Another chance to help the editors at Wikipedia. The question has been asked, did the Battle of Thermopylae 267 actually happen? The problem raised is, how did the battle happen when the attacking force was in ships? I've done a little digging and it may have been mentioned by George Syncellus, following Dexippus. But it may not. Nearly all internet searches turn up mirrors of the wiki entry which is really a one line sub on the battle itself.
So here is the challenge - a difficult period of Roman history, with much uncertainty of interpretation. Can we turn up a proper academic source which talks of the Battle of Thermopylae 267?
Thermopylae is not mentioned in Zosimus (approx. 1.20-1.50), one of the main source for the Heruli.
Very tangential...
There is a letter from Decius quoted in the Historia Augusta that mention a Claudius being sent off to garrison Thermopylae in the mid 3rd century.
Unfortunately later scholarship regard the letter as fiction or horribly mis-dated.
So that's probably not helpful at all.
It looks as if there is some new manuscript evidence suggesting that Dexippos did indeed describe a fight at Thermopylae:
Quote from: https://www.academia.edu/8041238/The_New_Dexippos_2nd_revision_
Two pages from a palimpsest manuscript in Vienna, recently published by Gunther Martin and Jana Grusková, contain a large extract probably from the Scythica of the third-century historian Dexippus ("Dexippus Vindobonensis (?): Ein neues Handschriftenfragment zum sog. Heruleneinfall der Jahre 267/268," Wiener Studien 127 [2014] 101-120; the article is also available on Dr. Martin's site on Academia.edu). The extract describes the unsuccessful siege of Thessalonica by "Scyths" and gives a vivid account of an attempt to hold the pass of Thermopylae, in which Greek forces were led by a Roman governor, Marianus; one of the Greeks present at Thermopylae, "Philostratus the Athenian," is almost certainly the historian Philostratus (FGrHist 99), who is perhaps related to the author of the Lives of the Sophists
But this doesn't explain where the barbarian ships went. However there is a hint in the article that this battle may just possibly not belong to 267/8 - "If so, an earlier date for the attack mentioned in the new fragment becomes possible" - so could it conceivably be related to an earlier landborne incursion (as Gibbon, accepting the genuineness of the Decius letter, thought)?
Excellent find Duncan - thanks. The only other useful item I could turn up through Google was Fergus Millar :Rome, the Greek World, and the East: Government, society, and culture in the Roman Empire, p292 where he says Syncellus refers to the Greeks taking position at Thermopylae, in relation to the siege of Thessolanika at the time of Gallienus, apparently taken from Dexippus.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 12, 2015, 11:02:06 AM
... he says Syncellus refers to the Greeks taking position at Thermopylae, in relation to the siege of Thessolanika at the time of Gallienus, apparently taken from Dexippus.
There's a translation of the relevant bit of Syncellus at http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/1049606 (http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/1049606). It looks to me as if he is dating the Thermopylae defence to the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, that is 253-260, and in the context of an invasion by land - the crossing of the Ister/Danube mentioned.
QuoteAnno Mundi 5748
Anno Domini 248
Valerian was 26th emperor of the Romans along with Galienus for 15 years.
[...]
After Gallus and Volusian the son of Decius, according to the greater number of writers Valerian and Galienus his son succeeded to the throne. They were slain when they were betrayed too by their own force, as it has already been said, reigning 15 years, while according to some Aemilianus was at the head for a period of three years with the knowledge of Valerian who was then made Roman emperor.
Under Valerian and Galienus, the Scythians again crossed the Ister River and ravaged Thrace laying siege to Thessalonica the Illyrian city doing nothing of value due to the bravery of the defenders. Consequently, the Greeks anxiously set a watch over Thermopylae, the Athenians rebuilt the wall destroyed in Sulla's time, and the Peloponnesians constructed the Isthmus from sea to sea, while the Scythians returned to their own land with a large amount of plunder.
After this, Shapur, the king of the Persians, overran Syria coming to Antioch and plundering all of Cappadocia. As the Roman army was stricken by famine in Edessa, it consequently rebelled against Valerian, who terrified and making it look like he was going on to a second battle, surrendered himself up to the Persian king Shapur...
And more on the Dexippus fragment:
https://www.academia.edu/7516936/_Dexippus_Vindobonensis_._Ein_neues_Handschriftenfragment_zum_sog._Herulereinfall_der_Jahre_267_268
https://www.academia.edu/8847600/_Scythica_Vindobonensia_by_Dexippus_New_Fragments_on_Decius_Gothic_Wars
Interesting. If the palimpsest's battle at Thermopylae isn't in 267, when is it? It should be later than the 250 material because we know Dexippus the Boeotarch is only on his third term of office around 250, and he is on his fifth at the time of the battle. So, is Syncellus getting his sequence of events wrong, is the fifth term a scribal error in the palimpsest or is there another Herul/Goth invasion between 250 and 267?
Quote from: Erpingham on January 12, 2015, 12:07:34 PM
Interesting. If the palimpsest's battle at Thermopylae isn't in 267, when is it? It should be later than the 250 material because we know Dexippus the Boeotarch is only on his third term of office around 250, and he is on his fifth at the time of the battle. So, is Syncellus getting his sequence of events wrong, is the fifth term a scribal error in the palimpsest or is there another Herul/Goth invasion between 250 and 267?
It all depends on how precise "around 250" is, and it's apparently dated on letter-styles: how narrow a timeframe do these give? Could D have been Boeotarch for the third time about 2
40, say, which would give more time for a fifth magistracy in the 250s - "cf. Syncellus, p. 466, 1-7 Mosshammer, on a "Scythian" attack on Greece under Valerian and Gallienus"?
You could also see https://www.academia.edu/5079620/INSTITUT_ANTIQUITAS_ISTRO-PONTICA for an interpretation of the Herul-Goth invasions of 267-68 that doesn't mention the defence of Thermopylae at all - perhaps assuming that it took place at a different date?
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 12, 2015, 11:37:02 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on January 12, 2015, 11:02:06 AM
... he says Syncellus refers to the Greeks taking position at Thermopylae, in relation to the siege of Thessolanika at the time of Gallienus, apparently taken from Dexippus.
There's a translation of the relevant bit of Syncellus at http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/1049606 (http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/1049606). It looks to me as if he is dating the Thermopylae defence to the joint reign of Valerian and Gallienus, that is 253-260, and in the context of an invasion by land - the crossing of the Ister/Danube mentioned.
QuoteAnno Mundi 5748
Anno Domini 248
Valerian was 26th emperor of the Romans along with Galienus for 15 years.
[...]
After Gallus and Volusian the son of Decius, according to the greater number of writers Valerian and Galienus his son succeeded to the throne. They were slain when they were betrayed too by their own force, as it has already been said, reigning 15 years, while according to some Aemilianus was at the head for a period of three years with the knowledge of Valerian who was then made Roman emperor.
Under Valerian and Galienus, the Scythians again crossed the Ister River and ravaged Thrace laying siege to Thessalonica the Illyrian city doing nothing of value due to the bravery of the defenders. Consequently, the Greeks anxiously set a watch over Thermopylae, the Athenians rebuilt the wall destroyed in Sulla's time, and the Peloponnesians constructed the Isthmus from sea to sea, while the Scythians returned to their own land with a large amount of plunder.
After this, Shapur, the king of the Persians, overran Syria coming to Antioch and plundering all of Cappadocia. As the Roman army was stricken by famine in Edessa, it consequently rebelled against Valerian, who terrified and making it look like he was going on to a second battle, surrendered himself up to the Persian king Shapur...
