabal bei den Soldaten Popularität zu verschaffen, behaupteten seine Parteigänger, er sei ein unehelicher Sohn des im Heer sehr beliebten Caracalla. Diese Vorgehensweise erwies sich als erfolgreich. Am 16. Mai 218 wurde Elagabal von einer in der Nähe von Emesa stationierten Legion zum Kaiser ausgerufen, und im Juni besiegte seine Streitmacht in Syrien die Truppen des Macrinus. Damit war der Bürgerkrieg entschieden. Nun konnte sich Maesa mit ihren beiden Töchtern Soaemias und Mamaea und ihren Enkeln Elagabal und Alexander nach Rom begeben, um dort die Macht zu übernehmen und für den jugendlichen Elagabal die Regierung zu führen. Alexander wurde von seiner Mutter und seiner Großmutter erzogen; sein Vater scheint schon früh gestorben zu sein.^[3]

Bald erwies sich aber der junge Kaiser Elagabal als eigenwillig und beratungsresistent und machte sich allgemein verhasst. Dadurch entstand eine für den Fortbestand der Dynastie sehr gefährliche Krise, die sich 220/221 zuspitzte. Daher begannen Maesa und Mamaea Alexander als Nachfolger Elagabals aufzubauen. Der neue Hoffnungsträger wurde schon seit längerem wie Elagabal als unehelicher Sohn Caracallas ausgegeben.^[4] Damit sollte die Sympathie der Soldaten, die Caracalla weiterhin sehr schätzten, gewonnen werden. Im Juni 221 wurde der noch nicht dreizehnjährige Alexander für mündig erklärt und erhielt die Caesarwürde. Elagabal musste ihn adoptieren und so zum Nachfolger bestimmen. 222 bekleideten die beiden zusammen das Konsulat.

Mit der Adoption war ein Namenswechsel verbunden. Der Dynastiegründer Septimius Severus hatte sich zwecks Legitimierung seiner Herrschaft als Adoptivsohn des 180 gestorbenen beliebten Kaisers Mark Aurel ausgegeben.^[5] Damit hatte er sich in die Tradition der Adoptivkaiser gestellt, deren Epoche als Glanzperiode der römischen Geschichte galt. Caracalla und Elagabal hielten an dieser fiktiven Verbindung mit den Adoptivkaisern des 2. Jahrhunderts fest. Sie gaben mit ihren offiziellen Kaisernamen zu erkennen, dass sie sich als Angehörige der gens Aurelia, der Sippe Mark Aurels, betrachteten. Alexander ordnete sich mit seiner Adoption durch Elagabal ebenfalls in diesen Traditionszusammenhang ein. Er nahm den neuen Namen Marcus Aurelius Alexander an, mit dem er seine angebliche Zugehörigkeit zur gens Aurelia ausdrückte. Der Wechsel von Alexianus zu Alexander hängt mit der damals verbreiteten Verehrung Alexanders des Großen zusammen, die vor allem Caracalla praktiziert hatte.^[6]

Kaiser Elagabal erkannte die Gefahr, die ihm von seinem Vetter Alexander drohte, und versuchte wiederholt ihn umzubringen. Vergeblich trachtete er ihm den Caesartitel zu entziehen. So entwickelte sich zwischen den beiden Rivalen und ihren Müttern ein Existenzkampf, in dem Maesa auf der Seite Mamaeas stand. Die Schlüsselrolle kam dabei den in Rom stationierten Soldaten zu, insbesondere den Prätorianern, der hauptstädtischen Gardetruppe, um deren Gunst sich beide Mütter bemühten. Dabei war Mamaea erfolgreicher, aber die beiden Prätorianerpräfekten hielten bis zum Schluss zu Elagabal.^[7] Meuternde Soldaten, die von Mamaea gesteuert wurden, ermordeten Elagabal am 11. März 222. Der dreizehnjährige Alexander übernahm problemlos die Kaiserwürde. Am 13. März wurde er vom Heer zum Kaiser ausgerufen, am folgenden Tag verlieh ihm der Senat den Titel Augustus. Als Grundlage seiner Zugehörigkeit zum Kaisergeschlecht der Aurelier betrachtete er fortan nicht mehr die Adoption durch Elagabal, sondern seine fiktive Abstammung von Caracalla. Auf Inschriften wurde er als Sohn des „göttlichen Antoninus“ (Caracalla) bezeichnet.^[8] Außerdem nahm er den an Septimius Severus erinnernden Namen Severus an.

Regierungszeit

Innenpolitik

Im Unterschied zu Elagabal erwies sich Severus Alexander als lenkbar. Zunächst führten Maesa und Mamaea gemeinsam die Regierung. Sie setzten ein Beratergremium von sechzehn angesehenen Senatoren ein, dem sie erheblichen Einfluss einräumten.^[9]

Maßgebliche Rolle der Mutter

Maesa, die schon betagt war, starb um 224.^[10] Von da an war Mamaea faktisch bis zum Ende von Alexanders Regierungszeit Alleinherrscherin. Inschriften und Münzen dokumentieren ihre außergewöhnliche Rolle. Ab 222 trug sie den Titel Augusta. Weitere Titel waren „Mutter des Senats“ und „Mutter des Vaterlandes“; übereifrige Verehrer in Hispanien bezeichneten sie sogar auf einer Ehreninschrift als „Mutter des ganzen Menschengeschlechts“.^[11] Sie ließ den jungen Kaiser sorgfältig erziehen, überließ ihm aber keine Entscheidungsbefugnisse. Ein gutes Verhältnis zum Senat war ihr wichtig. Sie pflegte demonstrativ traditionelle römische Tugenden und Werte. Eigenwillige Maßnahmen Elagabals, die in der konservativen Führungsschicht Anstoß erregt hatten, wurden rückgängig gemacht.^[12] Der neue, senatsfreundliche Kurs bedeutete eine Abkehr von der Politik der früheren Severer, deren Verhältnis zum Senat gespannt gewesen war.^[13] Dass Mamaeas Kooperationsbereitschaft im Senat Anklang fand, zeigt ein von Johannes Zonaras überliefertes Fragment aus dem Geschichtswerk des Senators Cassius Dio. Dort heißt es, Mamaea habe ihrem Sohn kluge Berater besorgt und unter den Senatoren die besten Ratgeber ausgewählt.^[14]

Meutereien und Aufstände

Die Hauptschwäche der Regierung des von seiner Mutter gelenkten Kaisers war das Fehlen einer eigenen Machtbasis. Mamaea und Alexander waren vom Wohlwollen der Prätorianer abhängig. Das Ausmaß des aus dieser Schwäche resultierenden Autoritätsverfalls trat schon 223 in der Prätorianerkrise dramatisch zutage. Mamaea hatte 222 dem bedeutenden Juristen Ulpian das Oberkommando über die Prätorianer anvertraut, doch gelang es nicht, die Truppe zu disziplinieren. Aus geringfügigem Anlass entwickelten sich dreitägige Straßenkämpfe zwischen den Prätorianern und der Stadtbevölkerung, die zu chaotischen Verhältnissen in der Stadt führten. Erst als die bedrängten Prätorianer Häuser in Brand setzten und eine allgemeine Feuersbrunst drohte, gaben ihre Gegner nach.^[15] Ulpian konnte einen Machtkampf mit seinen Untergebenen, den Prätorianerpräfekten Julius Flavianus und Geminius Chrestus, für sich entscheiden; die beiden Präfekten wurden hingerichtet.^[16] Als aber im folgenden Jahr die Prätorianer meuterten, musste Ulpian in den Kaiserpalast flüchten. Dort konnte ihn Mamaea nicht schützen; in ihrer und Alexanders Anwesenheit wurde er von den Prätorianern ermordet. Der Hauptverantwortliche für den Mord, Epagathus, konnte wegen der Gefahr neuer Unruhen nicht in Rom bestraft werden. Er musste unter dem Vorwand der Ernennung zum Statthalter von Ägypten aus der Hauptstadt entfernt werden. Von Ägypten wurde er nach Kreta gebracht, wo er hingerichtet wurde.^[17]

Im Reich brachen zahlreiche Unruhen und Aufstände aus, die niedergeworfen wurden.^[18]

Gesetzgebung

Die Hauptquelle für die gesetzgeberische Tätigkeit Alexanders ist der Codex Iustinianus, eine Gesetzessammlung des 6. Jahrhunderts. Sie enthält 427 Verordnungen (constitutiones), die nach heutigem Forschungsstand Alexander zuzuweisen sind.^[19] Eine starke legislative Aktivität ist vor allem zu Beginn der Regierungszeit, in den Jahren 223 und 224, zu verzeichnen. In der Darstellung seiner gesetzgeberischen Ziele betonte Alexander einerseits moralische Grundsätze und die Notwendigkeit besonderer Strenge bei Verstößen, welche die soziale Ordnung gefährdeten, andererseits aber auch die herrscherliche Milde (clementia), eine nach alter Tradition wichtige Herrschertugend. Damit gab er seine Distanzierung von der Regierungspraxis seiner Vorgänger zu erkennen.^[20] Ein Themenbereich, dem sein besonderes Interesse galt, war die Regelung der appellatio, der Berufung an den Kaiser nach einem gerichtlichen Verfahren. Er wollte verhindern, dass untere Instanzen durch Einschüchterung die Berufung an den Kaiser unterbanden. Damit versuchte er seine Kontrolle über den Justizapparat zu verbessern.^[21] Ferner stellte er sich als gewissenhaften Verwalter der Staatsfinanzen dar und beteuerte seinen Wunsch, die Steuerlast zu reduzieren, den er ansatzweise in die Tat umsetzte.^[22]

Ehe

Mamaea suchte für Alexander die Patrizierin Orbiana als Ehefrau aus. Orbiana stammte aus einer vornehmen senatorischen, aber politisch unbedeutenden Familie. Die im Jahr 225 geschlossene Ehe blieb kinderlos und hielt nicht lange, denn es kam zu einem Machtkampf zwischen der Mutter und dem Schwiegervater des Kaisers. Orbianas Vater Seius Sallustius versuchte erfolglos die Prätorianer gegen Mamaea aufzuwiegeln. Mamaea setzte sich durch, sie erzwang 227 die Scheidung der Ehe ihres Sohnes. Seius Sallustius wurde hingerichtet, Orbiana nach Afrika verbannt. Diesmal erwiesen sich die Prätorianer als loyal, doch wagte es Mamaea nach dieser Erfahrung nicht, ihren Sohn erneut zu verheiraten.^[23] Das Fehlen eines Nachkommen und einer Nachfolgeregelung verschärfte die prekäre Situation.

Der Geschichtsschreiber Herodian behauptet, Alexander habe eigentlich auf der Seite seiner Frau und seines Schwiegervaters gestanden, aber seiner Mutter nicht zu widersprechen gewagt. Solches Hintergrundwissen ist Herodian aber kaum zuzutrauen; vermutlich gibt er Gerüchte wieder, die damals bei den Gegnern Mamaeas, zu denen er selbst zählt, kursierten.^[24]

In der Historia Augusta, einer spätantiken Quelle, wird mit Berufung auf den athenischen Geschichtsschreiber Dexippus mitgeteilt, Alexander habe seinen Schwiegervater zum Caesar ernannt. Der Schwiegervater wird hier Macrinus oder Macrianus genannt.^[25] In älterer Forschungsliteratur wurde dieser angebliche Caesar entweder mit Seius Sallustius identifiziert oder mit dem Vater einer hypothetischen früheren Ehefrau Alexanders.^[26] Nach heutigem Forschungsstand ist jedoch davon auszugehen, dass Orbiana die einzige Gemahlin Alexanders war und dass Seius Sallustius nicht zum Caesar erhoben wurde.^[27] Möglicherweise ist Sallustius mit Quintus Sallustius Macrinianus identisch, der unter Septimius Severus als Statthalter der Provinzen Mauretania Caesariensis und Mauretania Tingitana amtierte. Dies könnte den in der Historia Augusta angegebenen Namen erklären.^[28]

Religionspolitik

Gegenüber den Christen, die schon unter Elagabal nicht verfolgt worden waren, war die Regierung Alexanders und seiner Mutter tolerant. Mamaea stand mit dem prominenten Kirchenschriftsteller Origenes in Kontakt,^[29] aber die Behauptungen spätantiker christlicher Quellen, ein Teil der Umgebung des Kaisers oder gar seine Mutter selbst habe den christlichen Glauben praktiziert, sind nicht glaubwürdig. Anscheinend neigten Mamaea und Alexander – einer Tendenz ihrer Zeit folgend – zum Synkretismus, zur Vermischung von Einflüssen verschiedener Religionen.^[30] Die erst in der Spätantike auftauchende Behauptung, Alexander habe in einer privaten Kultstätte neben den vergöttlichten Kaisern und anderen vorbildlichen Persönlichkeiten auch Christus, Abraham und Orpheus verehrt,^[31] wird von der Forschung sehr skeptisch betrachtet.^[32]

Bautätigkeit

In der Historia Augusta wird von ausgedehnter Bautätigkeit Alexanders berichtet. Ihren Angaben zufolge hat er sowohl neue Bauwerke errichtet als auch alte renoviert. Die Einzelheiten sind nur teilweise nachprüfbar; zum Teil dürfte es sich um erfundene Behauptungen des unzuverlässigen Geschichtsschreibers handeln. Gut bezeugt ist Alexanders Erweiterung der Nerothermen, die thermae Alexandrinae. Auch ein Aquädukt, den er errichten ließ, die aqua Alexandrina, wurde nach ihm benannt; eine Münze von 226 bestätigt den Bau. Im 17. Jahrhundert konnte der Aquädukt identifiziert werden. Der Verlauf der Wasserleitung außerhalb der Stadt ist nur zum Teil bekannt; wie sie innerhalb des antiken Stadtgebiets verlief, ist unbekannt.^[33] Zu den Bauten, die renoviert wurden oder deren Wiederherstellung zumindest geplant war, sollen ein Theater – offenbar das Marcellustheater –, der Circus Maximus, das Kolosseum und ein Stadion – wahrscheinlich das Stadion Domitians – gehört haben. Ferner ließ er angeblich in Rom zahlreiche Bäder bauen.^[34] Er soll auch von Trajan gebaute Brücken ausgebessert und neue gebaut haben; da eine solche Renovation in einem Fall inschriftlich bezeugt ist, gilt die Nachricht als glaubwürdig.^[35]

Außenpolitik und Kriege

Außenpolitische Konflikte, die ein militärisches Vorgehen erforderlich machten, waren für Alexander wegen seiner schmalen Machtbasis und mangelnden militärischen Kompetenz riskant. Sowohl eine Abwesenheit des Kaisers von der Hauptstadt als auch die Beauftragung eines Kommandeurs mit einem Feldzug bedeutete eine existenzielle Gefährdung, da jede solche Konstellation Anreiz zu einer Rebellion bieten konnte. Diese Labilität der Herrschaft trat in den letzten Jahren von Alexanders Regierungszeit zutage, als es zu zwei großen militärischen Auseinandersetzungen kam: dem Perserkrieg und dem Germanenkrieg. Beide erforderten die Anwesenheit des Kaisers.

Die persische Herausforderung

Im Osten hatte Ardaschir I., ursprünglich ein persischer Vasall des Partherreichs, in den zwanziger Jahren des dritten Jahrhunderts die Macht des parthischen Königsgeschlechts der Arsakiden gebrochen und das persische Sasanidenreich gegründet. In Armenien stießen die Perser allerdings auf hartnäckigen Widerstand, denn dort hatten die Arsakiden starken Rückhalt.^[36] Mit der sasanidischen Expansion bahnte sich eine militärische Konfrontation des römischen und des neupersischen Reichs an. 230 oder 231 drang ein persisches Heer in die römische Provinz Mesopotamia ein, verwüstete sie und belagerte Nisibis. Syrien und Kappadokien waren bedroht.^[37] Auf der römischen Seite wurde die Gefahr sehr ernst genommen; man unterstellte dem Sasaniden die Absicht einer Wiedererrichtung des altpersischen Achaimenidenreichs, zu dem alle später römischen Gebiete Vorderasiens gehört hatten. Tatsächlich scheint Ardaschir an die Tradition altpersischer Machtentfaltung angeknüpft zu haben, wenn auch seine Geschichtskenntnisse wohl bescheiden waren. Allerdings gibt es keinen stichhaltigen Beleg dafür, dass er wirklich eine Forderung auf alle einstmals achaimenidischen Territorien erhob.^[38]

Alexander versuchte zu verhandeln. Nach Herodians Darstellung ließ er Ardaschir durch eine Gesandtschaft ein Schreiben zukommen, in dem er an römische Siege über die Parther erinnerte und den Sasaniden zur Respektierung der bestehenden Grenze aufforderte. Sein Bemühen um eine friedliche Beilegung des Konflikts blieb jedoch erfolglos.^[39] Ardaschir ließ sich nicht beeindrucken, sondern setzte unbeirrt seinen Expansionskurs fort. Daher musste der Kaiser im Frühjahr 231 mit Mamaea Rom verlassen, um den Gegenangriff persönlich zu leiten.

Auf die an der Ostgrenze stationierten Truppen, die bei einer Meuterei ihren Befehlshaber Flavius Heracleo getötet hatten, war wenig Verlass. Ihre Disziplin und Kampfmoral war offenbar schlecht.^[40]

Den Winter 231/232 verbrachte Alexander in Antiocheia, wo er den Feldzug vorbereitete. Erneut schickte er eine Gesandtschaft mit einem Friedensvorschlag zu Ardaschir. Der Sasanide reagierte mit einer Gegengesandtschaft, die aus vierhundert bewaffneten persischen Reitern bestanden haben soll. Herodian behauptet, die persischen Gesandten hätten die Herausgabe Syriens und Kleinasiens verlangt. Zwar ist kaum anzunehmen, dass Herodian die Äußerungen der Gesandten korrekt wiedergibt, doch ist davon auszugehen, dass seine Darstellung einen historischen Kern hat. Dieser besteht wohl darin, dass Ardaschir Forderungen erhob, von denen er wusste, dass sie für die römische Seite unannehmbar und provokativ waren. Alexander ließ die Gesandten festnehmen, was einen schweren Verstoß gegen das Völkerrecht darstellte.^[41]

Der Feldzug gegen die Perser

Im Frühjahr 232 begann die römische Offensive. Das römische Heer rückte in drei getrennt marschierenden Kolonnen vor. Der Angriff zielte auf das Zentrum des Perserreichs, die Doppelstadt Seleukeia–Ktesiphon. Der nördliche Heeresteil drang über Armenien vor. Dort behaupteten sich weiterhin arsakidische Kräfte. Ob die Armenier die Römer unterstützten oder den römischen Durchmarsch nur duldeten, ist in der Forschung umstritten.^[42] Der Kaiser marschierte mit dem Zentrum der römischen Streitmacht über Palmyra in Richtung der damals von Feinden der Sasaniden kontrollierten Stadt Hatra. Die südliche Abteilung bewegte sich dem Euphrat entlang vorwärts.

Der Verlauf der Kämpfe ist unklar. Anscheinend war das römische Oberkommando von der Aufgabe, die anspruchsvolle Strategie mit getrennt marschierenden Heeresteilen plangemäß umzusetzen, überfordert. Die südliche der drei römischen Heeresgruppen wurde vom Perserkönig gestellt und weitgehend aufgerieben. Dabei sollen aber auch die Perser erheblich geschwächt worden sein.^[43] Daraufhin traten die beiden anderen römischen Heeresgruppen den Rückzug an. Dabei erlitten die Römer schwere Verluste, da viele ausgehungerte und erschöpfte Soldaten unterwegs ums Leben kamen. Insbesondere die nördliche Heeresgruppe hatte auf ihrem Rückmarsch durch das armenische Hochland zahlreiche Todesfälle zu beklagen.^[44] So büßten beide Seiten vorerst die Fähigkeit ein, weiterhin offensiv vorzugehen. Die römischen Soldaten machten den Kaiser für den enttäuschenden Verlauf des Feldzugs verantwortlich. Nur mit einem großzügigen Geldgeschenk konnte er ihre Wut besänftigen.^[45]

Obwohl die Römer von der Erreichung ihres Kriegsziels, der Einnahme der feindlichen Hauptstadt, weit entfernt waren, und trotz ihrer schweren Verluste konnte das Ergebnis als römischer Erfolg betrachtet werden, denn die gegnerische Seite hatte ihre Offensivkraft verloren und die Römer mussten keine Gebietsverluste hinnehmen. Ein Friede wurde nicht geschlossen, weitere Kampfhandlungen unterblieben wegen Erschöpfung beider Seiten.^[46] Den Winter 232/233 verbrachten Mamaea und Alexander wiederum in Antiocheia, dann kehrten sie nach Rom zurück. Dort feierte Alexander am 25. September 233 den Ausgang des Feldzugs mit einem Triumph.

Germanenfeldzug und Sturz

Wegen der durch den Perserkrieg bedingten Entblößung der Rhein- und der Donaugrenze hatten 233/234 Germanen größere Beutezüge unternehmen und Befestigungsanlagen zerstören können. Als dies nach dem verlustreichen Feldzug gegen Ardaschir in Alexanders Heer bekannt wurde, verstärkte sich der Missmut der Soldaten aus dem Norden, die für den Perserkrieg in den Osten verlegt worden waren und nun erfuhren, dass ihre ungeschützt gebliebenen Angehörigen den Angriffen der Germanen ausgesetzt waren. Ihre Wut richtete sich gegen den Kaiser.^[47] Die Soldaten waren an ihren gewohnten Stationierungsorten verwurzelt, Einsätze in fernen Regionen waren ihnen verhasst, und Alexander, der aus dem Osten stammte, war dem Verdacht ausgesetzt, dem Schutz seiner Heimatregion den Vorzug zu geben.^[48]

Bei den germanischen Angreifern handelte es sich wohl um den Stammesverband der Alamannen, einen neuen Gegner der Römer. Die Lage war so bedrohlich, dass sich Mamaea und Alexander an die nördliche Front begeben mussten, da sie offenbar niemand das Oberkommando anvertrauen konnten. Sie zogen in der zweiten Jahreshälfte 234 oder Anfang 235 an den Rhein. Das römische Hauptquartier befand sich in Mogontiacum, dem heutigen Mainz.

Die Herrschaft des inzwischen sechsundzwanzigjährigen Kaisers, der weiterhin unter dem übermächtigen Einfluss seiner Mutter stand, war unter diesen Umständen besonders gefährdet, da er von den Soldaten nicht respektiert wurde und Mamaea als Frau an der Front keine Autorität hatte.^[49] Angesichts der Schwäche des Oberbefehlshabers war für einen bei der Truppe beliebten Kommandeur die Versuchung zum Staatsstreich groß, zumal es keinen Thronfolger gab. Im Osten war es anscheinend bereits zur Erhebung des Gegenkaisers Taurinus gekommen, die jedoch folgenlos blieb, da der Usurpator im Euphrat ertrank. Eine weitere Gefahr lag darin, dass Caracalla das Militär finanziell verwöhnt hatte. Die durch solche Großzügigkeit anfallenden Zusatzkosten bildeten eine schwere Belastung des Staatshaushalts. Mamaea sparte konsequent und war daher als knauserig verhasst.^[50] Zurückhaltung bei den gewohnten Sonderzuwendungen (Donativen) an die Soldaten musste bei der Truppe zu einer explosiven Lage führen. Das Ausbleiben schneller Kampferfolge und die unsoldatische Haltung des Kaisers trugen zur schlechten Stimmung bei. Die Kombination all dieser Faktoren führte zur Katastrophe.

Angesichts der prekären Verhältnisse scheuten Mamaea und Alexander das Risiko des Kampfes. Sie erstrebten wie schon im Perserkrieg eine Verhandlungslösung. Dabei fassten sie Zahlungen ins Auge, mit denen sie den Frieden erkaufen und vielleicht auch die Unterstützung germanischer Verbände bei der Grenzsicherung gewinnen wollten. Bei den Soldaten, die auf Sieg und Beute hofften und die Verhandlungsbereitschaft als Schwächezeichen deuteten, löste dieses Vorgehen zusätzliche Erbitterung aus.^[51] Sie verübelten dem Kaiser, dass er nicht ihnen, sondern dem Feind gegenüber finanzielle Großzügigkeit zeigen wollte. Hinzu kam, dass die Soldaten bei einem Regierungswechsel mit dem üblichen großzügigen Donativ des neuen Herrschers rechnen konnten. Daher meuterte ein Teil des Heeres – hauptsächlich Rekruten aus Pannonien – und erhob den für die Rekrutenausbildung zuständigen ritterlichen Offizier Maximinus Thrax zum Kaiser. Maximinus versprach eine Verdoppelung des Soldes, eine üppige Sonderzuwendung und Amnestie bei allen Disziplinarstrafen.^[52]

Es gelang Alexander nicht, loyale Einheiten zum Widerstand zu motivieren. Niemand wollte für ihn und seine Mutter kämpfen, seine Soldaten liefen zum Gegner über.^[53] Auf Befehl des Maximinus wurden Mamaea und Alexander im März 235 in der Nähe von Mogontiacum in ihrem Zelt im Feldlager ermordet. Der Todesort vicus Britanniae wird von manchen Forschern mit Mainz-Bretzenheim identifiziert, doch ist diese Lokalisierung sehr umstritten.^[54] Über Alexander wurde die damnatio memoriae verhängt. Manche Freunde und Günstlinge Alexanders ließ der neue Kaiser töten,^[55] doch ist Herodians Behauptung, er habe sie alle umgebracht, sicher übertrieben.^[56]

Mit Alexanders Tod endete die Dynastie der Severer. Sein Nachfolger Maximinus eröffnete die Epoche der Soldatenkaiser.

Ikonographie

Alexanders Münzen zeigen ihn zum Teil noch als bartlosen Knaben oder mit Bartflaum, später mit Schnurrbart und Backenbart. Auch auf den Münzbildnissen aus dem Erwachsenenalter macht er einen relativ jungen Eindruck. Gewöhnlich trägt er auf den Münzen einen Lorbeerkranz, selten einen Strahlenkranz. Die Rundplastiken lassen sich anhand der Münzbildnisse bestimmen; in manchen Fällen ist unklar, ob es sich tatsächlich um Alexander handelt.^[57]

Rezeption

Antike und Mittelalter

Alexanders Nachfolger Maximinus regierte nicht lange, er wurde 238 von meuternden Soldaten ermordet. Damit trat ein Umschwung ein, denn nun setzten sich seine senatorischen Gegner durch. Maximinus verfiel der damnatio memoriae. Im Zuge dieser Entwicklung wurde Alexander vom Senat rehabilitiert. Es wurde nicht nur seine damnatio memoriae aufgehoben, sondern er wurde sogar zum divus („Göttlichen“) erhoben.^[58] Im Rahmen des Kaiserkults wurde er fortan als Gottheit verehrt.

Die Hauptquellen sind die Geschichtswerke der Zeitgenossen Herodian und Cassius Dio sowie die Lebensbeschreibung Alexanders in der mehr als ein Jahrhundert nach den Ereignissen entstandenen Historia Augusta. Cassius Dio war unter Alexander Konsul. Er repräsentiert die senatorischen Kreise, für die Mamaeas und Alexanders Bilanz positiv war, und schildert den Kaiser wohlwollend. Seine Darstellung bricht vor dem Beginn des Germanenfeldzugs ab. Auch Herodian zeigt Sympathie für den letzten Severer. Er beschreibt ihn als sanft, gutwillig, gerecht und frei von Grausamkeit, betont aber auch missbilligend seine Abhängigkeit von seiner Mutter, der er die Schuld für das Scheitern des Kaisers gibt, und seinen Mangel an soldatischen Tugenden. Die Mutlosigkeit Alexanders in seinen letzten Lebenstagen schildert Herodian drastisch; er vermittelt den Eindruck, dass der Kaiser in einer gefährlichen Situation völlig überfordert war.^[59] Herodians Glaubwürdigkeit wird von seiner Neigung zu dramatischen Effekten und zum Moralisieren beeinträchtigt.

Die positive Einschätzung der zeitgenössischen Geschichtsschreiber steigert sich in der Alexander-Biographie der spätantiken Historia Augusta zu einer Verherrlichung mit ausgeprägt legendenhaften Zügen. Hier verkörpert Alexander das Herrscherideal des unbekannten Autors; seine Lebensbeschreibung ist die längste aller Kaiserbiographien der Historia Augusta. Der Tod des letzten Severers erscheint als Zäsur in der römischen Geschichte, die den Übergang zu einer Periode der Instabilität und des Niedergangs markiert. Der Wert dieser Quelle wird von der Forschung gering veranschlagt. Ihre Angaben über angebliche Reformen Alexanders gelten heute als erfunden.^[60] Auch Aurelius Victor und Eutropius, zwei weitere lateinisch schreibende spätantike Autoren, stellen Alexander als tüchtigen Kaiser und Sieger über die Perser dar.^[61] Aurelius Victor vermerkt auch, dass nach Alexanders Tod der Niedergang des Reichs eingesetzt habe. Diese Geschichtsschreiber bezogen ihre Informationen aus der heute verlorenen Enmannschen Kaisergeschichte, die offenbar bereits ein solches Bild vermittelte.

Das insgesamt vorteilhafte Charakterbild Alexanders, das die erzählenden Quellen zeichnen, kontrastiert scharf mit ihren verdammenden Urteilen über seinen Vorgänger und seinen Nachfolger. Der letzte Severer erscheint als milder, tugendhafter, gerechter und populärer Herrscher.

Im 4. Jahrhundert stellte der pagane Kaiser Julian in seiner Satire Caesares Alexander als Narren und Jammergestalt dar,^[62] wobei er von Herodians Angaben ausging. In der Satire wird Alexander verspottet, da er sich auch als Erwachsener nicht gegen seine Mutter durchgesetzt, sondern ihr die Kontrolle über die Finanzen überlassen habe.^[63]

Bei spätantiken christlichen Autoren und in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung fand die angebliche Frömmigkeit Mamaeas besondere Beachtung. Manche Autoren machten aus ihr eine Christin. Eine relativ ausführliche Darstellung von Alexanders Herrschaft gab im 12. Jahrhundert Johannes Zonaras.^[64]

Forschung

Im 18. Jahrhundert dominierte noch das von der Historia Augusta gezeichnete traditionelle Bild eines klugen, tugendhaften, menschlichen und vom Volk geliebten Herrschers, das Edward Gibbon übernahm.^[65] Noch Jacob Burckhardt war davon stark beeinflusst; er schrieb 1853, Alexander sei „ein wahrer Sanct Ludwig des Altertums“ gewesen, der „aus reinem sittlichem Willen“ den „unendlich vielen Versuchungen zum Despotismus“ widerstanden und „in die Bahn der Gerechtigkeit und der Milde“ eingelenkt habe. Dieser „im Verhältnis zu seiner Gesamtumgebung unbegreifliche Mensch“ habe „in einem Jahrhundert, welches nur von Furcht wusste“, keine Achtung erlangen können, sondern zwangsläufig scheitern müssen.^[66]

Seit dem 19. Jahrhundert hat sich jedoch eine ungünstige Einschätzung durchgesetzt, wobei die verhängnisvolle Unselbständigkeit und mangelnde Entschlossenheit Alexanders hervorgehoben wird. Ein vernichtendes Urteil fällte Alfred von Domaszewski (1909). Er bezeichnete Alexander als den „jammervollsten aller Cäsaren“. Zu seiner Regierungszeit habe sich „auch der letzte Schein der Ordnung im Reiche“ aufgelöst, die Folge einer verfehlten Politik sei ein „vollständiger Zusammenbruch der ganzen Verwaltungsordnung“ gewesen.^[67] Ernst Kornemann (1939) meinte, der „schwache, niemals zum Manne gereifte“ Alexander sei zu Unrecht von einer verdorbenen Überlieferung zu einer „Lichtgestalt mit einem seltsamen Heiligenschein“ gemacht worden. Dieses Bild sei von der kritischen Forschung als unhistorisch erwiesen worden.^[68] Wilhelm Enßlin (1939) stellte fest, der junge Kaiser habe seine Aufgabe nicht erfüllen können, da er trotz seines Namens weder ein (Septimius) Severus noch ein Alexander (der Große) gewesen sei.^[69] Alfred Heuß (1960) charakterisierte Alexander als „unbedeutenden, aber wenigstens harmlosen jungen Menschen“, aus dem „kein Mann geworden“ sei.^[70] Für Hermann Bengtson (1973) war Alexander „ein schwacher, mittelmäßiger Herrscher, der weder auf politischem noch auf militärischem Gebiet irgend etwas Bemerkenswertes geleistet hat“; für seine Regierung sei „das Frauenregiment charakteristisch“ gewesen.^[71] Auch Karl Christ (1988) weist darauf hin, dass Alexander „im Grunde niemals zur völligen Unabhängigkeit“ gelangt sei. Härte und Durchsetzungsvermögen hätten ihm gefehlt, er habe „nur von einer Krise zur andern lavieren“ können.^[72] Bruno Bleckmann (2002), der Alexander als „Muttersöhnchen“ bezeichnet, meint, Mamaeas Machtentfaltung sei nicht mit orientalischer Frauenherrschaft zu erklären, sondern einfach damit, dass „der Kaiser noch ein halbes Kind war“. Zwar habe Alexander in seinen letzten Regierungsjahren wohl auch eigene Entscheidungen getroffen, doch seine Weigerung, den Soldaten die erwarteten Geldgeschenke zu machen, sei Ausdruck einer unrealistischen Haltung und angesichts der Zeitumstände ein fataler Fehler gewesen.^[73]

Literatur

• Bruno Bleckmann: Die severische Familie und die Soldatenkaiser. In: Hildegard Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum (Hrsg.): Die Kaiserinnen Roms. Von Livia bis Theodora. Beck, München 2002, ISBN 3-406-49513-3, S. 265–339, hier: 284–298.
• Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women. Los Angeles 1982 (Dissertation, University of California).
• Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie. Satura, Napoli 2006, ISBN 88-7607-021-4.
• Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum. Die severischen Kaiser im Spannungsfeld innenpolitischer Konflikte. Habelt, Bonn 1990, ISBN 3-7749-2466-X, S. 39–44, 80–91, 125–129.

Weblinks

 Commons: Severus Alexander – Album mit Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien

• Herbert W. Benario: Kurzbiografie (englisch) bei De Imperatoribus Romanis (mit Literaturangaben).
• Alexanders Lebensbeschreibung in der Historia Augusta (englisch)

Anmerkungen

1. ↑ Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 34–48; Barbara Levick: Julia Domna. Syrian Empress, London 2007, S. 6–18.
2. ↑ Herodian 5,3,3–4.
3. ↑ Zu den Einzelheiten dieser Entwicklungen siehe Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 96–106; Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 66–73.
4. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (79),19,4; Herodian 5,3,10 und 5,7,3. Bei der Angabe mancher Bücher von Cassius Dios Werk sind unterschiedliche Zählungen gebräuchlich; die alternative Buchzählung wird jeweils in Klammern angegeben.
5. ↑ Helga Gesche: Die Divinisierung der römischen Kaiser in ihrer Funktion als Herrschaftslegitimation. In: Chiron 8, 1978, S. 377–390, hier: 387f.; Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 9 und Anm. 34; Anne Daguet-Gagey: Septime Sévère, Paris 2000, S. 255f.; Drora Baharal: Victory of Propaganda, Oxford 1996, S. 20–42.
6. ↑ Herodian 5,7,3; vgl. Cassius Dio 80 (79),17,3. Siehe dazu Auguste Jardé: Etudes critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre, Paris 1925, S. 2f.; Angela Kühnen: Die imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik, Münster 2008, S. 186–188; Alfons Rösger: Severus Alexander und Alexander der Große. In: Wolfgang Will (Hrsg.): Zu Alexander d. Gr. Festschrift G. Wirth zum 60. Geburtstag am 9.12.86, Band 2, Amsterdam 1988, S. 885–906, hier: 885–892.
7. ↑ Eine ausführliche Darstellung bietet Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 128–159.
8. ↑ Belege bei Elizabeth Kosmetatou: The Public Image of Julia Mamaea. In: Latomus 61, 2002, S. 398–414, hier: S. 407 und Anm. 30.
9. ↑ Herodian 6,1,2. Siehe dazu Karlheinz Dietz: Senatus contra principem, München 1980, S. 300–305.
10. ↑ Zur Datierung siehe Erich Kettenhofen: Zum Todesdatum Julia Maesas. In: Historia 30, 1981, S. 244–249; James Frank Gilliam: On Divi under the Severi. In: Jacqueline Bibauw (Hrsg.): Hommages à Marcel Renard, Bd. 2, Bruxelles 1969, S. 284–289, hier: 285; Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 236–242.
11. ↑ Zu den Inschriften siehe Erich Kettenhofen: Die syrischen Augustae in der historischen Überlieferung, Bonn 1979, S. 156–163, zu den Münzen Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 189–193.
12. ↑ Herodian 6,1,3; Cassius Dio 80 (80),2,2.
13. ↑ Eine ausführliche Untersuchung bietet Fara Nasti: Note sulla politica filosenatoria di Alessandro Severo con particolare riferimento alla Historia Augusta. In: Annali dell’Istituto italiano per gli studi storici 13, 1995/1996, S. 67–99.
14. ↑ Zonaras 12,15.
15. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),2,3. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 41, 81, 128f.
16. ↑ Nach der in der Forschung vorherrschenden Auffassung waren die beiden Präfekten Ulpian unterstellt. Zu einer abweichenden Hypothese, der zufolge Ulpian alleiniger Prätorianerpräfekt war, siehe Lukas de Blois: Ulpian’s Death. In: Pol Defosse (Hrsg.): Hommages à Carl Deroux, Bd. 3, Bruxelles 2003, S. 135–145, hier: 135–139.
17. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),2,4. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 41, 81–83. Zur Datierung der Vorgänge siehe Cécile Bertrand-Dagenbach: Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste, Bruxelles 1990, S. 16 Anm. 6.
18. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),3,1. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 40–43, 84–87.
19. ↑ Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie, Napoli 2006, S. 19f.
20. ↑ Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie, Napoli 2006, S. 21f., 109.
21. ↑ Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie, Napoli 2006, S. 41–50.
22. ↑ Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 242f.
23. ↑ Matthäus Heil: Severus Alexander und Orbiana. Eine Kaiserehe. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 2001, S. 233–248, hier: 246f.
24. ↑ Herodian 6,1,9f. Siehe dazu Matthäus Heil: Severus Alexander und Orbiana. Eine Kaiserehe. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 2001, S. 233–248, hier: 234.
25. ↑ Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 49,3f.
26. ↑ Siehe dazu Tadeusz Kotula: Die zwei Frauen des Severus Alexander: Resonanz einer politischen Spaltung? In: Gerhard Wirth (Hrsg.): Romanitas – Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit, Berlin 1982, S. 293–307. Kotula vertrat die Hypothese einer früheren Heirat des Kaisers. Er meinte, die nicht namentlich bekannte erste Frau sei Afrikanerin gewesen und von Mamaea ausgeschaltet und nach Afrika verbannt worden. Danach habe Mamaea ihrem Sohn Orbiana als neue Ehefrau ausgesucht.
27. ↑ Matthäus Heil: Severus Alexander und Orbiana. Eine Kaiserehe. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 2001, S. 233–248, hier: 234–244; Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 59.
28. ↑ Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 59f.
29. ↑ Eusebius von Caesarea, Kirchengeschichte 6,21,3f. Vgl. Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 365.
30. ↑ Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 360–362, 364f.
31. ↑ Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 29.
32. ↑ Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 370f.
33. ↑ Lawrence Richardson, Jr.: A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore 1992, S. 15; Herbert W. Benario: Severan Rome and the Historia Augusta. In: Latomus 20, 1961, S. 281–290, hier: 287.
34. ↑ Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 39,4.
35. ↑ Zu den Angaben der Historia Augusta über Bauwerke Alexanders und zu ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit siehe Herbert W. Benario: Severan Rome and the Historia Augusta. In: Latomus 20, 1961, S. 281–290.
36. ↑ Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 48.
37. ↑ Zum Verlauf siehe Karin Mosig-Walburg: Römer und Perser, Gutenberg 2009, S. 26–28.
38. ↑ Hinsichtlich der territorialen Ansprüche Ardaschirs gehen in der Forschung die Meinungen weit auseinander. Eine Forschungsübersicht bietet Erich Kettenhofen: Die Einforderung der achaimenidischen Territorien durch die Sāsāniden – eine Bilanz. In: Susanne Kurz (Hrsg.): Yādnāme-ye Iradj Khalifeh-Soltani, Aachen 2002, S. 49–75. Zu den Befürwortern der Historizität zählen Josef Wiesehöfer: Ardašīr I. I: History. In: Encyclopædia Iranica, Bd. 2, London 1987, S. 371–376, hier: 373 und Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 31–43, 47f., 50f. Vgl. Dieter Metzler: Ziele und Formen königlicher Innenpolitik im vorislamischen Iran, Münster 1977, S. 138–142. Die Gegenposition vertreten u. a. Karin Mosig-Walburg: Römer und Perser, Gutenberg 2009, S. 27 und Anm. 66, David Potter: Alexander Severus and Ardashir. In: Mesopotamia 22, 1987, S. 147–157 und Erich Kettenhofen: Einige Überlegungen zur sasanidischen Politik gegenüber Rom im 3. Jh. n. Chr. In: Edward Dąbrowa (Hrsg.): The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, Kraków 1994, S. 99–108, hier: 102–106.
39. ↑ Herodian 6,2,3–5.
40. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),4.
41. ↑ Herodian 6,4,4–6. Siehe dazu Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 51f.
42. ↑ Siehe dazu Karin Mosig-Walburg: Römer und Perser, Gutenberg 2009, S. 67–73; Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 52f.
43. ↑ Herodian 6,6,5–6.
44. ↑ Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 63f.
45. ↑ Herodian 6,6,1–4. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 43, 87.
46. ↑ Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 67.
47. ↑ Herodian 6,7,3.
48. ↑ Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 301f.
49. ↑ Herodian 6,8,3 und 6,9,5.
50. ↑ Herodian 6,8,4; 6,9,4–5; 6,9,8.
51. ↑ Herodian 6,7,9.
52. ↑ Herodian 6,8,8. Zur Solderhöhung siehe Michael Alexander Speidel: Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 2009, S. 350, 415.
53. ↑ Herodian 6,9,1–5.
54. ↑ Die Identifizierung mit Bretzenheim hat Leonhard Schumacher ausführlich begründet; siehe Leonhard Schumacher: Die Sicilia in Mainz-Bretzenheim. In: Mainzer Zeitschrift. Mittelrheinisches Jahrbuch für Archäologie, Kunst und Geschichte 99, 2004, S. 1–10 und Leonhard Schumacher: Römische Kaiser in Mainz, Bochum 1982, S. 89−92 (mit Zusammenstellung und Diskussion der älteren Literatur). Vgl. Auguste Jardé: Etudes critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre, Paris 1925, S. 85 und Anm. 4, S. 86 Anm. 1. Gegen die Lokalisierung argumentiert mit großem Nachdruck Astrid Böhme-Schönberger: Wurde Alexander Severus in Bretzenheim ermordet? In: Mainzer Zeitschrift. Mittelrheinisches Jahrbuch für Archäologie, Kunst und Geschichte 99, 2004, S. 11–16. Ihr folgt Ronald Knöchlein: Bretzenheim – Zahlbach – Dalheim. Die archäologischen Zeugnisse bis in die fränkische Zeit, Mainz 2009, S. 28 und Anm. 21 und S. 45. Zur Frage der Datierung siehe Michael Peachin: P. Oxy. VI 912 and the Accession of Maximinus Thrax. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 59, 1985, S. 75−78.
55. ↑ Herodian 6,9,8.
56. ↑ Karlheinz Dietz: Senatus contra principem, München 1980, S. 305.
57. ↑ Zu den Einzelheiten siehe Max Wegner: Severus Alexander. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 177–199 (mit Zusammenstellung der Rundplastiken). Vgl. Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Band 1, 2. Auflage, Mainz 1994, Textband S. 117–123.
58. ↑ Zum Hintergrund siehe Karlheinz Dietz: Senatus contra principem, München 1980, S. 340.
59. ↑ Herodian 6,9; vgl. 6,1,6–8. Siehe dazu Thomas Hidber: Herodians Darstellung der Kaisergeschichte nach Marc Aurel, Basel 2006, S. 220–225; Asko Timonen: Cruelty and Death. Roman Historians’ Scenes of Imperial Violence from Commodus to Philippus Arabs, Turku 2000, S. 151–155.
60. ↑ Eine gründliche Untersuchung bietet Cécile Bertrand-Dagenbach: Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste, Bruxelles 1990.
61. ↑ Aurelius Victor 24, Eutropius 8,23. Vgl. Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 56–60.
62. ↑ Julian, Caesares 313.
63. ↑ Zur Interpretation siehe Friedhelm L. Müller (Hrsg.): Die beiden Satiren des Kaisers Julianus Apostata, Stuttgart 1998, S. 188.
64. ↑ Die byzantinischen Quellentexte sind zusammengestellt, übersetzt und kommentiert bei Stephanie Brecht: Die römische Reichskrise von ihrem Ausbruch bis zu ihrem Höhepunkt in der Darstellung byzantinischer Autoren, Rahden 1999, S. 67–92. Vgl. Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 366–368.
65. ↑ Edward Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Bd. 1, London 1776, S. 154–161.
66. ↑ Jacob Burckhardt: Die Zeit Constantins des Großen, München 1982, S. 9f. (erstmals 1853 erschienen).
67. ↑ Alfred von Domaszewski: Geschichte der römischen Kaiser, Bd. 2, Leipzig 1909, S. 279f.
68. ↑ Ernst Kornemann: Römische Geschichte, Bd. 2, Stuttgart 1939, S. 347.
69. ↑ Wilhelm Ensslin: The Senate and the Army. In: The Cambridge Ancient History, Bd. 12, Cambridge 1939, S. 57–95, hier: 72.
70. ↑ Alfred Heuß: Römische Geschichte, Braunschweig 1960, S. 352.
71. ↑ Hermann Bengtson: Römische Geschichte, München 1973, S. 329.
72. ↑ Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, München 1988 (6. Auflage München 2009), S. 629–631.
73. ↑ Bruno Bleckmann: Die severische Familie und die Soldatenkaiser. In: Hildegard Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum (Hrsg.): Die Kaiserinnen Roms, München 2002, S. 265–339, hier: 291, 298.

Dieser Artikel wurde in die Liste der exzellenten Artikel aufgenommen. Vorlage:Exzellent/Wartung/ohne DatumVorlage:Exzellent/Wartung/ohne Version

WIKIPEDIA

Die freie Enzyklopädie

Elagabal

Von der Wikipedia-Community als lesenswert ausgezeichneter Artikel
Version v. 7. Mai 2006, http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=16403535

Elagabal (* 204 wahrscheinlich in Rom; † 11. März 222 in Rom), gräzisiert Heliogabalos, war vom 16. Mai 218 bis zu seiner Ermordung römischer Kaiser. Er hieß ursprünglich Varius Avitus Bassianus, nannte sich aber als Kaiser Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.

Für die antike und die neuzeitliche Nachwelt wurde der Name Elagabal zum Symbol für Lasterhaftigkeit und Dekadenz der römischen Kaiserzeit und für verhängnisvolle orientalische Kultureinflüsse; die moderne Forschung hat sich aber von solchen klischeehaften Vorstellungen befreit und zeichnet ein differenziertes Bild. Ein schwerer Konflikt zwischen konservativem Römertum und der syrischen religiösen Tradition, die der jugendliche Kaiser verkörperte, überschattete seine Regierungszeit. Elagabal scheiterte katastrophal an seinem Mangel an Kompromissbereitschaft und Verständnis für die mit der Kaiserwürde verbundenen Aufgaben; dennoch konnte die herrschende Dynastie sich über seinen Tod hinaus an der Macht halten.

Herkunft

Elagabal war von mütterlicher wie von väterlicher Seite syrischer Herkunft. Sein Vater Sextus Varius Marcellus, ein aus Apameia in Syrien stammender römischer Ritter, hatte in Rom unter Kaiser Septimius Severus als Verwaltungsbeamter Karriere gemacht und wurde dann unter dessen Sohn und Nachfolger Caracalla in den Senat aufgenommen und mit hochrangigen Ämtern betraut; zuletzt war er bis zu seinem Tod 217 Statthalter der Provinz Numidien in Nordafrika. Elagabals Mutter war Julia Soaemias Bassiana, die ältere der beiden Töchter der Julia Maesa, der Schwester der Kaiserin Julia Domna. Also war er mütterlicherseits Großneffe der Julia Domna, der Gemahlin des Septimius Severus und Mutter Caracallas. Er war somit kein Nachkomme des Septimius Severus, sondern nur von dessen Schwägerin. Die männliche Nachkommenschaft des Septimius Severus und der Julia Domna war mit der Ermordung Caracallas 217 ausgestorben, sodass die von Julia Domnas Schwester abstammende Seitenlinie zum Zug kommen konnte, obwohl sie mit Septimius Severus nicht blutsverwandt, sondern nur verschwägert war.

Elagabals Urgroßvater, der Vater von Julia Domna und Julia Maesa, hieß Julius Bassianus. Er hatte in Emesa (heute Homs in Syrien) das erbliche Amt eines Priesters des dort verehrten Gottes Elagabal inne. Von ihm stammt der Name Bassianus (wohl abgeleitet von dem orientalischen Priestertitel Basus), den nicht nur Kaiser Elagabal vor seiner Erhebung trug, sondern auch Caracalla und Elagabals Vetter und Nachfolger Severus Alexander. Die Familie des Julius Bassianus genoss in Emesa höchstes Ansehen, da ihr der Kult der dortigen obersten Gottheit anvertraut war, und verfügte in der Region über erhebliche Macht. Überregionale Bedeutung gewann die Familie und der von ihr gepflegte Elagabal-Kult aber erst infolge der Heirat von Julius Bassianus’ Tochter Julia Domna mit Septimius Severus, der damals (185) noch nicht Kaiser war.

Die Sippe des Bassianus war wohl arabischen Ursprungs. Anscheinend waren es Nachkommen des einstigen arabischen Fürstengeschlechts von Emesa, das dort noch im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. regiert hatte und in einem Vasallitätsverhältnis zum römischen Reich stand, bis Kaiser Domitian diese Eigenständigkeit beendete.

Erhebung

Der im Heer beliebte Kaiser Caracalla war am 8. April 217 auf Veranlassung des Macrinus, der sein unmittelbarer Nachfolger wurde, ermordet worden. Macrinus verbannte Julia Maesa in ihre Heimatstadt Emesa. Zusammen mit ihr mussten auch ihre Tochter Julia Soaemias und deren dreizehnjähriger Sohn Varius Avitus (Elagabal) Rom verlassen. In Rom hatte Elagabal seine Kindheit verbracht. Nun übernahm er in Emesa gemäß der Familientradition die Würde eines Elagabal-Priesters, die er bis zu seinem Tod beibehielt. Damals soll er durch außergewöhnliche körperliche Schönheit Eindruck gemacht haben. Den Namen „Elagabal“, der dem Gott vorbehalten war, hat er selbst nie getragen und auch von seinen Zeitgenossen nicht erhalten. Die aus falscher Etymologie entstandene Namensform „Heliogabalus“ ist für den Kaiser erst in Quellen des 4. Jahrhunderts bezeugt.

Die Verbannung der Julia Maesa erwies sich bald als schwerer Fehler, denn in Emesa verfügte sie über Vermögen und Einfluss und hatte reichlich Gelegenheit zur Agitation gegen Macrinus, der bei den Soldaten wegen seiner Sparmaßnahmen unbeliebt war. Da das Heer Caracalla ergeben war, hatte Macrinus seine Beteiligung an dessen Ermordung verheimlichen müssen. Nun wurde Elagabal als unehelicher Sohn Caracallas ausgegeben. Damit und durch finanzielle Anreize ließ sich eine in der Nähe stationierte Legion, die Legio III Gallica, dazu bewegen, Elagabal am 16. Mai 218 zum Kaiser auszurufen. Daraufhin nahm Elagabal zwecks weiterer dynastischer Legitimation den offiziellen Kaisernamen Marcus Aurelius Antoninus an, den bereits Caracalla getragen hatte. Zur Belagerung der Aufständischen herangerückte Truppen gingen zu Elagabal über, und die Rebellion weitete sich aus. Macrinus, der sich wegen des kürzlich beendeten Kriegs gegen die Parther noch in Syrien aufhielt, verlor am 8. Juni 218 die Entscheidungsschlacht in der Nähe von Antiocheia und wurde auf der anschließenden Flucht gefangengenommen und getötet. Elagabals Großmutter und Mutter waren auf dem Schlachtfeld anwesend und trugen wesentlich zum Sieg bei, indem sie in einer kritischen Kampfphase die schon fliehenden Truppen zum Standhalten bewogen.

Regierung

Nach seinem Sieg machte sich Elagabal auf die Reise nach Rom, wo er erst im Sommer 219 eintraf. In Anbetracht seines Alters übte seine Großmutter Julia Maesa faktisch die Regentschaft aus. Große Schwierigkeiten ergaben sich aber bald aus dem ausgeprägten Eigenwillen des jugendlichen Kaisers. Schon seine demonstrative Anknüpfung an seinen angeblichen Vater Caracalla brachte ihn in einen Gegensatz zur senatorischen Führungsschicht, die zu Caracalla in Opposition gestanden hatte. Der Senat hatte Caracallas Tod bejubelt und im Bürgerkrieg für Macrinus Partei ergriffen sowie Elagabal zum Staatsfeind erklärt.

Der neue Herrscher war nicht bereit, auf die Vorrechte des Senats und die Sitten und Interessen der führenden Kreise Rücksicht zu nehmen, sondern hielt sich, obwohl er in Rom aufgewachsen war, ganz an die Gepflogenheiten seiner orientalischen Heimat. So brüskierte er die Stadtrömer, indem er orientalische Priestertracht trug. 219 heiratete er eine vornehme Römerin, Julia Cornelia Paula, die er aber im folgenden Jahr verstieß. Eine zweite Ehe schloss er mit der Vestalin Julia Aquilia Severa, was aus römischer Sicht eine unerhörte Provokation war; darauf stand traditionell die Todesstrafe. Auf Drängen seiner Großmutter trennte er sich 221 von der Vestalin und ging eine dritte Ehe ein, kehrte aber noch vor dem Ende des Jahres zu Aquilia zurück.

Elagabal und seine Mutter waren bald allgemein verhasst. Julia Maesa erkannte, dass er sich nicht auf Dauer würde halten können, und bereitete eine Alternative vor. Sie hatte neben Julia Soaemias noch eine jüngere Tochter, Julia Mamaea. Es gelang ihr durchzusetzen, dass Julia Mamaeas Sohn Alexander am 26. Juni 221 von Elagabal adoptiert und mit dem Titel Caesar zum (nominellen) Mitregenten erhoben wurde. Damit war Alexander zugleich zum Nachfolger seines kaiserlichen Vetters designiert.

Der neue Mitregent war am 1. Oktober 208 geboren, also noch nicht dreizehnjährig. Dennoch war er schon bei den Soldaten beliebt, d.h. es wurde für ihn Propaganda gemacht. Es konnte Elagabal nicht verborgen bleiben, dass die Nachfolgeregelung entweder auf seinen Sturz abzielte oder zumindest von einem baldigen Ende seiner Herrschaft ausging. Daher versuchte er, den Caesar abzusetzen, musste aber erkennen, dass seine Macht dafür schon nicht mehr ausreichte. Wiederholt unternahm er Anschläge auf das Leben seines Vetters. Es wurde klar, dass nur einer der beiden überleben konnte. Da Elagabal militärischer Rückhalt fehlte, war er ohne Chance. Meuternde Soldaten, die von seiner Tante Julia Mamaea gesteuert wurden, ermordeten ihn und seine Mutter am 11. März 222. Der Leichnam des Kaisers wurde in den Tiber geworfen, und der Senat beschloss die damnatio memoriae. Alexander wurde sofort als Kaiser anerkannt. So konnte Julia Maesa vorerst über ihren anderen Enkel den Fortbestand der syrischen, nur dem Namen nach severischen Dynastie sichern.

Auf die Reichsverwaltung, für die sich Elagabal anscheinend kaum interessierte, scheinen die Turbulenzen in Rom unter seiner Herrschaft kaum Auswirkungen gehabt zu haben. Außenpolitisch herrschte Ruhe. Es kam allerdings wiederholt zu Soldatenaufständen, die rasch niedergeschlagen wurden; die beiden wichtigsten (Ausrufung der Gegenkaiser Verus und Gellius Maximus, beide 219) ereigneten sich bezeichnenderweise in Syrien, wo man das militärische Machtvakuum deutlich vor Augen hatte, das nach dem Tod Caracallas eingetreten war.

Religionspolitik

Die Religionspolitik Elagabals stand als vorrangiges Anliegen im Mittelpunkt seiner Regierungstätigkeit. Sie war das markanteste Element seiner Herrschaft und der wichtigste Anlass des Zerwürfnisses zwischen ihm und der Bevölkerung Roms sowie den senatorischen Kreisen. Der Gegensatz war unüberbrückbar, denn der Kaiser wollte nicht nur den vorhandenen Kulten einen neuen hinzufügen, sondern sein Ziel war die Einführung des Elagabal-Kults als Staatsreligion in der Hauptstadt und im gesamten Reich. Die bisherige römische Religion mit Jupiter als oberstem Staatsgott sollte zurückgedrängt und auf den zweiten Platz verwiesen werden. Zunächst war beabsichtigt, den Sonnengott Elagabal als Sol (Sonne) mit Jupiter gleichzusetzen; die römische Jupiterverehrung sollte durch Verschmelzung in dem neuen Kult aufgehen. Später wurde allen römischen Göttern eine untergeordnete Funktion gegenüber dem syrischen Sonnengott zugewiesen.

Den heiligen Stein von Emesa, der dort im Mittelpunkt des Elagabal-Kults stand, brachte der Kaiser nach Rom mit. Es war also von Anfang an geplant, den bisher nur in Emesa verehrten Elagabal zum Reichsgott zu machen. Auf dem Palatin wurde zur Unterbringung des Steins ein Tempel gebaut und eine Priesterschaft eingerichtet. Oberpriester war der Kaiser selbst. Mit einer prunkvollen Festprozession im Sommer waren Spiele und Volksbelustigungen verbunden.

Der Kaiser verkündete und feierte auch die „Heilige Hochzeit“ (Hieros gamos, siehe Hierogamie) des Gottes Elagabal; dieser sollte sich mit zwei Göttinnen vermählen, nämlich erst mit der jungfräulichen Athene (Minerva) und dann mit der karthagischen Urania (Dea Caelestis, Tinnit). Die Hochzeit des Herrschers mit der Vestalin Aquilia sollte die vollkommene göttliche Hochzeit auf der menschlichen Ebene abbilden; er war Oberpriester (sacerdos amplissimus dei invicti Solis Elagabali), sie Oberpriesterin (virgo Vestalis maxima). Aus dieser Verbindung erhoffte er gottähnliche Kinder. Dabei kollidierte Elagabal mit der völlig anderen Auffassung der Römer von den Aufgaben der zu strengster Keuschheit verpflichteten Vestalinnen. Die beiden Seiten standen einander mit ihren unvereinbaren religiösen Überzeugungen verständnislos gegenüber. Seine erste Frau hatte Elagabal wegen eines Körpermals verstoßen; aus römischer Sicht war das tyrannische Willkür, aus seiner Sicht eine religiöse Notwendigkeit, da priesterliche Funktionen körperliche Makellosigkeit erforderten.

Der Versuch des jugendlichen Kaisers, dem Reich eine neue, rein orientalische Staatsreligion zu verordnen und die jahrhundertealte religiöse Tradition der konservativen Römer zu verdrängen, war in der römischen Geschichte beispiellos und musste scheitern. Die unglaubliche Kühnheit des Vorhabens wurde noch gesteigert durch das schroffe und radikale Vorgehen bei der Etablierung des neuen, den Römern fremden und unbegreiflichen Staatskultes. Erstaunlich (aber auch als Symptom bedeutsam) ist, dass dieses Unternehmen immerhin einige Jahre Bestand hatte. Erklärbar ist das Verhalten Elagabals nur, wenn man davon ausgeht, dass er sich tatsächlich – wie seine Münzprägung andeutet – unter dem Schutze seines Gottes als dessen oberster Priester für unangreifbar hielt. Dann werden auch seine anderen unbesonnenen, ja tollkühn anmutenden Schritte und die Ignorierung römischer Sitten begreiflich.

Schon vor Kaiser Elagabal gab es in Rom eine Sonnengott-Verehrung (Sol invictus), die besonders Caracalla förderte. Daran konnte Elagabal anknüpfen. Diese Strömung, die im späten 3. Jahrhundert einen großen Aufschwung erlebte, mag orientalisch beeinflusst gewesen sein. Sie darf aber nicht mit dem Elagabal-Kult gleichgesetzt oder verwechselt werden. Gegen einen Sonnenkult hatte man in Rom grundsätzlich nichts einzuwenden; als Staatsreligion unannehmbar war aber für die Römer die besondere Ausprägung, die Elagabal aus Emesa mitgebracht hatte.

Von staatlichen Maßnahmen gegen unerlaubte Religionen wie das Christentum ist aus der Regierungszeit Elagabals nichts bekannt.

Quellen

Die wichtigste erzählende Quelle ist die relativ ausführliche Darstellung des Zeitgenossen Cassius Dio, der allerdings – voller Empörung – aus der Sicht des Senats berichtet und ein Günstling von Elagabals Todfeind und Nachfolger war. Ebenfalls zeitgenössisch ist die nüchternere Schilderung Herodians. Erst im späten 4. oder gar frühen 5. Jahrhundert entstand die Lebensbeschreibung Elagabals in der Historia Augusta. Sie bietet viel Erfundenes und Unglaubhaftes, daneben aber auch wertvolle Informationen aus einer verlorenen zeitgenössischen Quelle (vielleicht Marius Maximus). Von hohem Wert sind die archäologischen Quellen (Münzen, Inschriften und ein Figurenkapitell).

Wie bei anderen Kaisern, die nach ihrem Tod der damnatio memoriae verfielen, ist auch im Falle Elagabals das Urteil der antiken Nachwelt einhellig vernichtend ausgefallen. In der Historia Augusta erscheint er als finsteres Gegenbild zu seinem idealisierten Nachfolger. Die ihm feindliche Literatur schildert ihn als brutal, barbarisch, despotisch, hemmungslos, feige und pervers. Zur Illustration wird eine Fülle von Skandalgeschichten ausgebreitet. Hier begegnen alle Stereotypen, die aus der Sicht konservativer Römer zum Bild eines abstoßenden Orientalen gehörten, bis hin zur Opferung von Kindern. Daher ist der Name Elagabal für die Nachwelt bis in unsere Zeit zum Inbegriff spätrömischer Dekadenz geworden.

Ein Großteil der Skandalgeschichten ist sexueller Natur. Hierbei ist zu beachten, dass in Elagabals Religion (wie in anderen orientalischen Kulten) der sakrale und der sexuelle Bereich unlöslich miteinander zusammenhingen, ja völlig vermischt waren. Dass der Kaiser nach orientalischem Brauch beschnitten war, war den Römern ein Greuel. Vor diesem Hintergrund sind auch Berichte über Orgien, Homosexualität und Transsexualität, (sakrale) Prostitution, ein Streben Elagabals nach Androgynie und sogar nach Kastration zu deuten. All dies hatte (soweit es zutrifft) eine religiöse Wurzel, für die die römischen Geschichtsschreiber wenig Verständnis aufbringen konnten. Dies gilt auch für Elagabals Gewohnheit des (kultischen) Tanzes und seine fremdartige Priesterkleidung (Kleiderluxus wurde in Rom missbilligt). Der modernen Religionswissenschaft sind die Phänomene vertraut.

Rezeption

Im Mittelalter beruhten die Kenntnisse über Elagabal auf knappen Angaben spätantiker Quellen, nämlich der patristischen Autoren Orosius und Hieronymus und der Epitome de Caesaribus. Entsprechend kurz behandeln ihn daher z.B. Otto von Freising und Vinzenz von Beauvais. In der Renaissance wurde die Quellenbasis stark verbreitert; Giovanni Boccaccio widmete in seinem lateinischen Werk Über berühmte Frauen der Mutter Elagabals ein ausführliches Kapitel, worin er das Thema unter dem Aspekt der Unwürdigkeit einer Dirnenherrschaft behandelte. Damit wurde bereits ein Gesichtspunkt aufgegriffen, der in der Folgezeit neben dem Topos der Hingabe an „jedes erdenkliche Laster“ in der Elagabal-Rezeption eine Rolle spielte, nämlich die Darstellung Elagabals als Sohn einer Hure, verbunden mit der Warnung vor den Folgen einer Einflussnahme sittenloser Frauen auf die Staatsführung. Daran knüpfte sich nicht selten eine generell ablehnende Haltung gegenüber weiblicher Machtausübung. Später trat ein anderer Aspekt in den Vordergrund, nämlich die Vorstellung einer spezifisch orientalischen Despotie Elagabals, die schon bei Edward Gibbon anklingt und im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert dominierte. Da war oft von einem kulturellen Sieg orientalischer Barbarei über traditionelle römische Würde und Tugend die Rede.

Die Gestalt Elagabals hat seit dem späten 19. Jahrhundert zahlreiche Schriftsteller, Maler und Musiker inspiriert. Besonders in Kreisen, wo das Dekadenzbewusstsein die Grundstimmung prägte, faszinierte dieser Stoff. Von dem britischen Maler Lawrence Alma-Tadema stammt das 1888 entstandene berühmte Ölgemälde The Roses of Heliogabalus; es illustriert die Erzählung der Historia Augusta, dass bei einem Bankett Elagabals einige der Gäste unter der Unmenge duftender Blütenblätter erstickt seien, die der Kaiser von der Decke auf sie hinabfallen ließ. Stefan George schuf 1892 den Gedichtkreis Algabal, wobei er die Geschichtsquellen zu Elagabal sorgfältig studierte. Sein Anliegen war, die sakrale Verbindung von priesterlicher und herrscherlicher Würde in ihrem Traumcharakter und ihrem Zusammenhang mit dem Künstlertum im Sinne des Symbolismus spürbar zu machen. Der niederländische Schriftsteller Louis Couperus schrieb den historischen Roman De berg van licht in drei Bänden, der bei seinem Erscheinen 1905/1906 einen Skandal auslöste. Der amerikanische Satiriker Henry Louis Mencken verfasste einen Dreiakter Heliogabalus (1920). Der französische Dramatiker Antonin Artaud schrieb 1934 die romanhafte Biographie Héliogabale ou L’anarchiste couronné (deutsch: Heliogabal oder Der Anarchist auf dem Thron, München 1980). Die berühmteste musikalische Deutung des Elagabal-Stoffs ist Hans Werner Henzes 1972 uraufgeführtes Orchesterwerk (Allegoria per musica) Heliogabalus Imperator. 1981 schuf Sylvano Bussotti die Ballette Phaidra/Heliogabalus.

Siehe auch

• Elagabal (Gott)

Literatur

• Martin Frey: Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal, Wiesbaden und Stuttgart 1989, ISBN 3-515-05370-0.
• G. Ray Thompson: Elagabalus: Priest-Emperor of Rome (Diss. University of Kansas), Lawrence (Kansas) 1972.
• Michael Pietrzykowski: Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal, in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Band II 16, 3 (hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase), Berlin und New York 1986, S. 1806–1825, ISBN 3-11-008289-6.

Weblinks

 Commons: Elagabal – Album mit Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien

• PND 118638890 (Vorlage veraltet, bitte Vorlage:Normdaten und/oder Vorlage:DNB-Portal verwenden!)
• {{{2}}}: Kurzbiografie (englisch) bei De Imperatoribus Romanis (mit Literaturangaben).
• Biografie aus der Historia Augusta (englisch)
• Essay (englisch)

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Macrinus (217 – 218 A.D.)

Michael L. Meckler

Ohio State University

[Macrinus stand nur durch seinen Beinamen Severus in der Tradition der severischen Dynastie, Anm. d. Red.]

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

Marcus Opellius Macrinus was the first emperor who was neither a senator nor of a senatorial family at the time of his accession. His 14-month reign was spent entirely in the East, where he proved unable to maintain the influence gained in the region by the campaigns of his predecessor, Caracalla, nor was Macrinus able to shake the suspicion that he was responsible for Caracalla’s murder.

Macrinus was born in Caesarea in Mauretania around the year 165. While it is highly conjectural that, as a young man, the future emperor was the dedicatee of Ampelius‘ encyclopedic Liber  memoralis, Macrinus undoubtedly received a literary education that enabled him to rise high as a bureaucrat in the imperial service during the reign of the emperor Severus. Caracalla made Macrinus a praetorian prefect, an equestrian post that was second to the emperor in power. Macrinus shared the position with the experienced soldier Adventus, and the pair served Caracalla during the emperor’s campaigns in the East.

By the end of the second campaigning season in the winter of 216-17, rumors were flying both in Rome and in the East that Macrinus was promoting himself as a possible future emperor. Caracalla must have been aware of the rumors concerning Macrinus, for the contemporary historian Cassius Dio notes the emperor was already reassigning members of Macrinus‘ staff. Such personnel moves may have accelerated Macrinus‘ plot.

Shortly before the campaigning season was to begin, Caracalla paid a visit to a temple near Carrhae. The emperor was accompanied by a hand-picked corps of bodyguards. The guards returned with Caracalla’s murdered body along with the body of one of the guards and a story that the dead guard killed the dead emperor. Not everyone was convinced, but Macrinus was able to translate his authority as praetorian prefect into that of emperor, being proclaimed by the troops on 11 April 217. Macrinus soon named his son, Diadumenianus, as Caesar and heir. The new emperor also got his former colleague, Adventus, out of the way by sending him back to Rome as urban prefect.

Macrinus straightaway sent conciliatory messages to the Parthian ruler Artabanus V, but Artabanus sensed weakness and raised an army to avenge his losses from the previous year’s campaign. Macrinus hoped to avoid a battle with the Parthians, but fighting erupted between the armies while both sides were encamped around Nisibis. The Parthians gained victory and, during the following autumn and winter, peace negotiations were held. Macrinus ended up paying the Parthians large bribes and reparations. Settlements were also reached with the Armenians, and, in the lower Danube, with the Dacians, who had launched attacks on the Romans after learning of Caracalla’s death.

By not returning to Rome in 217, Macrinus opened himself to criticism. Dissatisfaction was especially high in the city after a particularly violent, late-August thunderstorm started a fire that damaged much of the Colosseum and caused widespread flooding, especially in the Forum. Adventus proved himself incompetent as urban prefect and had to be replaced.

But grumblings in Rome were insignificant compared to the growing unease among the soldiers on campaign in the East. The defeat at Nisibis disheartened troops. Macrinus also introduced an  unpopular, two-tier pay system in which new recruits received less money than veterans. The move was a way to save money after the pay raise granted by Caracalla, but it lowered morale as well.

Earlier, Caracalla’s mother, Julia Domna, had toyed with the idea of raising a rebellion against Macrinus shortly after her son’s murder, but the empress was uncertain of success and already suffering from breast cancer. She chose to starve herself to death instead.

The grandchildren of her sister, Julia Maesa, would become the focus of the successful uprising that began on 15 May 218. Her 14-year-old grandson Avitus (known to history as Elagabalus) was proclaimed emperor by one the legions camped near the family’s hometown of Emesa. Other troops quickly joined the rebellion, but Macrinus marshalled loyal soldiers to crush the revolt. Macrinus also promoted his son to the rank of emperor.

The forces met in a village outside Antioch on 8 June 218. Despite the inexperience of the leaders of the rebel army, Macrinus was defeated. He sent his son, Diadumenianus, with an ambassador to the Parthian king, while Macrinus himself prepared to flee to Rome. Macrinus traveled across Asia Minor disguised as a courier and nearly made it to Europe, but he was captured in Chalcedon.  Macrinus was transported to Cappadocia, where he was executed. Diadumenianus had also been captured (at Zeugma) and was similarly put to death.

Contemporaries tended to portray Macrinus as a fear-driven parvenu who was able to make himself emperor but was incapable of the leadership required by the job. An able administrator, Macrinus lacked the aristocratic connections and personal bravado that might have won him legitimacy. His short reign represented a brief interlude of Parthian success during what would prove the final decade of the Parthian empire.

PRIMARY SOURCES

Cassius Dio, Roman history, book 78 (available in English translation in the Loeb Classical Library)

Herodian, books 4-5 (also available in the Loeb Classical Library)

Historia Augusta, Life of Macrinus (highly untrustworthy; English translations available in the Loeb Classical Library and in a Penguin translation, Lives of Later Caesars, tr. Anthony Birley

RECENT BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Drora Baharal, Emperor Macrinus: imperial propaganda and the Gens Aurelia (diss. Tel Aviv Univ., 1996)

André Chastagnol, Histoire Auguste (Paris: Robert Laffont, 1994), pp.443-49

Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1993), pp.144-46

Robert Turcan, Histoire Auguste, t.III,1, Vies de Macrin, Diadumenien, Heliogabale (Paris: Les Belles Lettres [Budé], 1993)

Copyright (C) 1997, Michael L. Meckler. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents,including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: Michael L. Meckler, Updated: 6 January 2006

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Michael L. Meckler: Macrinus (217 – 218 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [06.01.2006], http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/macrinus.htm.

WIKIPEDIA

Die freie Enzyklopädie

Caracalla

Von der Wikipedia-Community als exzellent ausgezeichneter Artikel
Version v. 30. Oktober 2012

Caracalla (* 4. April 188 in Lugdunum, dem heutigen Lyon; † 8. April 217 in Mesopotamien) war von 211 bis zu seinem Tod römischer Kaiser. Sein offizieller Kaisername war – in Anknüpfung an den beliebten Kaiser Mark Aurel – Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus. „Caracalla“ war nur ein Spitzname, der von der Bezeichnung seines Kapuzenmantels abgeleitet wurde.

Caracallas Vater Septimius Severus, der Begründer der severischen Dynastie, erhob ihn 197 zum Mitherrscher. Nach dem Tod des Vaters am 4. Februar 211 trat er zusammen mit seinem jüngeren Bruder Geta die Nachfolge an. Schon im Dezember 211 ließ er Geta ermorden. Anschließend veranstaltete er in Rom ein großes Massaker an Anhängern Getas. Fortan regierte er unangefochten als Alleinherrscher.

Caracalla kümmerte sich vor allem um militärische Belange und begünstigte die Soldaten. Damit setzte er einen schon von seinem Vater eingeschlagenen Kurs fort, der auf die Epoche der Soldatenkaiser vorauswies. Wegen der Brutalität seines Vorgehens gegen jede tatsächliche oder vermeintliche Opposition wurde er von der zeitgenössischen senatorischen Geschichtsschreibung sehr negativ beurteilt. Bei den Soldaten hingegen erfreute er sich großer Beliebtheit, die über seinen Tod hinaus anhielt.

Bei der Vorbereitung eines Feldzugs gegen die Parther wurde Caracalla von einer kleinen Gruppe von Verschwörern aus persönlichen, nicht politischen Motiven ermordet. Da er kinderlos war, starb mit ihm die männliche Nachkommenschaft des Dynastiegründers Septimius Severus aus.

Die Maßnahmen, mit denen Caracalla in erster Linie der Nachwelt in Erinnerung blieb, waren der Bau der Caracalla-Thermen und die Constitutio Antoniniana, ein Erlass von 212, mit dem er fast allen freien Reichsbewohnern das römische Bürgerrecht verlieh. Die moderne Forschung folgt weitgehend der ungünstigen Beurteilung seiner Regierungszeit durch die antiken Quellen, rechnet aber bei den Angaben der ihm feindlich gesinnten Geschichtsschreiber mit Übertreibungen.

Leben bis zum Herrschaftsantritt

Kindheit

Caracalla mit seinen Eltern und seinem Bruder auf einem zeitgenössischen Tondo, Antikensammlung Berlin. Getas Gesicht wurde nach seiner Ermordung getilgt.^[1]

Caracalla wurde am 4. April 188 im heutigen Lyon geboren, dem Verwaltungssitz der Provinz Gallia Lugdunensis.^[2] Er war der ältere der beiden Söhne des künftigen Kaisers Septimius Severus, eines Afrikaners, der damals Statthalter dieser Provinz war. Nur elf Monate später kam sein Bruder Geta zur Welt. Seine Mutter Julia Domna, die zweite Frau des Septimius Severus, stammte aus einer sehr vornehmen Familie; ihre Heimatstadt war Emesa (Homs) in Syrien. Caracalla erhielt den Namen Bassianus^[3] nach seinem Großvater mütterlicherseits, einem Priester des in Emesa verehrten Sonnengottes Elagabal.

Einen erheblichen Teil seiner Kindheit verbrachte Caracalla in Rom. Sein Vater war ab 191 Statthalter der Provinz Oberpannonien. Die Kinder der Provinzstatthalter mussten auf Anordnung des Kaisers Commodus in Rom bleiben, denn der misstrauische Kaiser wollte sich gegen das Risiko von Aufständen der Statthalter absichern, indem er ihre Kinder in seinem unmittelbaren Machtbereich behielt.^[4] Als Kind soll sich Caracalla durch angenehme Eigenschaften ausgezeichnet haben.^[5] Er war fünf Jahre alt, als sein Vater am 9. April 193 von den Donaulegionen zum Kaiser ausgerufen wurde. Von Mitte 193 bis 196 hielt er sich mit seinem Vater im Osten des Reichs auf, dann kehrte er über Pannonien nach Rom zurück.

Septimius Severus gab sich ab Frühjahr 195 zum Zweck der Legitimierung seiner Herrschaft als Adoptivsohn des 180 gestorbenen Kaisers Mark Aurel aus.^[6] Mit dieser Fiktion wollte er sich in die Tradition der Adoptivkaiser stellen, deren Epoche als Glanzperiode der römischen Geschichte galt. Daher erhielt auch Caracalla als fiktiver Enkel Mark Aurels ab 195/196 den Namen dieses beliebten Herrschers: Er hieß fortan Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, wurde also wie sein Vater als Angehöriger von Mark Aurels Familie, des Kaisergeschlechts der Antonine, betrachtet. An dieser Fiktion hielt er stets fest. Geta hingegen wurde nicht umbenannt, also nicht fiktiv in das Geschlecht der Antonine aufgenommen. Darin zeigte sich schon damals eine Bevorzugung seines ein Jahr älteren Bruders.^[7] Entweder schon Mitte 195 oder spätestens 196 wurde Caracalla der Titel Caesar verliehen, womit er zum künftigen Kaiser designiert wurde.^[8] Dieser Schritt markierte den Bruch zwischen Septimius Severus und dessen Rivalen Clodius Albinus, der Britannien unter seiner Kontrolle hatte. Albinus hatte sich im Jahr 193 Hoffnungen auf die Kaiserwürde gemacht, war aber von Severus mit dem Caesartitel und der Aussicht auf die Nachfolge abgefunden worden. Diese Regelung war mit Caracallas Erhebung zum Caesar hinfällig. Daher brach der 193 noch vermiedene Bürgerkrieg zwischen Severus und Albinus nun aus. Nach dem Sieg des Severus in dem Krieg, in dem Albinus den Tod fand, stand Caracallas Anspruch auf die Nachfolge seines Vaters nichts mehr im Wege.

Als Kaisersohn erhielt Caracalla eine sorgfältige Erziehung. Daher war er nicht ungebildet; als Kaiser war er in der Lage, sich an intellektuellen Gesprächen zu beteiligen, und schätzte rhetorische Fähigkeiten.^[9]

197 begleitete Caracalla zusammen mit seinem Bruder Geta den Vater auf dessen zweitem Feldzug gegen die Parther. Schon im Frühjahr 197 wurde er offiziell als designierter Kaiser und Teilhaber der Herrschaft bezeichnet. Im Herbst 197 oder spätestens 198 wurde er zum Augustus erhoben; fortan nannte man ihn Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus.^[10] Gleichzeitig erhielt Geta den Caesartitel. Die Kaiserfamilie blieb noch einige Zeit im Orient; 199 reiste sie nach Ägypten, wo sie sich bis 200 aufhielt. Erst 202 kehrte sie nach Rom zurück. In diesem Jahr war Caracalla zusammen mit seinem Vater ordentlicher Konsul.

Heirat und Konflikte der Jugendzeit

Denar der Plautilla

Im April 202 wurde Caracalla, mit 14 Jahren nunmehr mündig, von seinem Vater gegen seinen Willen mit Publia Fulvia Plautilla verheiratet, die den Titel Augusta erhielt. Sie war die Tochter des Prätorianerpräfekten Gaius Fulvius Plautianus. Plautianus stammte aus Leptis Magna in Libyen, der Heimatstadt des Septimius Severus. Er hatte dank der Gunst des Kaisers eine außerordentliche Machtstellung errungen, die er durch die Verschwägerung mit dem Kaiserhaus absichern wollte. Seine Machtfülle wurde aber von der Kaiserin Julia Domna als Bedrohung wahrgenommen und brachte ihn mit ihr in Konflikt. Caracalla, der Plautianus als Rivalen sah, hasste seine Frau und seinen Schwiegervater und wollte beide beseitigen. Mit einer Intrige führte er 205 den Sturz des Plautianus herbei, wobei er sich der Hilfe seines Erziehers, des Freigelassenen Euodus, bediente. Euodus veranlasste drei Centurionen, Plautianus eines Mordplans gegen Severus und Caracalla zu bezichtigen; sie behaupteten, der Präfekt habe sie zu einem Attentat angestiftet. Severus schenkte ihnen Glauben und lud Plautianus vor, doch erhielt der Beschuldigte keine Gelegenheit zur Rechtfertigung, da Caracalla ihn nicht zu Wort kommen ließ. Nach der Darstellung des zeitgenössischen Geschichtsschreibers Cassius Dio versuchte Caracalla seinen Feind in Anwesenheit des Kaisers eigenhändig umzubringen, wurde aber von Severus daran gehindert. Darauf ließ er Plautianus von einem seiner Begleiter töten, offenbar mit Billigung des Kaisers. Plautilla wurde auf die Insel Lipari verbannt.^[11] Nach seinem Regierungsantritt ordnete Caracalla ihre Beseitigung an; über sie wurde die damnatio memoriae verhängt. Auch Euodus wurde später auf Befehl Caracallas hingerichtet.

Schon in früher Jugend war es zu einer ausgeprägten Rivalität der beiden Brüder Caracalla und Geta gekommen, die sich im weiteren Verlauf ihres Lebens beständig verschärfte und in tödlichen Hass verwandelte. Vergeblich bemühte sich Septimius Severus, die Feindschaft zwischen seinen Söhnen zu mildern und gegenüber der Öffentlichkeit zu vertuschen, etwa durch die Prägung von Münzen der Concordia (Eintracht),^[12] zweimaliges gemeinsames Konsulat Caracallas und Getas in den Jahren 205 und 208 und die Fernhaltung der Söhne von Rom.^[13] Am Britannienfeldzug des Kaisers, den er 208–211 gegen die im heutigen Schottland lebenden Kaledonier und Mäaten unternahm, nahmen beide Söhne teil. 209 erhielt Geta die Würde eines Augustus, wurde also rangmäßig seinem bisher bevorzugten Bruder gleichgestellt.^[14] Da die Kämpfe sich hinzogen und Septimius Severus bereits bei schlechter Gesundheit war, musste er 210 Caracalla mit der alleinigen Leitung der militärischen Operationen betrauen. Geta hingegen erhielt kein Kommando. Ab 210 führte Caracalla den Siegernamen Britannicus maximus, den auch sein Vater und sein Bruder annahmen. Er soll versucht haben, den Tod des Kaisers zu beschleunigen, indem er dessen Ärzte und Bedienstete unter Druck setzte, dem Kranken etwas anzutun.^[15] Septimius Severus starb am 4. Februar 211 in Eburacum (heute York).

Regierungszeit

Herrschaftsantritt und Machtkampf mit Geta

Denar Getas

Wie Septimius Severus es vorgesehen hatte, traten seine beiden Söhne gemeinsam die Herrschaft an. Sie schlossen mit den Kaledoniern und Mäaten Frieden und verzichteten damit auf die wohl ursprünglich geplante Besetzung von Gebieten im heutigen Schottland. Somit wurde der Hadrianswall wieder die nördliche Grenze des römischen Territoriums in Britannien.

Caracalla und Geta kehrten mit getrenntem Hofstaat nach Rom zurück. Dort schützten sich beide durch sorgfältige Bewachung voreinander. Als Präzedenzfall und Vorbild für dieses Regierungsmodell konnte die gemeinsame Herrschaft von Mark Aurel und dessen Adoptivbruder Lucius Verus im Zeitraum 161–169 dienen. Damals hatte ein klarer Rangunterschied zwischen den beiden Kaisern bestanden. Bei Caracalla und Geta hingegen war die Situation anders: Zwar hatte der ältere Bruder von Anfang an das entscheidende Wort, doch fehlte eine eindeutige, einvernehmliche Regelung der Rangordnung und Befugnisse. Ein Doppelkaisertum gleichberechtigter Herrscher hätte nur durch eine Reichsteilung umgesetzt werden können. Der Geschichtsschreiber Herodian behauptet, es sei tatsächlich erwogen worden, das Römische Reich zu teilen und Geta den Osten zuzuweisen, doch sei dieser Plan verworfen worden, denn Julia Domna, die Mutter der beiden Kaiser, habe sich dem Vorhaben nachdrücklich widersetzt.^[16] Dieser Bericht gilt aber nach heutigem Forschungsstand als unglaubwürdig; Versuche, in epigraphischem Material eine Bestätigung dafür zu finden, sind gescheitert.^[17]

Geta war zumindest bei einem Teil der Soldaten beliebt. Daher wagte Caracalla vorerst nicht offen gegen ihn vorzugehen. Die römische Stadtbevölkerung, die Prätorianer und die in der Hauptstadt und ihrer Umgebung stationierten Truppen waren gespalten oder unschlüssig, so dass ein Bürgerkrieg bevorzustehen schien.^[18]

Schließlich gelang es Caracalla im Dezember 211 – nicht, wie früher vermutet wurde, erst im Februar 212 –, den Bruder in einen Hinterhalt zu locken.^[19] Er veranlasste seine Mutter, ein Versöhnungsgespräch im kaiserlichen Palast zu arrangieren. Leichtsinnigerweise folgte Geta der Einladung der Mutter, denn er meinte, in ihrer Anwesenheit vor seinem Bruder sicher zu sein. Der Ablauf der tödlichen Begegnung ist unklar. Nach der Schilderung des zeitgenössischen Geschichtsschreibers Cassius Dio, die als die glaubwürdigste gilt, hatte Caracalla Mörder bestellt, die seinen Bruder in den Armen der Mutter töteten, wobei sie an der Hand verletzt wurde.^[20] Offenbar hat er auch selbst zugeschlagen, denn später weihte er das Schwert, das er dabei verwendet hatte, im Serapeion von Alexandria der dort verehrten Gottheit Serapis.^[21] Anschließend wurde über Geta die damnatio memoriae verhängt und die Tilgung seines Namens in allen öffentlichen Denkmälern und Schriftstücken mit größter Gründlichkeit betrieben; sogar seine Münzen wurden eingeschmolzen.^[22]

Der nunmehrige Alleinherrscher rechtfertigte den Mord mit der Behauptung, nur einem Anschlag Getas zuvorgekommen zu sein. Am Tag nach der Tat hielt er im Senat eine Rede, in der er seine Sichtweise darlegte und zugleich mit der Ankündigung einer Amnestie für Verbannte Sympathie zu gewinnen versuchte.^[23] Für die Öffentlichkeit war die Mordtat aber ein unerhörter Tabubruch, von dem sich Caracallas Ansehen niemals erholen sollte. Die Prätorianer gewann er mit einer Solderhöhung und Geldgeschenken für sich, und auch das Einkommen der Soldaten wurde zur Sicherung ihrer Loyalität beträchtlich angehoben.^[24] Nach der Darstellung der Historia Augusta, deren Glaubwürdigkeit allerdings umstritten ist, konnte Caracalla die in der Nähe von Rom stationierte Legio II Parthica, die stark mit Geta sympathisierte, nur mit einem reichlichen Geldgeschenk besänftigen.^[25]

Innenpolitik

Terrorherrschaft

Sogleich nach der Ermordung Getas ließ Caracalla zahlreiche Männer und Frauen, die als Anhänger seines Bruders galten, töten; damals sollen etwa 20.000 Menschen aus diesem Grund ermordet worden sein.^[26] Auch später noch wurden viele umgebracht, denen Caracalla unterstellte, Sympathien für den unterlegenen Rivalen gehegt zu haben oder ihm nachzutrauern. Zu den prominenten Opfern des Terrors gehörten der Kaisersohn Pertinax Caesar sowie zwei Nachkommen des allseits verehrten Kaisers Mark Aurel: seine Tochter Cornificia und ein Enkel. Der berühmte Jurist Papinian, der ein Freund und Vertrauter des Septimius Severus gewesen war und sich im Auftrag des verstorbenen Kaisers um einen Ausgleich zwischen den verfeindeten Brüdern bemüht hatte, wurde auf Befehl Caracallas ermordet, nachdem Prätorianer Vorwürfe gegen ihn erhoben hatten.^[27] Es wurde üblich, persönliche Gegner mit erfundenen Behauptungen in anonymen Anzeigen aus dem Weg zu räumen. Die zahlreichen Soldaten und Prätorianer in Rom dienten Caracalla als Spitzel und Informanten.^[28]

Eine aufschlussreiche Episode war Caracallas im Frühjahr 212 unternommener Versuch, den populären Senator und ehemaligen Stadtpräfekten Lucius Fabius Cilo umzubringen. Den Anlass dazu bot wohl, dass Cilo versucht hatte, zwischen Caracalla und Geta zu vermitteln. Caracalla erteilte Soldaten – offenbar handelte es sich um Prätorianer – den Befehl, gegen den Senator vorzugehen. Sie plünderten das Haus Cilos und führten ihn unter Misshandlungen zum Kaiserpalast. Darauf kam es zu einem Aufruhr; die Bevölkerung und in der Stadt stationierte Soldaten (urbaniciani), die früher unter Cilos Befehl gestanden hatten, griffen zugunsten des Verhafteten ein, um ihn zu befreien. Caracalla schätzte die Lage als so gefährlich ein, dass er aus dem Palast herbeieilte und vorgab, Cilo beschützen zu wollen. Er ließ die Prätorianer, die mit der Festnahme beauftragt gewesen waren, und ihren Befehlshaber hinrichten, angeblich zur Strafe für ihr Vorgehen gegen Cilo, in Wirklichkeit jedoch, weil sie bei der Durchführung des Befehls versagt hatten. Der Vorgang zeigt eine zumindest zeitweilige Schwäche des Kaisers. Er musste vor dem Widerstand von Teilen der Stadtbevölkerung und der städtischen Soldaten, auf deren Loyalität er angewiesen war, zurückweichen.^[29]

Generell ging Caracalla gegen Individuen und Gruppen, die seinen Zorn oder Verdacht erregten, mit großer Härte vor. Ein Merkmal seines Terrors war, dass er nicht nur gezielt Verdächtige hinrichten ließ, sondern auch kollektive Strafmaßnahmen ergriff, denen neben Oppositionellen auch zahlreiche harmlose Personen und Unbeteiligte zum Opfer fielen. Aufsehen erregte das Massaker von Alexandria in Ägypten. Dort richtete Caracalla bei seinem Aufenthalt in der Stadt, der von Dezember 215 bis März/April 216 dauerte, ein großes Blutbad unter der Bevölkerung an. Als Anlass gibt Cassius Dio an, dass sich die Alexandriner über den Kaiser lustig gemacht hatten. Die Stadtbevölkerung war als spottlustig bekannt, doch hatte ihre Aufsässigkeit auch einen ernsten Hintergrund: In der Stadt war – vermutlich aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen – eine kaiserfeindlichen Stimmung entstanden, die sich in einem Aufruhr entlud. Dem Gemetzel in Alexandria, das tagelang angedauert haben soll, fielen auch auswärtige Besucher zum Opfer, die sich zufällig in der Stadt aufhielten. Außerdem wurde die Stadt von Caracallas Soldaten geplündert. Wahrscheinlich stellen Cassius Dio und der ebenfalls zeitgenössische Geschichtsschreiber Herodian das Ausmaß des Massakers übertrieben dar, doch dürfte die Schilderung Cassius Dios in den Grundzügen stimmen.^[30] Als der Kaiser in Rom von einer aufsässigen Menge im Circus verspottet zu werden glaubte, befahl er seinen Soldaten, die Unruhestifter zu töten, was mit einem wahllosen Massaker endete.^[31]

Thermenbau und Ausdehnung des römischen Bürgerrechts

→ Hauptartikel: Caracalla-Thermen und Constitutio Antoniniana

Caracallas Name ist für die Nachwelt bis heute vor allem mit zwei spektakulären Maßnahmen verbunden: dem Bau der Caracalla-Thermen in Rom, einer Gesamtanlage von 337 mal 328 Metern, und der Constitutio Antoniniana von 212. Mit dem Thermenbau wollte sich der Kaiser bei der Stadtbevölkerung beliebt machen. Es war damals die größte derartige Anlage in Rom.^[32] Die Constitutio Antoniniana war eine Verfügung, die allen freien Bewohnern des Reiches mit Ausnahme der dediticii das römische Bürgerrecht verlieh. Die Abgrenzung des mit dediticii gemeinten Personenkreises ist unklar. Mit diesem Ausdruck bezeichnete man ursprünglich Angehörige von Völkern oder Staaten, die sich den Römern bedingungslos unterworfen hatten, entweder im Krieg im Sinne einer Kapitulation oder im Frieden, um römischen Schutz zu erhalten. Juristisch bedeutete die Constitutio Antoniniana nicht, wie man früher glaubte, die Aufhebung örtlicher Rechtsgewohnheiten und ihre Ersetzung durch römisches Privatrecht; örtliches Recht wurde weiterhin angewendet, soweit es dem römischen nicht widersprach. Daraus ergaben sich im juristischen Alltag Rechtsunsicherheiten; eine umfassende, allgemeingültige Regelung wurde offenbar nicht angestrebt.^[33]

Die Zwecke und die Tragweite der Constitutio Antoniniana sind bis heute nicht befriedigend geklärt. Flankierende Maßnahmen zur Integration der Neubürger scheint Caracalla nicht getroffen zu haben, ein umfassendes, langfristiges Gesamtkonzept war mit der Bürgerrechtsverleihung anscheinend nicht verbunden.^[34] Caracalla gibt an, er habe sich zu dem Schritt entschlossen, weil er den Göttern für seine Rettung aus einer Gefahr danken wollte. Vermutlich meinte er damit einen angeblichen Mordanschlag Getas, doch sind auch andere Deutungen möglich.^[35] Cassius Dio gibt die Meinung der oppositionellen senatorischen Kreise wieder, der zufolge die Ausdehnung des Bürgerrechts vor allem den Zweck hatte, die Steuereinnahmen zu erhöhen; die von dem Erlass Betroffenen wurden Steuern unterworfen, die nur von römischen Bürgern zu entrichten waren. Solche Steuern waren eine Abgabe auf die Freilassung von Sklaven und die Erbschaftssteuer, die Caracalla damals von 5 auf 10 Prozent verdoppelte. Die Erhöhung der Steuereinnahmen war aber nur eines der Motive Caracallas. Außerdem wollte er die Neubürger wohl als ihm persönlich ergebene Anhängerschaft gewinnen, um auf diese Art die Feindschaft der traditionellen Elite, bei der er wegen seiner Terrorherrschaft verhasst war, zu kompensieren und so seine Machtbasis zu stärken. Zahlreiche Neubürger nahmen den Namen des Kaisers (Aurelius) an, der dadurch außerordentlich häufig wurde.

Verwaltung, Finanzen, Wirtschaft und Militär

Da Caracalla sich durch seinen Terror unzählige Feinde schuf, besonders in der Oberschicht, war er zur Erhaltung seiner Macht ganz auf das Heer angewiesen und für seine persönliche Sicherheit auf seine skythischen und germanischen Leibwächter. Die Unterstützung der Soldaten gewann er, indem er ihren Sold stark erhöhte und sie mit häufigen üppigen Sonderzuwendungen (Donativen) beschenkte. Das Ausmaß der Solderhöhung betrug 50 Prozent,^[36] wobei der schon von Septimius Severus deutlich erhöhte Sold die Berechnungsgrundlage bildete. Cassius Dio schätzt den dafür erforderlichen jährlichen Mehraufwand auf 280 Millionen Sesterzen (70 Millionen Denare).^[37] Diese Steigerung der militärischen Personalkosten war jedoch finanzpolitisch verhängnisvoll. Die Bevorzugung des Militärs war nur auf Kosten des wirtschaftlich produktiven Teils der Bevölkerung und der Geldwertstabilität möglich und erzeugte bei den so verwöhnten Soldaten maßlose Erwartungen. Spätere Herrscher konnten diese Entwicklung nicht mehr umkehren, ohne ihren sofortigen Sturz zu riskieren. Somit stellte Caracalla die Weichen für das künftige Soldatenkaisertum.^[38] Seine Politik trug dazu bei, dass später die mit dem modernen Schlagwort „Reichskrise des 3. Jahrhunderts“ bezeichneten Entwicklungen eintraten. Unter ihm verstärkten sich problematische Faktoren, welche die Wirtschaft im weiteren Verlauf des 3. Jahrhunderts stark belasteten. Allerdings bestanden schon vor seinem Regierungsantritt gravierende strukturelle Probleme.

Caracalla teilte große Provinzen auf, wohl um eine gefährliche Machtzusammenballung in der Hand der Provinzstatthalter zu verhindern. Kein Statthalter sollte mehr als zwei Legionen unter seinem Kommando haben. Britannien teilte er in die zwei Provinzen Britannia superior und Britannia inferior.^[39] In Hispanien trennte er von der großen Provinz Hispania citerior oder Tarraconensis eine neue Provinz ab, die er Hispania nova citerior Antoniniana nannte. Sie befand sich im Nordwesten der Halbinsel nördlich des Duero. Ihre Existenz ist nur aus Inschriften erschlossen und ihre Ausdehnung ist nicht genau bekannt, denn sie wurde bereits spätestens in den dreißiger Jahren des 3. Jahrhunderts wieder mit der Tarraconensis vereinigt.

Sesterz Caracallas

Caracalla führte 214/215 eine Münzreform durch, die der Finanzierung des geplanten Partherkriegs dienen sollte. Er schuf eine neue Silbermünze, die später nach seinem offiziellen Namen Antoninus als Antoninian bezeichnet wurde. Der Antoninian, der im 3. Jahrhundert zur geläufigsten römischen Münze wurde, entsprach zwei Denaren, sein Gewicht jedoch nur etwa dem von anderthalb Denaren. Faktisch handelte es sich also um eine Geldverschlechterung. Diese führte zur Hortung des alten Geldes, die aus zahlreichen Schatzfunden ersichtlich ist. Außerdem wurde das Gewicht der Goldmünze Aureus um rund 9 Prozent reduziert (von 7,20 auf 6,55 g). Schon 212 hatte Caracalla den Sibergehalt des Denars um rund 8 Prozent verringert (von 1,85 g auf 1,70 g), offenbar wegen der Kosten der Solderhöhungen nach dem Mord an Geta. Noch drastischer war die Geldverschlechterung im Osten des Reichs, wo die syrische Drachme und die Tetradrachme die Hälfte ihres Silbergehalts einbüßten (Verringerung von 2 g Silber im Jahr 213 auf 0,94 g im Jahr 217). Dies bewirkte einen massiven Verlust an Vertrauen in den Geldwert.^[40]

Trotz der Härte, mit der Caracalla gegen jede Kritik vorging, soll die Steuerlast zu einer deutlichen Unmutsbekundung der Menge bei einem Pferderennen geführt haben.^[41]

Religion

Caracallas Verhältnis zur Religion war, wie Cassius Dio berichtet, vor allem von seinem Bedürfnis bestimmt, von den Göttern Heilung von seinen Krankheiten zu erlangen. Zu diesem Zweck soll er allen bedeutenderen Gottheiten Opfer und Weihegaben dargebracht und eifrig gebetet haben. Zu den Göttern, von denen er Hilfe erhoffte, gehörten der griechische Heilungsgott Asklepios, der ägyptische Sarapis und Apollon, der mit dem keltischen Heilungsgott Grannus identifiziert und als Apollo Grannus verehrt wurde.^[42] Wahrscheinlich besuchte der Kaiser den Apollo-Grannus-Tempel in Faimingen, das damals Phoebiana hieß und zur Provinz Raetia gehörte.^[43] Seine besondere Verehrung galt Sarapis, in dessen Tempelbezirk er während seines Aufenthalts in Alexandria wohnte.^[44] Auf dem römischen Hügel Quirinal ließ er einen Sarapis-Tempel errichten, der inschriftlich bezeugt ist, aber bisher nicht lokalisiert werden konnte.^[45]

Außenpolitik

Germanenfeldzug

Im Sommer 213 unternahm Caracalla, der in diesem Jahr zum vierten und letzten Mal Konsul war, einen kurzen Feldzug gegen Germanen.^[46] Bei diesen handelte es sich laut byzantinischen Auszügen aus einem verlorenen Teil von Cassius Dios Geschichtswerk um Alamannen. Dies ist die erste namentliche Bezeugung der Alamannen. Ihre Glaubwürdigkeit, die in der älteren Forschung allgemein akzeptiert war, ist ab 1984 wiederholt bestritten worden, hat aber auch weiterhin Befürworter und wird ausführlich gegen die Kritik verteidigt.^[47] Zunächst errang der Kaiser einen Sieg am Main, worauf er den Siegernamen Germanicus maximus annahm. Die anschließenden Kämpfe scheinen aber für ihn weniger günstig verlaufen zu sein, denn er sah sich zu Zahlungen an die Germanen gezwungen, um Frieden zu erkaufen. Gesamthaft war sein Vorgehen offenbar erfolgreich, denn die Lage an der Nordgrenze blieb für zwei Jahrzehnte stabil.^[48]

Expansionspolitik im Osten

Nach der Befriedung der Nordgrenze begab sich Caracalla in den Osten des Reichs, von wo er nicht mehr zurückkehren sollte. Zunächst scheint er im Gebiet der Stadt Tyras (heute Bilhorod-Dnistrowskyj in der Südukraine) die Karpen besiegt zu haben,^[49] dann zog er nach Kleinasien. Den Winter 214/215 verbrachte er in Nikomedeia, von dort brach er im Frühjahr 215 nach Antiocheia auf.^[50] Hatte er sich schon früher auch in Äußerlichkeiten in die Nachfolge Alexanders des Großen gestellt, so erreichte die Alexander-Nachahmung in seinen letzten Lebensjahren ihren Höhepunkt.^[51] Er soll eine Streitmacht von 16.000 Mann als „makedonische Phalanx“ mit makedonischer Kleidung und Bewaffnung aufgestellt haben.^[52] In einem Brief an den Senat behauptete er, eine Reinkarnation des Makedonenkönigs zu sein.^[53] Damit deutete er das Programm einer Wiederherstellung von Alexanders Weltreich, zumindest einer ruhmreichen Expansion nach Osten an. Schon vor seinem Aufbruch in den Osten hatte er König Abgar IX. von Osrhoene nach Rom gelockt und dort gefangengesetzt, worauf er das Königreich annektierte. Auch den arsakidischen König von Armenien und dessen Familie hatte er mit List in seine Gewalt gebracht, doch im Reich dieses Herrschers stießen die Römer auf hartnäckigen Widerstand. Ein römischer Vorstoß nach Armenien, dessen Durchführung der Kaiser seinem Vertrauten Theokritos übertragen hatte, scheiterte.^[54]

Münze Artabanos‘ IV.

Die Anknüpfung an das Vorbild Alexanders des Großen und an dessen Weltherrschaftsidee bedeutete Konfrontation mit dem Partherreich, das Caracalla ins Römische Reich eingliedern wollte. Angeblich verfolgte er sein Ziel zunächst auf friedlichem Weg oder versuchte zumindest diesen Anschein zu erwecken: Er soll dem Partherkönig Artabanos IV. ein Heiratsprojekt vorgeschlagen haben. Artabanos sollte ihm seine Tochter zur Frau geben und damit den Weg zu einer künftigen Vereinigung der beiden Reiche ebnen. Dieses Projekt fällt ganz aus dem Rahmen der traditionellen römischen Außenpolitik; römische Kaiser gingen nie Heiratsverbindungen mit auswärtigen Herrscherhäusern ein. Die Historizität der von Cassius Dio und Herodian mitgeteilten, bei Herodian mit phantastischen Elementen ausgeschmückten Episode ist in der Forschung umstritten; überwiegend wird angenommen, dass die Überlieferung zumindest einen historischen Kern hat.^[55] Auch dabei spielte das Vorbild Alexanders eine Rolle; der Makedone hatte Stateira, eine Tochter des Perserkönigs Dareios III. geheiratet. Erst als Artabanos den phantastisch anmutenden Vorschlag ablehnte, begann Caracalla im Frühjahr 216 den Feldzug gegen die Parther.

Begünstigt wurden die Römer durch den Umstand, dass bei den Parthern damals ein Bürgerkrieg zwischen den Brüdern Artabanos IV. und Vologaeses VI. herrschte, in welchem allerdings Caracallas Gegner Artabanos deutlich die Oberhand hatte. Die römischen Truppen rückten von Antiocheia über Edessa kampflos bis nach Arbela (heute Arbil im Nordirak) vor. Dort plünderten sie die Gräber der Könige von Adiabene (nicht der Könige des Partherreichs). Danach zog sich Caracalla nach Edessa zurück.^[56] Dort verbrachte er den Winter, während Artabanos den parthischen Gegenangriff vorbereitete, der dann aber erst Caracallas Nachfolger Macrinus mit voller Wucht traf. Cassius Dio behauptet, die Disziplin des römischen Heeres sei wegen Caracallas Verwöhnung der Soldaten mangelhaft gewesen.^[57]

Tod und Nachfolge

Bevor es zu Kämpfen mit den Parthern kam, fand Caracallas Herrschaft ein gewaltsames Ende. Die detaillierte Schilderung der Vorgeschichte und der Umstände seines Todes bei Cassius Dio gilt in der Forschung als glaubwürdig, sie wird im Wesentlichen in modernen Darstellungen übernommen.^[58]

Denar des Macrinus

Zu den Personen nichtsenatorischer Herkunft, die Caracalla in Schlüsselstellungen gebracht hatte, gehörte der militärisch unerfahrene Prätorianerpräfekt Macrinus. Wie Cassius Dio mitteilt, befand sich Macrinus im Frühjahr 217 in einer akuten Notlage: Prophezeiungen hatten ihm die Kaiserwürde verheißen, und dies war Caracalla zu Ohren gekommen; außerdem war ein schriftlicher Bericht an den Kaiser unterwegs, und Macrinus war vor der ihm infolgedessen drohenden Lebensgefahr gewarnt worden.^[59] Das war wohl eine Intrige, doch hatte der Präfekt jedenfalls Anlass, darin eine tödliche Bedrohung zu sehen. Daher organisierte er mit einigen Unzufriedenen die Ermordung Caracallas.^[60] An dem Anschlag waren drei Männer beteiligt: der evocatus Julius Martialis, der den Kaiser wegen einer persönlichen Zurücksetzung hasste, und zwei Prätorianertribunen. Martialis führte das Attentat am 8. April 217 aus, als der Kaiser sich auf dem Weg von Edessa nach Carrhae befand, wo er ein berühmtes Heiligtum des Mondgottes Sin aufsuchen wollte.^[61] Als Caracalla unterwegs vom Pferd stieg, um seine Notdurft zu verrichten, näherte sich ihm Martialis, scheinbar um ihm etwas zu sagen, und versetzte ihm einen Dolchstoß. Ein skythischer Leibwächter Caracallas tötete darauf den flüchtenden Attentäter mit seiner Lanze. Die beiden Prätorianertribunen eilten zum Kaiser, als wollten sie ihm helfen, und vollendeten die Mordtat.^[62] Mit Caracalla starb die männliche Nachkommenschaft des Dynastiegründers Septimius Severus aus.

Erst nach tagelangem Zögern ließen sich die Soldaten überreden, Macrinus am 11. April zum Kaiser auszurufen. Caracalla wurde in Rom im Mausoleum Hadriani beigesetzt.

Aussehen und Ikonographie

Erster Thronfolgertypus

Nach Herodians Angaben war Caracalla von kleiner Statur, aber robust. Er bevorzugte germanische Kleidung und trug eine blonde, nach germanischer Art frisierte Perücke.^[63] Cassius Dio erwähnt, dass der Kaiser gern einen wilden Gesichtsausdruck annahm.^[64]

Eine Vorstellung von seinem Aussehen und vor allem von dem Eindruck, den er erwecken wollte, vermitteln insbesondere die zahlreichen erhaltenen Plastiken. Auch die Münzbildnisse sind aussagekräftig. Darstellungen des jungen Caracalla sind kaum von denen Getas zu unterscheiden. Zahlreiche Porträts aus der Zeit seiner Alleinherrschaft zeigen den Kaiser mit zusammengezogenen Stirnmuskeln und Augenbrauen; mit der grimmigen Miene sollte seine Willensstärke und Gewaltbereitschaft demonstriert werden. Offenbar zielte diese Selbstdarstellung auf Einschüchterung.^[65] Zugleich sollten damit die soldatischen Qualitäten des Kaisers betont werden.^[66]

Heinz Bernhard Wiggers hat bei der Rundplastik fünf Haupttypen unterschieden, die bei ihm meist nach den Fundorten der typbestimmenden Leitstücke benannt sind. Die spätere Forschung ist ihm hinsichtlich dieser Gruppierung gefolgt, benennt und datiert aber zum Teil anders. Die Typen sind:^[67]

• „Typus Argentarierbogen“, auch „erster Thronfolgertypus“ genannt (Zeitraum ca. 197–204): Caracalla wird teils als Kind, teils schon als Jugendlicher dargestellt. Er hat fülliges, lockiges Haar und noch keinen Bartwuchs. Der Typus ist sehr häufig. Die Stirnfrisur erinnert mitunter an Knabenbildnisse Marc Aurels, dessen fiktiver Adoptivenkel Caracalla war.

• „Typus Gabii“, auch „zweiter Thronfolgertypus“ oder „Consulatstypus“ genannt (Zeitraum ca. 205–211): Caracalla wird als junger Mann mit unterschiedlich fortgeschrittenem Bartwuchs dargestellt. Neu sind ein dreieckförmiger Stirnwulst mit Spitze nach unten und zwei waagrechte Stirnfalten.
• „Typus Vestalinnenhaus“: Dieser Typus war anscheinend wenig verbreitet. Der Stirnwulst ist flach, die horizontalen Stirnfalten sind lang; hinzu kommen zwei von der Nasenwurzel ausgehende Steilfalten. Wiggers datiert den Typus um 210, Klaus Fittschen setzt seine Entstehung in die Zeit der Alleinherrschaft Caracallas.^[68]
• „Erster Alleinherrschertypus“ (Fittschen) oder „Typus Alleinherrscher“ (Wiggers): Dieser wohl im Jahr 212 geschaffene Typus ist sehr häufig, er ist der charakteristische Bildnistyp der Alleinherrscherzeit und wurde in der Frühen Neuzeit oft nachgeahmt. Das Haar ist in Lockenreihen angeordnet. Der Gesichtsausdruck ist angespannt. Zu den horizontalen und vertikalen Stirnfalten kommen zwei Diagonalfalten hinzu, die den Stirnwulst seitlich abgrenzen. Gerunzelte, zusammengezogene Brauen verstärken den finsteren Eindruck, den die faltige Stirn erzeugt. Neu ist eine Quetschfalte bei der Nasenwurzel. Eine Variante mit gebogener Nase kommt nur bei Funden aus dem Osten vor; vermutlich handelt es sich dabei um einen realistischen Aspekt, den die stadtrömischen Bildhauer aus ästhetischem Grund wegließen.^[69]

Zweiter Alleinherrschertypus („Typus Tivoli“)

• „Zweiter Alleinherrschertypus“ (Fittschen) oder „Typus Tivoli“ (Wiggers): Die Gesichtszüge sind deutlich entspannter als beim ersten Alleinherrschertypus. Wiggers datierte diesen Typus um 211–214, Fittschen – dessen Auffassung sich durchsetzt – hat seine Entstehung ins Jahr 215 gesetzt.^[70]

Rezeption

Zeitgenössische Urteile und Darstellung in den Hauptquellen

Caracallas Ansehen bei den Soldaten beruhte nicht nur auf seiner finanziellen Großzügigkeit, sondern auch auf seiner Nähe zu ihrer Lebensweise: Auf den Feldzügen nahm er freiwillig die gleichen Strapazen auf sich wie ein einfacher Soldat. Seine körperliche Ausdauer verschaffte ihm Respekt.^[71] Noch lange nach seinem Tod hielt seine Beliebtheit im Heer an. Vielleicht schon während der kurzen Herrschaft des Macrinus setzten die Soldaten durch, dass der Senat ihn widerwillig im Rahmen des Kaiserkults zum Gott erhob. Spätestens ab dem ersten Regierungsjahr von Macrinus’ Nachfolger Elagabal wurde er als divus Magnus Antoninus verehrt.^[72] Elagabal verdankte seinen Aufstieg zur Macht dem Umstand, dass er als unehelicher Sohn Caracallas ausgegeben wurde, was ihm die Sympathie der Soldaten verschaffte; in Wirklichkeit war er nur sehr entfernt mit dem ermordeten Kaiser verwandt. Auch Elagabals Nachfolger Severus Alexander trat als unehelicher Sohn Caracallas auf, um sich bei den Soldaten beliebt zu machen.

Die Nachrichten über Caracallas Ansehen in der hauptstädtischen Bevölkerung sind widersprüchlich. Im Senat war er verhasst, daher wurde sein Tod dort bejubelt. Da er sich auf die senatorischen Familien nicht verlassen konnte, stützte er sich auf Aufsteiger ritterlicher Herkunft. Deren Bevorzugung steigerte die Erbitterung der zurückgesetzten Senatoren.^[73]

Die extrem caracallafeindliche Stimmung in der senatorischen Führungsschicht spiegelt sich in den Hauptquellen, den Darstellungen der zeitgenössischen Geschichtsschreiber Cassius Dio und Herodian, sowie in der weit später entstandenen und als Quelle weniger wertvollen Historia Augusta. Cassius Dio hielt Caracalla für geistesgestört.^[74] Seine Römische Geschichte, die aus der Perspektive der senatorischen Opposition geschrieben ist, gilt trotz seiner sehr parteiischen Haltung als die beste Quelle und als relativ zuverlässig. Herodians Darstellung ist ungenauer und fehlerhafter.^[75] Die Historia Augusta hängt teilweise von den beiden älteren Werken ab, doch muss ihr Verfasser auch Zugang zu Material aus einer weiteren, heute verlorenen zeitgenössischen Quelle gehabt haben.^[76]

Außerhalb des Kreises seiner Anhänger wurde der Kaiser mit Spitznamen benannt. Wohl erst in der Zeit seiner Alleinherrschaft nannte man ihn nach seinem Kapuzenmantel Caracalla. Dabei handelte es sich um eine vom Kaiser persönlich entworfene modifizierte Luxusausführung eines keltischen Kleidungsstücks.^[77] Ein weiterer Spitzname, den Cassius Dio überliefert, war Tarautas; unter diesem Namen war ein kleinwüchsiger, hässlicher und brutaler Gladiator bekannt, der offenbar ähnlich wie der Kaiser aussah, zumindest nach der Ansicht von dessen Gegnern.^[78]

Antike Caracalla-Legenden

Schon zu Caracallas Lebzeiten kursierten anscheinend Gerüchte über eine sexuelle Beziehung zwischen ihm und seiner Mutter Julia Domna nach dem Tod seines Vaters. Dies war eine Verleumdung, die sich im Lauf der Zeit zu einer Legende auswuchs. Der Chronograph von 354 teilt sie wie eine Tatsache mit.^[79] In Wirklichkeit war das Verhältnis zwischen Mutter und Sohn nach dem Mord an Geta schlecht, obwohl Julia Domna offiziell geehrt wurde. Inzest war ein Topos der Tyrannendarstellung und wurde schon Nero unterstellt.^[80]

Quellen des 4. Jahrhunderts und der Folgezeit, darunter die Historia Augusta, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius und die Epitome de Caesaribus, machen aus Julia Domna die Stiefmutter Caracallas und behaupten, er habe sie geheiratet. Diese phantastische Darstellung findet sich auch bei christlichen Autoren der patristischen Zeit (Orosius, Hieronymus) und prägte im Mittelalter das Bild Caracallas als eines hemmungslosen Unholds. Der tatsächlich verübte Brudermord an Geta hingegen geriet in Vergessenheit.^[81]

Mittelalter

Eine mittelalterliche Caracalla-Legende überliefert Geoffrey von Monmouth, der im 12. Jahrhundert das Geschichtswerk De gestis Britonum verfasste, das später unter dem Titel Historia regum Britanniae bekannt wurde und eine sehr starke Nachwirkung erzielte. Nach Geoffreys Darstellung waren Geta und Caracalla, den er Bassianus nennt, nur Halbbrüder; Geta stammte von einer römischen Mutter, Caracalla von einer britischen. Caracalla wurde von den Briten, da er mütterlicherseits zu ihnen gehörte, zum König gewählt, Geta von den Römern. Es kam zur Schlacht, in der Caracalla siegte und Geta fiel. Später wurde Caracalla von Carausius besiegt und getötet.^[82] In dieser Darstellung vermischte Geoffrey verschiedene Epochen, denn in Wirklichkeit war Carausius ein römischer Befehlshaber, der sich 286 zum Kaiser ausrufen ließ und ein kurzlebiges Sonderreich in Britannien und nördlichen Küstengebieten Galliens begründete.

Frühe Neuzeit

Septimius Severus klagt Caracalla des Attentatsversuchs an. Ölgemälde von Jean-Baptiste Greuze im Louvre, 1762

Um die Wende vom 16. zum 17. Jahrhundert verfasste ein unbekannter englischer Dichter das lateinische Universitätsdrama Antoninus Bassianus Caracalla in jambischen Senaren.^[83] Er thematisierte neben dem Brudermord insbesondere die angebliche Ehe Caracallas mit Julia Domna, wobei er Julia nicht als Stiefmutter, sondern als leibliche Mutter Caracallas darstellte. Er schilderte also die Verbindung als wirklichen Inzest.

Im Jahr 1762 fertigte der französische Maler Jean-Baptiste Greuze ein Ölgemälde an, das Septimius Severus und Caracalla in Britannien zeigt. Der Kaiser wirft seinem Sohn vor, er habe versucht ihn zu ermorden. Die Szene fußt auf einer von Cassius Dio mitgeteilten legendenhaften Überlieferung, der zufolge Caracalla nach einem Attentatsversuch auf seinen Vater zur Rede gestellt, aber nicht bestraft wurde.^[84]

Moderne Forschung

Die Einschätzungen der modernen Historiker orientieren sich generell – trotz Kritik an Einzelheiten der Überlieferung – weitgehend am Caracallabild der antiken Geschichtsschreibung. In der älteren Forschung pflegte man in Caracalla einen typischen Repräsentanten einer Verfallszeit zu sehen. Cassius Dios nicht überprüfbare Behauptung, der Kaiser sei geisteskrank gewesen, wirkt bis in die Gegenwart nach. Das früher populäre Schlagwort Cäsarenwahnsinn wird aber in der Fachliteratur vermieden, da es unwissenschaftlich ist und zur Erhellung der historischen Realität nichts beiträgt.

Zwei führende Kunsthistoriker des 19. Jahrhunderts, Anton Springer und Jacob Burckhardt, meinten aus Caracallas Porträt einen zutiefst verbrecherischen Charakter herauslesen zu können.^[85]

Für Theodor Mommsen war Caracalla „ein geringfügiger, nichtswürdiger Mensch, der sich ebenso lächerlich wie verächtlich machte“; zum Partherkrieg habe ihn seine „wahnsinnige Ruhmsucht“ veranlasst und dabei sei er „glücklicherweise“ ums Leben gekommen.^[86] Ernst Kornemann schrieb, er sei „voll Größenwahnsinn“ gewesen; im Heer und im Staate habe überall „der gemeine, unwissende Haufe“ geherrscht.^[87] Alfred Heuß meinte, Caracalla sei zu „sachlichen Leistungen“ unfähig gewesen, „ein roher, hemmungsloser und moralisch minderwertiger Mensch, der schon vor der Thronbesteigung stark verbrecherische Neigungen verriet“; zum Partherkrieg sei er von seiner „kindischen Phantasie“ veranlasst worden.^[88] Ähnlich ist das Urteil von Karl Christ ausgefallen: Caracalla habe seine „Grausamkeit, Hinterlist und innere Labilität“ nicht verborgen, habe an einer Nervenkrankheit gelitten und „in jeder Beziehung extrem und überreizt“ reagiert. Er sei „brutal, von unheimlicher Willenskraft“ gewesen; in den überlieferten Anekdoten habe sich „wohl die historische Wahrheit verdichtet“. Mit seiner Selbstdarstellung habe er vor allem Furcht erregen wollen. Die Constitutio Antoniniana erscheine zwar aus dem Rückblick als bedeutende Maßnahme, habe aber politisch an den bereits vorhandenen Strukturen kaum etwas geändert.^[89] Géza Alföldy war der Ansicht, das Urteil Cassius Dios sei „im Grunde genommen richtig“, eine „Ehrenrettung“ Caracallas entbehre jeder Grundlage.^[90]

In der neueren Forschung wird allerdings auch betont, dass die zeitgenössischen erzählenden Quellen von leidenschaftlichen Gegnern des Kaisers stammen und die Haltung der oppositionellen Senatskreise spiegeln und dass bei den Schilderungen seiner Missetaten, seiner abstoßenden Charakterzüge und seiner Unbeliebtheit mit Übertreibungen zu rechnen ist. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass Caracalla bei großen Teilen der Reichsbevölkerung möglicherweise weniger verhasst war als bei der hauptstädtischen Oberschicht. Unstrittig ist, dass er bei den Soldaten sogar lange über seinen Tod hinaus in höchstem Ansehen stand.^[91] Anthony R. Birley meint, man müsse zwar die Voreingenommenheit Cassius Dios in Rechnung stellen, doch lasse sich wenig zur Entlastung Caracallas vorbringen.^[92]

Quellenausgaben und Kommentare

• Herbert Baldwin Foster, Earnest Cary (Hrsg.): Dio’s Roman History, Band 9, Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Massachusetts) 1961 (Nachdruck der kritischen Ausgabe von 1927)
• Peter Alois Kuhlmann (Hrsg.): Die Gießener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse. Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar (= Berichte und Arbeiten aus der Universitätsbibliothek und dem Universitätsarchiv Gießen, Bd. 46). Universitätsbibliothek Gießen, Gießen 1994, S. 215–255 (enthält: Constitutio Antoniniana; Der Amnestie-Erlass; Die Vertreibung der Ägypter aus Alexandria. Digitalisat)
• Carlo M. Lucarini (Hrsg.): Herodianus: Regnum post Marcum. Saur, München 2005, ISBN 3-598-71282-0 (kritische Ausgabe)
• Michael Louis Meckler (Hrsg.): Caracalla and his late-antique biographer: a historical commentary on the Vita Caracalli in the Historia Augusta. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1994 (Einleitung, kritische Ausgabe, englische Übersetzung und Kommentar)

Literatur

Allgemeines

• David S. Potter: The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395. London und New York 2004, ISBN 0-415-10057-7, S. 110–124, 133–151
• Gerhard Wirth: Caracalla in Franken. Zur Verwirklichung einer politischen Ideologie. In: Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung 34/35, 1975, S. 37–74 (enthält auch eine allgemeine Untersuchung von Caracallas Herrschaft)

Ikonographie

• Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. 2., überarbeitete Auflage, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz 1994, ISBN 3-8053-0596-6, Textband S. 98–100, 102–112, Tafelband Tafeln 105–116 (Nr. 86, 88–94)
• Heinz Bernhard Wiggers, Max Wegner: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. Macrinus bis Balbinus (= Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1). Gebrüder Mann, Berlin 1971, ISBN 3-7861-2147-8, S. 9–92

Hilfsmittel

• Attilio Mastino: Le titolature di Caracalla e Geta attraverso le iscrizioni (indici). Editrice Clueb, Bologna 1981 (Zusammenstellung der inschriftlichen Belege für die Titulatur)

Weblinks

Commons: Caracalla – Sammlung von Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien

• Michael L. Meckler: Kurzbiografie (englisch) bei De Imperatoribus Romanis (mit Literaturangaben).
• Literatur von und über Caracalla im Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
• Englische Übersetzung der Lebensbeschreibung in der Historia Augusta bei LacusCurtius

Anmerkungen

1. ↑ Es ist vermutet worden, dass versehentlich nicht Getas, sondern Caracallas Porträt gelöscht wurde; siehe Heinz Bernhard Wiggers: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 9–129, hier: 48. Diese Hypothese hat sich aber nicht durchgesetzt; siehe Florian Krüpe: Die Damnatio memoriae, Gutenberg 2011, S. 237.
2. ↑ Zum Datum siehe Géza Alföldy: Nox dea fit lux! Caracallas Geburtstag. In: Giorgio Bonamente, Marc Mayer (Hrsg.): Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcinonense, Bari 1996, S. 9–36, hier: 31–36.
3. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),9,3. Bei der Angabe mancher Bücher von Cassius Dios Werk sind unterschiedliche Zählungen gebräuchlich; eine abweichende Buchzählung ist hier und im Folgenden jeweils in Klammern angegeben.
4. ↑ Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 4f.
5. ↑ Historia Augusta, Caracalla 1,3–2,1.
6. ↑ Helga Gesche: Die Divinisierung der römischen Kaiser in ihrer Funktion als Herrschaftslegitimation. In: Chiron 8, 1978, S. 377–390, hier: 387f.; Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 9 und Anm. 34; Anne Daguet-Gagey: Septime Sévère, Paris 2000, S. 255f.; Drora Baharal: Victory of Propaganda, Oxford 1996, S. 20–42.
7. ↑ Florian Krüpe: Die Damnatio memoriae, Gutenberg 2011, S. 182f. und Anm. 48.
8. ↑ Für Frühjahr 196 plädiert Matthäus Heil: Clodius Albinus und der Bürgerkrieg von 197. In: Hans-Ulrich Wiemer (Hrsg.): Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Berlin 2006, S. 55–85, hier: 75–78. Anderer Meinung ist u. a. Helmut Halfmann: Itinera principum, Stuttgart 1986, S. 220; er tritt für Mitte 195 ein.
9. ↑ Michael Meckler: Caracalla the Intellectual. In: Enrico dal Covolo, Giancarlo Rinaldi (Hrsg.): Gli imperatori Severi, Rom 1999, S. 39–46, hier: 44f.
10. ↑ Für eine Datierung vor Ende 197 plädiert Zeev Rubin: Dio, Herodian, and Severus’ Second Parthian War. In: Chiron 5, 1975, S. 419–441, hier: 432–435. Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 10 tritt für die Datierung 28. Januar 198 ein.
11. ↑ Cassius Dio 77 (76),3–6. Siehe zu diesen Vorgängen Anthony R. Birley: The African Emperor. Septimius Severus, 2., erweiterte Auflage, London 1988, S. 137, 143f., 161f.; Barbara Levick: Julia Domna, London 2007, S. 74–81.
12. ↑ Abbildung bei Barbara Levick: Julia Domna, London 2007, S. 81. Vgl. Daría Saavedra-Guerrero: El poder, el miedo y la ficción en la relación del emperador Caracalla y su madre Julia Domna. In: Latomus 66, 2007, S. 120–131, hier: 122f.
13. ↑ Florian Krüpe: Die Damnatio memoriae, Gutenberg 2011, S. 183 und Anm. 52.
14. ↑ Zur Datierung siehe Anthony R. Birley: The African Emperor. Septimius Severus, 2., erweiterte Auflage, London 1988, S. 274; Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 13 Anm. 58.
15. ↑ Herodian 3,15,2 mit Angabe der Einzelheiten; Cassius Dio beschränkt sich auf einen allgemeinen Hinweis, siehe Cassius Dio 77 (76),15,2 (vgl. 77 (76),14,1–7).
16. ↑ Herodian 4,3,5–9.
17. ↑ Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 62f.; Géza Alföldy: Die Krise des Römischen Reiches, Stuttgart 1989, S. 190–192.
18. ↑ Die Haltung der Truppen untersuchen Jenö Fitz: Das Verhalten der Armee in der Kontroverse zwischen Caracalla und Geta. In: Dorothea Haupt, Heinz Günter Horn (Hrsg.): Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms, Bd. 2, Bonn 1977, S. 545–552 und Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 105–110.
19. ↑ Zur Datierung siehe Anthony R. Birley: The African Emperor. Septimius Severus, 2., erweiterte Auflage, London 1988, S. 189; Helmut Halfmann: Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen Kaiserhauses. In: Chiron 12, 1982, S. 217–235, hier: 229f.; Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 15, 109–112; Florian Krüpe: Die Damnatio memoriae, Gutenberg 2011, S. 13, 195–197; Géza Alföldy: Die Krise des Römischen Reiches, Stuttgart 1989, S. 179.
20. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),2,2–4. Vgl. Géza Alföldy: Die Krise des Römischen Reiches, Stuttgart 1989, S. 193–195.
21. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),23,3.
22. ↑ Zur außergewöhnlichen Konsequenz bei der Durchführung siehe Florian Krüpe: Die Damnatio memoriae. Über die Vernichtung von Erinnerung. Eine Fallstudie zu Publius Septimius Geta (198–211 n. Chr.), Gutenberg 2011, S. 14–16.
23. ↑ Siehe zu der Rede Florian Krüpe: Die Damnatio memoriae, Gutenberg 2011, S. 188f.; zur Amnestie David S. Potter: The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395, London 2004, S. 136.
24. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),3,1–2; Herodian 4,4,7–5,1. Vgl. Michael Alexander Speidel: Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 2009, S. 415; Robert Develin: The Army Pay Rises under Severus and Caracalla and the Question of Annona militaris. In: Latomus 30, 1971, S. 687–695, hier: S. 687 und Anm. 6.
25. ↑ Historia Augusta, Caracalla 2,6–8 und Geta 6,1–2. Vgl. Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 115–117; Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 105f. und Anm. 38; Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 32, 64; David S. Potter: The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395, London 2004, S. 135f.
26. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),4,1.
27. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),4,1–2.
28. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),17,1–2; vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 65f.
29. ↑ Karlheinz Dietz: Caracalla, Fabius Cilo und die Urbaniciani. In: Chiron 13, 1983, S. 381–404, hier: 397–403; Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 32f., 64f., 113f.; Frank Kolb: Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta, Bonn 1972, S. 94–97.
30. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),22–23. Siehe dazu Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 34f., 159–166; Drora Baharal: Caracalla and Alexander the Great: a Reappraisal. In: Carl Deroux (Hrsg.): Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bd. 7, Bruxelles 1994, S. 524–567, hier: 529. Vgl. Frank Kolb: Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta, Bonn 1972, S. 97–111; Agnès Bérenger-Badel: Caracalla et le massacre des Alexandrins: entre histoire et légende noire. In: David El Kenz (Hrsg.): Le massacre, objet d’histoire, Paris 2005, S. 121–139.
31. ↑ Herodian 4,6,4–5. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 33, 115.
32. ↑ Siehe zu diesem Bau Nele Schröder: Ein severisches Großprojekt: Die Ausstattung der Caracalla-Thermen in Rom. In: Stephan Faust, Florian Leitmeir (Hrsg.): Repräsentationsformen in severischer Zeit, Berlin 2011, S. 179–192.
33. ↑ Eine umfassende Untersuchung bietet Hartmut Wolff: Die Constitutio Antoniniana und Papyrus Gissensis 40 I, 2 Bände, Köln 1976; zur Frage der privatrechtlichen Konsequenzen der Bügerrechtsverleihung siehe Bd. 1 S. 80–109.
34. ↑ Hartmut Wolff: Die Constitutio Antoniniana und Papyrus Gissensis 40 I, Bd. 1, Köln 1976, S. 278–281.
35. ↑ Peter Alois Kuhlmann (Hrsg.): Die Gießener literarischen Papyri und die Caracalla-Erlasse. Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Gießen 1994, S. 222f. (griechischer Text und Übersetzung), 225f. (Kommentar).
36. ↑ Herodian 4,4,7.
37. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),36,3. Siehe zur Solderhöhung Robert Develin: The Army Pay Rises under Severus and Caracalla and the Question of Annona militaris. In: Latomus 30, 1971, S. 687–695, hier: 687–692; Michael Alexander Speidel: Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 2009, S. 350, 415.
38. ↑ Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 60f.; Michael Alexander Speidel: Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 2009, S. 415, 436f.
39. ↑ Anthony R. Birley: The African Emperor. Septimius Severus, 2., erweiterte Auflage, London 1988, S. 190f.
40. ↑ David R. Walker: The Metrology of the Roman Silver Coinage, Teil 3, Oxford 1978, S. 62–64, 100, 130–132; Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 27.
41. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),10,3. Siehe dazu Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 33, 114f.
42. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),15,3–7.
43. ↑ Gerhard Weber: Zur Verehrung des Apollo Grannus in Faimingen, zu Phoebiana und Caracalla. In: Johannes Eingartner, Pia Eschbaumer, Gerhard Weber: Faimingen-Phoebiana, Band 1: Der römische Tempelbezirk in Faimingen-Phoebiana, Mainz 1993, S. 122–136, hier: S. 133 und Anm. 609.
44. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),23,2.
45. ↑ Lawrence Richardson, Jr.: A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore 1992, S. 361.
46. ↑ Zur Chronologie und zum Verlauf des Feldzugs siehe Andreas Hensen: Zu Caracallas Germanica Expeditio. Archäologisch-topographische Untersuchungen. In: Fundberichte aus Baden-Württemberg 19/1, 1994, S. 219–254.
47. ↑ Für die Glaubwürdigkeit plädiert Bruno Bleckmann: Die Alamannen im 3. Jahrhundert: Althistorische Bemerkungen zur Ersterwähnung und zur Ethnogenese. In: Museum Helveticum 59, 2002, S. 145–171, hier: 147–153, 170. Seiner Auffassung folgen John F. Drinkwater: The Alamanni and Rome 213–496 (Caracalla to Clovis), Oxford 2007, S. 43f. und Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 82–87. Gegenteiliger Meinung sind u. a. Dieter Geuenich: Geschichte der Alemannen, 2., überarbeitete Auflage, Stuttgart 2005, S. 18f. und Helmut Castritius: Von politischer Vielfalt zur Einheit. Zu den Ethnogenesen der Alemannen. In: Herwig Wolfram, Walter Pohl: Typen der Ethnogenese unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Bayern, Teil 1, Wien 1990, S. 71–84, hier: 73–75. Die Hypothese, der zufolge der Alamannenname nicht in Cassius Dios Originaltext stand, war schon 1984 von Matthias Springer und Lawrence Okamura vorgetragen worden, die unabhängig voneinander zu diesem Ergebnis kamen. Eine Zusammenstellung der Quellen mit Übersetzung bieten Camilla Dirlmeier, Gunther Gottlieb (Hrsg.): Quellen zur Geschichte der Alamannen von Cassius Dio bis Ammianus Marcellinus, Sigmaringen 1976, S. 9–12. Vgl. Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 141f.
48. ↑ Mit einem deutlichen römischen Erfolg rechnet daher u.a. Peter Kneißl: Die Siegestitulatur der römischen Kaiser, Göttingen 1969, S. 160f. Ähnlich urteilt Gerhard Wirth: Caracalla in Franken. Zur Verwirklichung einer politischen Ideologie. In: Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung 34/35, 1975, S. 37–74, hier: 66, 68f.
49. ↑ Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 146; Boris Gerov: Die Invasion der Carpen im Jahre 214. In: Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967, Oxford 1971, S. 431–436. Vgl. aber Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 88.
50. ↑ Zur Route siehe Helmut Halfmann: Itinera principum, Stuttgart 1986, S. 227–229.
51. ↑ Zu dem gesamten Phänomen siehe Angela Kühnen: Die imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik, Münster 2008, S. 176–186, 192; anderer Meinung ist hinsichtlich der politischen Absicht Caracallas Drora Baharal: Caracalla and Alexander the Great: a Reappraisal. In: Carl Deroux (Hrsg.): Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bd. 7, Bruxelles 1994, S. 524–567.
52. ↑ Siehe dazu Drora Baharal: Caracalla and Alexander the Great: a Reappraisal. In: Carl Deroux (Hrsg.): Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bd. 7, Bruxelles 1994, S. 524–567, hier: 529f.
53. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),7,2. Zur Authentizität des Briefs siehe Drora Baharal: Caracalla and Alexander the Great: a Reappraisal. In: Carl Deroux (Hrsg.): Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bd. 7, Bruxelles 1994, S. 524–567, hier: S. 530 und Anm. 9.
54. ↑ Zu diesen Ereignissen und ihrer Chronologie siehe André Maricq: Classica et Orientalia, Paris 1965, S. 27–32.
55. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),1,1; Herodian 4,10–11. Mit einem historischen Kern rechnen u.a. Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, 6. Auflage, München 2009, S. 623f., Karl-Heinz Ziegler: Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem Partherreich, Wiesbaden 1964, S. 133, Gerhard Wirth: Caracalla in Franken. Zur Verwirklichung einer politischen Ideologie. In: Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung 34/35, 1975, S. 37–74, hier: 55–58 und Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 30f. Anderer Meinung ist Dieter Timpe: Ein Heiratsplan Kaiser Caracallas. In: Hermes 95, 1967, S. 470–495. Gegen Timpes Argumentation wendet sich Joseph Vogt: Zu Pausanias und Caracalla. In: Historia 18, 1969, S. 299–308, hier: 303–308.
56. ↑ Zum Verlauf des Feldzugs siehe Erich Kettenhofen: Caracalla. In: Encyclopædia Iranica, Bd. 4, London 1990, S. 790–792, hier: 791 (online).
57. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),3,4–5 (vgl. 79 (78),1,3–4). Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 66.
58. ↑ Siehe beispielsweise Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, 6. Auflage, München 2009, S. 625f.; Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 66f.
59. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),4,1–5,2.
60. ↑ Zweifel an der Rolle des Macrinus als Organisator der Verschwörung sind unberechtigt; siehe dazu Frank Kolb: Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta, Bonn 1972, S. 133 Anm. 647.
61. ↑ Siehe zu Caracallas geplantem Besuch des Heiligtums Frank Kolb: Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta, Bonn 1972, S. 123f.
62. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),5,2–5. Vgl. Herodian 4,13 und Historia Augusta, Caracalla 6,6–7,2. Siehe auch Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 152–156.
63. ↑ Herodian 4,7 und 4,9,3. Vgl. Cassius Dio 79 (78),9,3: Auch der mit Caracalla verglichene Gladiator Tarautas war klein.
64. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),11,1.
65. ↑ Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, 6. Auflage, München 2009, S. 625; Anne-Marie Leander Touati: Portrait and historical relief. Some remarks on the meaning of Caracalla’s sole ruler portrait. In: Anne-Marie Leander Touati u.a. (Hrsg.): Munuscula Romana, Stockholm 1991, S. 117–131, hier: 129f.; Heinz Bernhard Wiggers: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 9–129, hier: 11.
66. ↑ Anne-Marie Leander Touati: Portrait and historical relief. Some remarks on the meaning of Caracalla’s sole ruler portrait. In: Anne-Marie Leander Touati u.a. (Hrsg.): Munuscula Romana, Stockholm 1991, S. 117–131.
67. ↑ Heinz Bernhard Wiggers: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 9–129, hier: 17–35; Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, 2. Auflage, Mainz 1994, Textband S. 98–100, 102–112; Florian Leitmeir: Brüche im Kaiserbildnis von Caracalla bis Severus Alexander. In: Stephan Faust, Florian Leitmeir (Hrsg.): Repräsentationsformen in severischer Zeit, Berlin 2011, S. 11–33, hier: 13–18.
68. ↑ Heinz Bernhard Wiggers: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 9–129, hier: 25f., 52; Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, 2. Auflage, Mainz 1994, Textband S. 111.
69. ↑ Heinz Bernhard Wiggers: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 9–129, hier: 33f.
70. ↑ Heinz Bernhard Wiggers: Caracalla, Geta, Plautilla. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 9–129, hier: 26; Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom, 2. Auflage, Mainz 1994, Textband S. 110f. Fittschens Ansicht folgt Florian Leitmeir: Brüche im Kaiserbildnis von Caracalla bis Severus Alexander. In: Stephan Faust, Florian Leitmeir (Hrsg.): Repräsentationsformen in severischer Zeit, Berlin 2011, S. 11–33, hier: 17f.
71. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),11,2–3; 78 (77),13,1–2; Herodian 4,7,4–7; 4,13,7. Vgl. Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 67.
72. ↑ Zu diesem Kult und zur Datierung seiner Einführung siehe James Frank Gilliam: On Divi under the Severi. In: Jacqueline Bibauw (Hrsg.): Hommages à Marcel Renard, Bd. 2, Bruxelles 1969, S. 284–289, hier: 285f.; Helga Gesche: Die Divinisierung der römischen Kaiser in ihrer Funktion als Herrschaftslegitimation. In: Chiron 8, 1978, S. 377–390, hier: 387f.
73. ↑ Helmut Halfmann: Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen Kaiserhauses. In: Chiron 12, 1982, S. 217–235, hier: 232–234.
74. ↑ Cassius Dio 78 (77),15,2–3.
75. ↑ Zur Einschätzung der Quellen siehe Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum. Die severischen Kaiser im Spannungsfeld innenpolitischer Konflikte, Bonn 1990, S. 11 und die dort genannte Literatur.
76. ↑ Helmut Halfmann: Zwei syrische Verwandte des severischen Kaiserhauses. In: Chiron 12, 1982, S. 217–235, hier: 231.
77. ↑ Zum Kleidungsstück caracalla und dem davon abgeleiteten Spitznamen des Kaisers siehe Johannes Kramer: Zu Bedeutung und Herkunft von caracalla. In: Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 48, 2002, S. 247–256.
78. ↑ Cassius Dio 79 (78),9,3.
79. ↑ Chronograph von 354, hrsg. von Theodor Mommsen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores antiquissimi, Bd. 9 (= Chronica minora, Bd. 1), Berlin 1892, S. 147 ( zu Antoninus Magnus).
80. ↑ Siehe zu der Legende Barbara Levick: Julia Domna, London 2007, S. 98f.; Gabriele Marasco: Giulia Domna, Caracalla e Geta: frammenti di tragedia alla corte dei Severi. In: L’Antiquité Classique 65, 1996, S. 119–134, hier: 119–126.
81. ↑ Siehe zu dieser Version der Legende Gabriele Marasco: Giulia Domna, Caracalla e Geta: frammenti di tragedia alla corte dei Severi. In: L’Antiquité Classique 65, 1996, S. 119–134, hier: 126–134.
82. ↑ Geoffrey von Monmouth, De gestis Britonum (Historia regum Britanniae) 5,74f., herausgegeben und ins Englische übersetzt von Michael D. Reeve und Neil Wright: Geoffrey of Monmouth: The History of the Kings of Britain, Woodbridge 2007, S. 90–93.
83. ↑ Herausgegeben, ins Deutsche übersetzt und kommentiert von Uwe Baumann: Antoninus Bassianus Caracalla, Frankfurt am Main 1984.
84. ↑ Cassius Dio 77 (76),14,3–7.
85. ↑ Michael Meckler: Caracalla the Intellectual. In: Enrico dal Covolo, Giancarlo Rinaldi (Hrsg.): Gli imperatori Severi, Rom 1999, S. 39–46, hier: 40f.
86. ↑ Theodor Mommsen: Römische Kaisergeschichte, München 1992, S. 396f.
87. ↑ Ernst Kornemann: Römische Geschichte, Bd. 2, 6. Auflage, Stuttgart 1970, S. 311f.
88. ↑ Alfred Heuß: Römische Geschichte, Braunschweig 1987, S. 358f.
89. ↑ Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, 6. Auflage, München 2009, S. 622–625.
90. ↑ Géza Alföldy: Die Krise des Römischen Reiches, Stuttgart 1989, S. 209.
91. ↑ Anthony R. Birley: Caracalla. In: Manfred Clauss (Hrsg.): Die römischen Kaiser. 55 historische Portraits von Caesar bis Iustinian, 4. Auflage, München 2010, S. 185–191, hier: 191; Drora Baharal: Caracalla and Alexander the Great: a Reappraisal. In: Carl Deroux (Hrsg.): Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Bd. 7, Bruxelles 1994, S. 524–567, hier: 564.
92. ↑ Anthony R. Birley: The African Emperor. Septimius Severus, 2., erweiterte Auflage, London 1988, S. 189.

Quelle: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=109890585; Bearbeiter: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caracalla&action=history; Lizenz: CC BY-SA-3.0 [wiki]

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

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

Septimius Severus

by Patrick Hurley
published on 11 April 2011

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu.com/Septimius_Severus/]

Lucius Septimius Severus who lived from 145/146 AD to 211 AD was a Roman Emperor of Libyan descent from Lepcis Magna, who reigned April 14, 193 AD to February 4, 211 AD.  Septimius came from a locally prominent Punic family who had a history of rising to senatorial as well as consular status

His first visit to Rome was around 163 AD during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. He was protected by his cousin Caius Septimius Severus and entered the Roman Senate in 170 AD. When his cousin went to Africa as a proconsul around 173-174 AD, he chose L. Septimius Severus to be his legatus.

L. Septimius married Paccia Marciana around 175 AD who had Punic origins like him; however, she died ten years later. When he was governor of Gaul and he lived in Lugdunum (Lyon), he married Julia Domna from Emesa (Syria) around 187 AD. She was descended from a family of great priests of Eliogabal.

Septimius’ rise to emperor began with the murder of the dissolute ruler Commodus on the last day of 192 AD.  Commodus’ immediate successor, the well-respected if elderly Pertinax, was quickly made emperor afterwards.  Pertinax’s actions as emperor, however, enraged members of the Praetorian Guard who disliked his efforts to enforce stricter discipline.  Moreover, the inability of Pertinax to meet the Guard’s demands for back pay led to their revolt which ended in the emperor’s assassination.  The Praetorian Guard then cynically proceeded to auction off the imperial throne to the highest bidder with the person willing to pay the most being promised the support of the Praetorian Guard and therefore the imperial throne.  A rich and prominent senator, M. Didius Julianus, perhaps as a joke at first, proceeded to outbid all others at the auction and thus was proclaimed emperor by the Praetorians solely for the reason that he promised to pay them the most money.   This affair caused considerable resentment among the population at Rome who openly denounced Julianus and the way in which he acquired the throne. Word of such unrest at Rome spread to the provinces and led to the emergence of three possible candidates to challenge Julianus’ rule.

The first candidate was Clodius Albinus, governor of Britain.  The second was Pescennius Niger, governor of Syria, and the third was, of course, Septimius Severus who governed the province of Pannonia Superior on the Danube frontier.  All three governors emerged as possible candidates mainly because each of them held provinces that were defended by three legions apiece.  Not only did this give each governor a powerful military base of three legions but also ensured that the provinces adjacent to them would more often than not join in their cause if they decided to rise up and make a bid for imperial power.  Both Albinus and Niger did so. Septimius, in making his claim, had an edge over these two men.  He had an advantage not only in terms of propaganda (Septimius had served with Pertinax previously and successfully portrayed himself as the ‘avenger of Pertinax,’ even adopting the slain emperor’s name) but also in terms of location as Pannonia was the closest of these provinces to Italy and Rome.  To prevent a possible clash with Clodius Albinus in Britain, he secured Albinus’ support mainly by promising him the title of Caesar and thus a place in the imperial succession should Septimius be successful.  After securing the loyalty of the sixteen legions of the Rhine and Danube to his cause, Septimius marched into Italy and, 60 miles outside of Rome, was recognized by the Senate as emperor.  Julianus was executed, and Septimius was welcomed into Rome on 9 June 193 AD.  With his accession, the year 193 AD is known as ‘The Year of Five Emperors.’

Septimius quickly dissolved the existing Praetorian Guard and replaced it with a much larger bodyguard recruited from the Danubian legions under his command.  To strengthen his rule in Italy, he also raised three new legions (I-III Parthica), based the second of these not far from Rome at Alba, and increased the city of Rome’s number of vigils, urban cohorts, and other units, greatly enlarging Rome’s overall garrison.

Having now secured Rome (and, for the moment, Albinus’ loyalty in the west), Septimius now organized a campaign to march to the eastern provinces to eliminate his rival Niger.  Severan forces handed out successive defeats to Niger, driving his forces out of Thrace, then defeating him at Cyzicus and Nicaea in Asia Minor in 193 AD, and ultimately defeating him at Issus in 194 AD.  While in the East, Severus turned his forces against the Parthian vassals who had backed Niger in his claims.  He quickly subdued the kingdoms of Osroene and Adiabene, taking the titles Parthicus Arabicus and Parthicus Adiabenicus to commemorate these victories.  To solidify his reputation and attempt to link his new dynasty with that of the Antonines, he declared himself the son of the now deified former emperor Marcus Aurelius and brother of the deified Commodus.  Moreover, he conferred upon his eldest son M. Aurelius Antoninus (later the emperor Caracalla) the title of Caesar.  This last move led him into direct conflict with his erstwhile ally Clodius Albinus who was initially given this title in return for his loyalty.  Realizing that Severus intended to discard him, Albinus rebelled and crossed with his legions into Gaul.  Severus hurried west to meet Albinus in battle at Lugdunum and defeated him in a bloody and hard fought battle in February 197 AD.  After defeating Albinus, Severus was now the sole emperor of the Roman Empire.

In the summer of 197 AD, Severus once again travelled to the eastern provinces where the Parthian Empire had taken advantage of his absence to besiege Nisibis in Roman occupied Mesopotamia.  After breaking the Parthian siege there, he proceeded to march down the Euphrates attacking and sacking the Parthian cities of Seleucia, Babylon, and ultimately the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon.  He would have liked to have continued his campaigns deeper into the Parthian Empire, although Dio states that he was prevented from doing so due to a lack of military intelligence and knowledge that the Romans had of the Parthian heartland.  Septimius then turned against the fortress of Hatra in Iraq, but failed to take it after two attempted sieges.  After coming to a face-saving agreement with Hatra, Septimius declared victory in the East, taking the title of Parthicus Maximus (indeed, the Senate voted him a Triumphal Arch in the Roman Forum which still stands today).  It was during this time that he organized the lands of northern Mesopotamia, captured from the Parthians, into the new province of Roman Mesopotamia which Dio states Severus hoped would serve as a ‘bulwark for Syria’ against any future Parthian invasions (how effective this policy was in the years after Severus’ reign is a matter which is open to debate).

Severus then travelled to Egypt in 199 AD, reorganizing the province.  After returning to Syria for a year’s stay (end of 200 AD to beginning of 202 AD), Severus finally travelled back to Rome in summer 202 AD to celebrate his decennalia with a victory game as well as giving his son Antoninus in marriage to the daughter of his confidant, the Praetorian Prefect Plautianus (who was later murdered thanks to the intrigues of Antoninus).  In autumn of that same year, Severus travelled to his homeland of Africa, touring (and greatly patronising) Severus’ home town of Lepcis Magna, as well as Utica and Carthage. At Lepcis Magna, he conducted an energetic program of monument building, providing colonnaded streets, a new forum, a basilica, and a new harbor for his hometown.  He also used this time to crush the desert tribes (most notably the Garamantes) who had been harassing Rome’s African frontiers.  Severus expanded and re-fortified the African frontier, even expanding Rome’s presence into the Sahara thus curtailing the raiding activities of these border tribes who could no longer attack Roman lands with impunity and then escape back into the desert.

Severus then returned to Italy in 203 AD where he stayed until 208 AD, holding the Secular games in 204 AD.  With the murder of his Praetorian Prefect Plautianus, Severus replaced him with the jurist Papinian. His patronage of this new prefect as well as the jurists Ulpian and Paul made the Severan era a golden one for Roman jurisprudence.

In 208 AD, small scale fighting on the frontier of Roman Britain gave Severus the excuse to launch a campaign there which would last until his death in 211 AD.  With this campaign, Severus was hoping for a chance to achieve military glory.  Moreover, he brought with him his sons Antoninus and Geta in the hopes of providing them with some administrative and military experience necessary for holding the imperial power (until this point, the two sons had spent their time violently quarrelling with each other as well as behaving like libertines carousing at Rome’s less reputable establishments).

Severus’ intentions in Britain were almost certainly to subdue the entire island and bring it under Roman rule completely.  In order to do this, Severus completely repaired and renovated many of the forts along Hadrian’s Wall with the intention of using the Wall as a base from which to launch a campaign to conquer the north of the island of Britain.  Leaving Geta south (supposedly leaving him responsible for the civil administration of Britain south of the wall), Severus and his son Antoninus campaigned in the north, especially in what is now Scotland.  The course of the campaign was one that was mixed for the Romans: the native Caledonian tribes did not meet the Romans in open battle and engaged in guerrilla tactics against them and caused the Romans to suffer heavy casualties.  By 210 AD, however, the northern tribes sued for peace, and Severus used this opportunity to build a new advance base at Carpow on the Tay for future campaigning.  He also took the title Britannicus for himself and his sons to commemorate this victory.  This success was short-lived, however, as the tribes soon rose up in revolt.  By this time (211 AD), Severus could not continue his campaigns against them.  He was a long-time sufferer of gout which appears to have taken a toll on him: He died at Eburacum (York) on 4 February 211 AD.

Severus’ reign witnessed the implementation of reforms in both the provinces and the military which had long term consequences.  After the defeat of his rivals, Severus resolved to not have another take power in the fashion that he did.  Consequently, he divided the three legion provinces of Pannonia and Syria to discourage future governors to rise up in revolt (Pannonia was divided into the new provinces of Pannonia Superior and Pannonia Inferior; Syria was divided into Syria Coele and Syria Phoenice).  Britain was also divided into two provinces (Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior), although it is debated whether or not Severus or his son and successor Caracalla did this.

Severus is also noted for his reforms of the army.  Not only did he greatly increase the size of the army, in order to ensure its loyalty he also raised the annual pay of the soldiers from 300 to 500 denarii (many would have seen this pay rise as overdue, as the last raise in soldiers’ salaries was granted by the emperor Domitian in 84 AD).  Severus, to pay for these raises, had to debase the silver coinage.  It seems that the long term effects this may have had on inflation were minimal, although Severus set a precedent for future emperors to continuously debase the coinage in order to pay for the army.  The historians Dio and Herodian criticized Severus for these pay rises, mainly because it put more financial pressure on the civilian population to maintain a larger army.  Moreover, Severus ended the ban on marriage which had existed in the Roman army, giving soldiers the right to take wives.  This measure has been argued by some to be a positive reform as it gave legal rights to the wives of soldiers who before the ban had no legal recourse as their relationships were informal and not legally binding.  So concerned was Severus with the loyalty of the army that, on his deathbed, he is said to have advised his two sons to ‘Be good to one another, enrich the soldiers, and damn the rest.’

Severus could be ruthless towards his enemies.  When he defeated Niger in the East, not only did he attack many of the cities in that region which supported his rival, he is noted for taking metropolitan status away from the city of Antioch (Niger’s base of operations), and giving it to its chief rival, the city of Laodicaea.  After defeating Albinus at the battle of Lugdunum, Severus released his wrath on the Roman Senate, many of its members having given either muted or open support to Albinus.  Severus, after declaring his intentions to purge the Senate in a speech to that body in 197 AD, proceeded to execute 29 senators of that body for having supported his rival (many other non-senatorial supporters of Albinus met the same fate).

Despite emerging victorious from a period of civil war and bringing stability to the empire, Severus’ sense of accomplishment may have been mixed.  His last words, according to various historians, seem to imply that he felt he may have left his work unfinished.  Aurelius Victor reported that Severus, on his deathbed, despairingly declared ‘I have been all things, and it has profited nothing.’ Dio, who knew Severus personally, wrote that, as the emperor expired, he gasped ‘Come, give it to me, if we have anything to do!’

Written by Patrick Hurley, published on 11 April 2011 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

• There are no references yet.

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

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

Didius Julianus

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 23 Sptember 2013

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu.com/Didius_Julianus]

On March 28, 193 CE Roman Emperor Pertinax was assassinated by the Praetorian Guard, and like his predecessor Commodus, he left no apparent successor. Two possible claimants presented themselves to the Guard. These “protectors” of the imperial throne had vowed that no new emperor would be chosen without their approval and an “auction” ensued, following which, the throne was finally awarded to the highest bidder – Didius Julianus, a former commander, governor, and consul.

Marcus Didius Julianus was born on January 30, 133 CE to Quintas Petronius Didius Severus of Milan and Aemilia Clara. He was raised in the home of Marcus Aurelius’s mother, Domitia Lucilla. The educational advantages he received there enabled him to rise through the imperial ranks and become a successful commander in Germany, the governor of Lower Germany, and, during the time of Emperor Pertinax, a senator and co-consul. Unfortunately, his career briefly stalled when he and several other commanders were recalled to Rome by Emperor Commodus, and he was forced to temporarily retire. Although no proof exists, it was suggested that he may have been part of the conspiracy to assassinate the fallen emperor.

With the death of Emperor Pertinax, Julianus decided to use his vast wealth to buy the throne, outbidding the prefect of Rome and Pertinax’s father-in-law, Titus Flavius Suspicianus. To further secure his claim, he convinced the Guard that Titus might seek revenge for the death of his son-in-law. In his Roman History, Cassius Dio spoke of the auction, “Didius Julianus, at once an insatiable money-getter and wanton spendthrift …always eager for revolution and hence had been exiled by Commodus…when he heard of the death of Pertinax, hastily made his way to the camp, and, standing at the gate of the enclosure, made bid to the soldiers for the rule over Rome.”

In his The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon also wrote about the auction, “This infamous offer, the most insolent excess of military license, diffused as universal grief, shame and indignation throughout the city. It reached at length the ears of Didius Julianus.” Yet, according to Gibbon, it was not personal ego but his wife and daughter’s suggestion that convinced him to pursue the throne. Gibbon added that as the Guard carried Julianus through the streets to the Senate, they paraded a man “whom they served and despised.” Herodian, in his History of the Roman Empire, spoke of Julianus’s reception by the people of Rome. “No one, however, shouted the congratulations usually heard when emperors were accompanied by a formal escort; on the contrary, the people stood at a distance, shouting curses and reviling Julianus bitterly for using his wealth to purchase the throne.”

As with Pertinax, Julianus knew he needed to maintain the support of the Praetorian Guard to remain on the imperial throne – something he would be unable to do. It wasn’t long before the new emperor had to admit that he was not as wealthy as he had claimed and that there was little if any money in the treasury. Unfortunately for Julianus, his purchase of the throne made him unpopular with both the Senate and people, and with the loss of the Guards‘ support, his days on the throne were numbered. He also fared no better when he eventually assumed his new responsibilities. According to Herodian, “He regarded his duties to the state as of no consequence and occupied his time in luxurious living and profligate practices.”

Almost immediately after Julianus assumed his new duties, three commanders voiced their intentions to secure the throne from him; all three stated he had been chosen by Pertinax as his successor. The first to declare his intent was Gaius Pescennius Niger, governor of Syria and the preferred choice of many in Rome. Although he was named emperor by his troops (he even selected Antioch as his capital), he chose to wait for his march on Rome until he could muster more support – he only had four legions at his disposal. Next came Decimus Clodius Albinus, governor of Britain, to declare his intentions; however, he did so with the support of only three legions. Lastly, there was Lucius Septimius Severus, governor of Pannonia Superior, a province on the Danube. He appeared to be the strongest of the three candidates with 16 legions – the entire Rhine/Danube army.

On April 9, 193 CE, with the full support of his army, Serverus declared himself emperor at Carnuntum. After gaining (or buying) the backing of Albinus, he marched southward to Rome. In desperation Emperor Julianus ordered the Guard to construct fortifications to defend the city against Severus, but they refused. Next, Julianus asked the Senate to name Severus as co-consul; they, too, refused. Gibbon wrote, “…in the invincible and rapid approach of the Pannonian legions, he saw his inevitable doom.” On June 1, 193 CE Julianus was sentenced to death by the Senate, and, while he had yet to enter the city, Severus was recognized as the new emperor. An assassin was sent to Julianus’s home, and finding him alone, stabbed and beheaded him. The former emperor’s last words were, “But what evil have I done. Whom have I killed?” His death would mark the end of the second emperor in the “Year of the Five Emperors.”

Unfortunately for Julianus and posterity, little is known of his accomplishments while on the throne. Most historians are restricted to comments on the manner in which he obtained power and the ignoble way he lost it.

Written by Donald L. Wasson, published on 23 September 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.

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

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

Pertinax

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 19. September2013

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu.com/Antoninus_Pius/]

Definition

Pertinax was Roman Emperor for three months in 193 CE and, as successor to Commodus, it was hoped that he would restore much needed sobriety to the office of emperor. However, the former teacher, as well as putting in order the affairs of state, also embarked on a series of state spending cuts which led to his general unpopularity and eventual downfall at the hands of the Praetorian Guard.

After the assassination of Roman Emperor Commodus on December 31, 192 CE, the empire’s throne was left vacant. As in the past – such as in the death of Emperor Caligula – the choice of a successor fell to the Praetorian Guard. Since there were no familial candidates, they chose a former teacher and military commander, Publius Helvius Pertinax. Unfortunately, his lack of skill in appeasing those around him (such as the Senate, the Guard, and the citizenry) would bring about his demise. After only eighty-seven days on the imperial throne, he would be dead.  In his Roman History, Cassius Dio wrote, “Pertinax was as excellent and upright man, but he ruled only a very short time, and was then put out of the way by the soldiers.”

Pertinax was born on August 1, 126 CE at Alba Pompeia in Liguria to a freed slave Helvius Successus; his mother’s name is unknown. He led a truly ‚rags to riches‘ story as his father went from slavery to success and wealth in the wool trade, allowing his son to receive a classical education which, in turn, permitted Pertinax to lead a quiet and uneventful life as a teacher of grammar. However, in 161 CE, at the age of thirty-five, he tired of the low pay and left teaching to enter the military.

Although he had no previous military experience, his education and family’s money granted him the luxury of becoming the commander of a small legion of Gallic soldiers in Syria. His unique ability as a leader did not go unnoticed by those around him, and he quickly became a tribune stationed at York. Later, he fought alongside the future emperor Marcus Aurelius on the Danube frontier. Despite some early friction, his close ties to Marcus Aurelius eventually helped him become a senator, a consul in 175 CE, the governor of Dacia and later Syria in 181 CE, and prefect of Rome in 189 CE.

The assassination of Emperor Commodus brought both panic and bloodshed to the city. After the removal of the emperor’s body (it was later interred in Hadrian’s Mausoleum), Laetus, the commander of the Praetorian Guard and one of the conspirators in Commodus’s death, and Electus, chamberlain to Commodus, made their way to the home of Pertinax and offered him the throne. Realizing he needed to ensure the Guard’s support, Pertinax hurried to the Praetorian Guard’s camp where he guaranteed each soldier a bonus of 12,000 sesterces. From there, Pertinax went to meet the Senate in the middle of the night. It was there that the now-deceased Commodus was condemned and Pertinax was proclaimed emperor – but this acceptance would soon turn to dismay and disgust.

The excesses of Commodus had come to an end as the finances of the empire were now in ruin. Cassius Dio wrote, “… he (Pertinax) at once reduced to order everything that had previously been irregular and confused; for he showed not only humaneness and integrity in the imperial administration, but also the most economical management and the most careful consideration for the public welfare.” To begin with, he reduced the extravagances that had been awarded the Guard by Commodus. Although he was eventually able to give the Guard the bonuses he had promised, he would never win their loyalty. Even provincial governors failed to support their new emperor; the madness of Commodus had taught them to be cautious of whoever sat on the throne.

To rebuild the empire’s finances – and pay the Guard their bonuses – he sold everything he could; he cleaned house. He even accused one palace official of embezzlement. Cassius Dio wrote, he “raised money as best he could from the statues, the arms, the horses, the furniture, and the favourites of Commodus, and gave the Praetorian all that he had promised ….” While the public was initially pleased (at least until he reduced the number of gladiatorial games), the Guard and the palace officials were not. Pertinax and his reign were in danger. He had simply tried too much, too soon.

With the emperor away at Ostia inspecting a grain shipment, an assassination plot by a Praetorian Guard member, Quintas Sosius Falco, was exposed. Falco was pardoned – it became apparent that he had been set up – but several others involved were executed. With each passing day, the Praetorian Guard grew more and more displeased with Pertinax. On March 28, 193 CE, three-hundred guards stormed the palace gates with little resistance. Although Pertinax was told to leave by his chamberlain Electus, he chose instead to stay and face the guard. Even though he tried to reason with them, his words fell on deaf ears; he and Electus were both stabbed to death. As one of the guards plunged his sword into Pertinax, he said, “The soldiers have sent you this sword.”

In conclusion, the emperor’s time on the throne had been a disaster, for he had been too harsh and too much of an authoritarian. As with many before him, his head was cut off, placed on a pole, and paraded through the streets of Rome. With no apparent successor, the throne was once again left vacant. Pertinax would be the first of what became known as the Year of the Five Emperors. The empire was thrown into a civil war, and it would be four years before the dust would clear.

Written by Donald L. Wasson, published on 19 September 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

• Cassius Dio. Roman History.
• Kerrigan, Michael. ADark History: The Roman Emperors. Metro Books, 2008.
• Potter, David. The Emperors of Rome. Metro Books, 2007.
• Scarre, Chris. Chronicles of the Roman Emperors. Thames and Hudson, 1998.

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

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

Commodus

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 29 August 2013

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu.com/commodus/]

With the death of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in March of 180 CE, the long reign of the five good emperors came to an end and with it so did the Pax Romana (the Roman Peace). Those emperors who followed for the next century would witness a time of both chaos and decline. The first of these inept emperors was Commodus, the son of Marcus Aurelius, who, according to most historians, was not only debauched and corrupt but also a megalomaniac, seeing himself as the reincarnation of the Greek god Hercules.

Lucius Aurelius Commodus was born to the philosopher/king and Faustina the Younger at Lanuvium, a city fourteen miles southeast of Rome on August 31, 161 CE. He was the tenth of fourteen children and the only son to survive – his twin brother Titus Aurelius Fulvus Antonius died at the age of four. He would be the first emperor born while his father was the emperor and the last to inherit the throne as the previous five emperors (including Marcus) had obtained the throne through adoption.

It did not take long for the future emperor to become a disappointment to his father for although he enjoyed the benefits of a quality education, Commodus inherited none of his father’s work ethic and would find government life tedious and some believed this gave evidence that he was illegitimate, owing to his mother’s supposed affairs. After serving alongside Marcus in battle on the northern frontier in 178 and 179 CE, Commodus returned to Rome in 180 CE after his father’s death  (he was only eighteen) and negotiated a peace settlement, a peace surprisingly favorable to Rome. Eventually, he would leave the reins of power in the hands of others while he devoted his time to worldly pleasures. One of the first to assume some of the emperor’s responsibility was Saoterus whose relationship with Commodus would soon incur the ire of those in both the Senate and imperial household.

Although Commodus considered his twelve-year-reign a new “golden age,” his lack of concern for political matters together with his life of leisure and extreme paranoia brought about what others might consider a reign of terror. Historian Cassius Dio, who called it the kingdom of “iron and rust,” wrote, “This man was not naturally wicked, but, on the contrary, as guileless as any man that ever lived. His great simplicity, however, together with his cowardice, missed the better life and then was led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature.” Because he relied on others to rule in his place, those around him realized that he could be easily manipulated, allowing for a number of conspiracies against his life to develop – one was even initiated by his older sister Lucilla and a number of senators in 182 CE.

Lucilla believed she and her husband Lucius Verus had been passed over by Marcus Aurelius as potential heirs to the throne. The plot was simple enough: Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus, her nephew, was to lie in wait until the emperor entered the Colosseum and then stab him; however, the assassination was bungled when Quintianus raised his dagger and instead of quickly stabbing Commodus he shouted “This is what the senate has sent you.” Before he could complete his sentence, he was seized by the Praetorian Guard. This foiled attempt upon his life, together with the recent death of the emperor’s trusted chamberlain Saoterus, caused Commodus to take decisive action – those implicated in the plot were all executed. Contrary to some authors, Lucilla was not immediately executed; instead, she was exiled and executed much later. Commodus also took the opportunity to execute Paternus, the commander of the Praetorian Guard, who had been implicated in both Saoterus’ assassination as well as Lucilla’s plot.

During this traumatic time in Commodus’s life, Tigidius Perennis, who had served as the joint commander of the Praetorian Guard with Paternus, seized the opportunity and began to get closer to the vulnerable emperor, assuming considerable governmental power, something that allowed Commodus to pursue other interests. After his sister’s plot, the emperor refused to appear in public and all communication went through the new chamberlain. Perennis took his new role seriously and proved to be both brutal and efficient, eliminating any rivals to his authority while making numerous enemies along the way. As he amassed great wealth and Commodus pulled further away from governmental responsibilities, he began to believe himself to the true emperor, not Commodus, even going so far as to plot to do away with the emperor and prepare his own sons for succession. Herodotus, in his History of the Roman Empire, wrote, “Perennis assumed full personal charge of the empire, driven by his insatiable lust for money, his contempt for what he had, and his greedy longing for what was not yet his.” Unfortunately, he had made one enemy, the former slave and member of the imperial household, Cleander, who would bring him to ruin. In 185 CE, through a group of 1500 soldiers returning from Britain, Cleander leaked information to Commodus of Perennis’s plot to overthrow him and assume power – Perennis’s execution (and that of his sons) was immediately ordered.

Cleander stepped in as the emperor’s new chamberlain, and as with Perennis, Commodus was freed to return to his life of pleasure, and as with his predecessor, Cleander destroyed all opposition.  Everything was for sale – senatorial seats as well as governorships, and, of course, a portion of the money went to Commodus. However, like Perennis, Cleander would not remain for long. In 190 CE a grain supply shortage would bring him down. The grain commissioner, Papeirius Dionysius, cut off all grain to the populace, blaming Cleander and his greed – Cleander has supposedly bought all the grain. The people were incensed and a few days later, while gathered at the Circus Maximus, a riot erupted. The people cried for the head of Cleander and they marched through the streets to the emperor’s residence at the Villa of the Quintilli. Commodus feared for his life and when attempts to quell the mob failed, Commodus gave them what they wanted – the head of Cleander which was placed on a pole and marched through the street of Rome. Afterwards, Commodus realized that he would have to take over the reins of government himself.

A new Commodus emerged, one that saw himself as a reborn Hercules who appeared in public wearing a cloak made out of the hide of a lion over his head (a reference to the Nemean Lion of Hercules’s Twelve Labors). The Senate was even made to declare him a living god. Herodotus wrote, “First he discarded his family name and issued orders that he was to be called not Commodus, son of Marcus, but Hercules, son of Zeus. Abandoning the Roman and imperial mode of dress, he donned the lion skin, and carried the club of Hercules. … He erected statues of himself throughout the city …. for he wished even his statues to inspire fear of him.” Next, he renamed the twelve months, and after a fire in 191 CE destroyed much of the city (including the Temple of Peace and Temple of Vesta) he seized the opportunity to completely rebuild Rome. Because he considered himself the new founder, he renamed Rome Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana; the people became known as Commodiani. To the surprise of everyone, he even took part in gladiatorial contests, fighting against the physically handicapped and an array of beasts from a raised platform which included a tiger, an elephant and even a hippo.

When he decided to fight in the arena on New Year’s Day in 193 CE to celebrate the city’s rebirth, his mistress Marcia (his wife Bruttia Crispina had been banished and executed in 191 CE) as well as his new chamberlain (Electus) and new commander of the Praetorian Guard (Quintas Aemilius Laetus) realized he had gone too far.  After they failed to talk him out of his ridiculous plans, he became incensed and threatened to add their names to a long list of people he wanted executed.  Later, as usual, Marcia brought Commodus a glass of wine prior to his bath; however, this time it was laced with poison. When the poison failed, Commodus’s fitness coach, Narcissus (a professional wrestler by trade) entered and choked him to death. Although many wanted to drag his body through the streets of Rome, Pertinax (who oddly enough would succeed Commodus) seized the body, prevented its desecration and, finally, Commodus was laid to rest in Hadrian’s Mausoleum.

Written by Donald L. Wasson, published on 29 August 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.

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Lucius Verus (161 – 169 A.D.)

Phoebe B. Peacock

Library of Congress

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

Sources

Sources for the study of Lucius Verus are disappointing. There is neither a corpus of correspondence nor the chronicle of a major historian. The biography of Verus in Historia Augusta is our chief literary source, supplemented by the HA biographies of Marcus and Antoninus. The Historia Augusta collection of imperial biographies has been the subject of heated scholarly controversy since the end of the nineteenth century, and there remains no definitive statement of its exact value. Today’s consensus is that it is the work of a single author of the fourth century, and its accuracy varies from exact to imaginative folklore. Accurate, or imaginative, multiple authors, or single author, there is little doubt that it is „propaganda directed to a popular audience.“[[1]] The popular propaganda issue is clearly visible in both SH Verus and SH Marcus where the personal life style and personality traits of Lucius Verus pervade evaluations of his accomplishments as emperor. [[2]]Insight into Verus and his reign is gleaned from the letters of his teacher and friend, the historian and orator, M. Cornelius Fronto. Cassio Dio’s history of Rome provides valuable details, and the writings of fourth-century Roman historians such as Eutropius and Festus are helpful. Archaeology and art history, with the associated commentaries, as well as coins and inscriptions add to the corpus of source material on Lucius Verus and the context of his life. Legal compilations such as the Code of Justinian preserve relevant records. Also useful are some of the early church writers such as Anastasius, Orosius, and Eusebius.

Introduction

Lucius Verus was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius, but beyond this imperial partnership there was also a significant personal connection. Through adoption by the same father, Marcus and Lucius were brothers. Marcus was also father-in-law to Lucius. Being the younger brother, younger partner, and son-in-law to Marcus Aurelius could not have been an easy position in life. Yet this is the role played by Lucius Verus. He was a well educated, active participant in military and political affairs. He had a colorful personality. He is reputed to have been one of the most handsome of emperors whose vanity allowed him to highlight his blond hair with gold dust. [[3]] Reviews of his personal character and his accomplishments are mixed. The letters of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, teacher to Marcus and Lucius, are far gentler in their portrayal of Lucius‘ personality and grand life style than are the historical accounts of the biographies included in the Historia Augusta. Whether out of true respect or devoted brotherly love, it is evident that Marcus Aurelius treated Lucius as a partner in governing the empire and commanding its military forces. Typical of his tolerance of others, Marcus Aurelius chronically ignored or defused the questionable behavior and friendships of his brother. Indeed the Meditations of the older emperor express thanksgiving for Lucius Verus as a brother. [[4]]

Early Life

Lucius Ceionius Commodus, the future Lucius Verus, was the son of Lucius Aelius Caesar, the Emperor Hadrian’s first choice as a successor. He was born December 15 A.D., 130. [[5]] His mother’s name was Avidia. He did not add Aelius or Aurelius or Aelius Aurelius to his name until after the adoption. Verus was not added until 161 when Marcus transferred the name Verus from himself to his co-emperor in order to establish a family connection after the death of Antoninus, the father they shared through adoption. [[6]] Lucius retained Commodus as part of his name throughout his life. [[7]]

On the first day of January A.D. 138, Lucius‘ father died when the boy was only seven years old. Having lost his first choice as successor, Hadrian designated Antoninus Pius (Titus Aurelius Fulvus Boionius Arrius Antoninus; Titus Aurelius Antoninus Pius) to be his successor. In February 138 Hadrian adopted the fifty-year-old Antoninus and required him in turn to adopt Lucius as well as Hadrian’s nephew by marriage, Marcus Aurelius, aged sixteen, almost seventeen.[[8]]Hadrian also stipulated that Antoninus should betroth his surviving daughter, Faustina (Annia Galeria Faustina), to the child Lucius.[[9]]

The Historia Augusta lists eleven teachers for Lucius‘ study of Latin and Greek. He was well educated. His earliest instruction came from grammatici, [[10]] and were not the same as those who provided primary instruction to Marcus. As a young boy Lucius enjoyed writing poetry, and later on, oratory.[[11]] Like his older brother, he studied Latin oratory with Marcus Cornelius Fronto, whose own writings indicate an enduring fondness for both men. Lucius studied philosophy with Apollonius of Chalcedon and Sextus of Chaeronea. In a nanny-like manner, Nicomedes, a devoted freedman of Lucius‘ biological father, watched over Lucius‘ daily care. [[12]]

Rise to Power

Hadrian died on July 10, A.D. 138. Titus Antoninus succeeded him as emperor and the name Pius was bestowed upon him. After his adoption Lucius Ceionius Commodus was given the names Aelius or Aurelius or Aelius Aurelius, used in addition to Commodus. Although reared with his brother Marcus, he was treated in an inferior manner, and his lesser status was emphasized by his place in the imperial progresses. Although Marcus rode with his emperor father, Lucius rode with the attendant praetorian prefect.[[13]] Lucius was designated quaestor in 152, to serve in 153, one year before the legal age for this office. He became consul in 154, nine years earlier than the traditional youngest age of thirty-two, and without ever having been praetor. In A.D. 161 Lucius and Marcus both held the office of consul; for Marcus it was his third appointment to this position..[[14]] When Antoninus died on March 7, A.D. 161, Marcus succeeded him as emperor (Imperator Caesar M. Aurelius Antoninus Augustus) with Lucius (Imperator Caesar Lucius Aurelius Verus Augustus). Marcus welcomed Lucius as a younger more physically able partner who was better suited to the military demands of the empire.[[15]] Never before had Rome been ruled jointly by two emperors, „duobus aequo iure imperium administrantibus,“[[16]] but their authority was not shared equally. Marcus clearly had more power than his younger brother, although officially his only additional title was „pontifex maximus,“ while Lucius was simply „pontifex..“[[17]] They came to power at a time of military crisis in the East amid the misery of floods and famine in Rome.

Family Life

When Titus Antoninus became emperor in 138, the betrothal of Lucius to Faustina was canceled, as was the betrothal of Marcus to the sister of Lucius, Ceionia Fabia. Instead, Marcus became betrothed to Faustina. It was not until 161 that marriage was once again arranged for Lucius. This time Marcus betrothed his daughter, Lucilla, to his co-emperor, [[18]] soon afterward in early 162 Lucius set out to fight the Parthian War in Syria. It is said that he became quite fond of a beautiful woman from Smyrna. Her name was Panthea and tales of this relationship prompted Marcus to hasten the wedding of Lucius to Lucilla.[[19]]. The ceremony took place midway through the war. Marcus accompanied the bride-to-be as far as Brundisium; from there she was put in the custody of her sister and Civica, an uncle to Lucius. Lucius met the bridal party in Ephesus, where the wedding took place, removed from the Eastern battle front.[[20]] Lucilla and Lucius had three children, two daughters and one son. Although the elder daughter and the son had short lives, the younger daughter lived to be involved in a plot against Commodus in 182. [[21]]

Parthian Campaign

In 162 Marcus sent Lucius eastward to lead the Parthian campaign. There he was to settle disturbances in Rome’s Eastern empire where the Euphrates River served as the boundary with the Parthian kingdom. According to reports transcribed in the Historia Augusta, Lucius partied his way along the path to war. Lucius became seriously ill by the time he reached Canusium in southern Italy. On receiving this news Marcus left Rome to join his ailing brother. Lucius, however, recovered and Marcus returned home, whence he sent good wishes of the Senate. [[22]] In its descriptions of the trip to Persia after Lucius departed Italay, the Historia Augusta includes tales of gluttony and an accompanying imperial theatrical entourage of actors and musicians; and Panthea of Smyrna, the emperor’s concubine.[[23]] Fronto, always as kind as possible in interpreting the behavior of Lucius, compares the emperor’s close relationship with actors to that of Trajan, as a politically wise, inclusive practice because of the popular appeal of theater to the Roman people. [[24]] After enjoying himself in Corinth and Athens, as well as in the smaller towns of Asia Minor, Lucius finally reached Syria. There, he established his headquarters on the coast rather than inland near the battle front. In order to be sure his Roman troops remained focused in spite of Lucius‘ activities, Marcus Aurelius appointed a seasoned general, Avidius Cassius, to command the forces in Syria.[[25]] Indeed, all the best generals of the era were appointed to this war by Marcus. [[26]]Dio tells us that Lucius was efficient in his practice of delegating authority to capable generals as well as in the procurement and distribution of necessary military supplies.[[27]] Two chroniclers of the Parthian War, Marius Maximus and Asinius Quadratus, are sources for both Capitolinus and Gallicanus, whose reports are part of the Historia Augusta. Eutropius credits Lucius with being able to simultaneously enjoy himself and accomplish much because he appointed able generals to administer the business at hand. [[28]] Fronto gives Lucius rather than Marcus credit for improving the morale of Roman troops. [[29]] The Historia Augusta author jests that the end of the Parthian War was in fact the end of the Thespian War. [[30]] Afterward, Marcus agreed to share the triumphal titles and celebrations with Verus.[[31]] This celebration was held in October of A.D. 166 [[32]] and the procession included Verus and Marcus, as well as the latter’s sons and unmarried daughters. All members of the imperial party, wearing triumphal dress, rode together and watched the games together. [[33]] But in spite of their victory in the East these were not good times for Rome. The plague had spread throughout the city and the northern frontier was threatened by war. In A.D. 168 the twin emperors Marcus and Lucius escaped the plagued city of Rome to go North to the Danubian provinces, where they mounted a military offensive against the threatening Germanic tribes.

Between the Wars

Having become accustomed to a life of self-indulgent pleasures of many kinds while in the East, Lucius found a way to continue this lifestyle once back in Rome. According to the Historia Augusta, when he returned home in triumph to celebrate the Roman victory, he took along his entourage of actors and musicians. He even kept favorites with him to help celebrate and continued to befriend them with his patronage. Lucius had a tavern built in his house where he spent his post-dinner hours with a wide spectrum of acquaintances to gamble all night, or to eat and drink until he fell asleep and had to be carried to bed. For a change from partying at home, he would dress as a common traveler to visit taverns and brothels, often partaking in drunken brawls, apparently unrecognized. [[34]] These activities were interspersed and enriched with circuses and contests between gladiators, but Lucius Verus ranked chariot racing above all other „sports.“ Volucer, his favorite horse, is buried on the Vatican Hill. [[35]]Marcus disapproved of the vast sums of money Lucius spent on himself and his ostentatious villa, located on the Clodian Way. With the intent of humoring or including Marcus, Lucius invited his brother to be a houseguest and enjoy a lavish lifestyle. For the entire fifteen-day visit Marcus worked on various affairs of state, but Lucius partied on with little regard for his brother’s serious pursuits.[[36]] After returning from the East, Lucius showed far less deference to his brother and far less interest in his own official responsibilities than he had prior to the Parthian War. As Lucius continued to neglect the obligations of state another conflict erupted, this time on the empire’s northern perimeter. As hostilities increased along the frontiers they only added to Marcus‘ burdens. At this point the leading enemies of Rome were the Marcomanni, a Germanic tribe. But because other Germanic tribes were also involved, the war became known as bellum Germanicum, and is described as such by the Historia Augusta. [[37]]

Germanic War

These tribal incursions, that came to be known as the Germanic War, lasted from 167-180, and were fought in three distinct phases. Lucius participated in the first campaign although he was not given the leadership assignment he had abused during the Parthian War. Marcus persuaded the Senate that both he and Lucius were needed at the battle front. [[38]] The older emperor had undoubtedly learned that he should neither send Lucius to war alone nor leave him at home to indulge himself further in the debauchery that had become his unsupervised lifestyle. Thus both emperors set out for the northern front in the spring of 168.

Death

As Marcus and Lucius were returning home in169, Lucius suddenly became ill, near Altinum (Altino). He was taken from his carriage and bled. Then, so ill that he could not speak, he was carried into Altinum. Three days later, at the age of 38, Lucius Verus was dead. [[39]] There were rumors that this was the result of a plot by his mother-in-law, Faustina, with whom there was some suspicion of an incestuous relationship. But there was also talk of his having been poisoned by Marcus, although such an act would have been totally out of character for the older emperor. Murderous activity on the part of Faustina has also been disproved.[[40]] Bringing his brother’s body with him, Marcus returned to Rome where he oversaw the funeral. He also provided ample support for the deceased emperor’s family and freedmen. Imperator Lucius Verus was deified under the name of Divus Verus. [[41]]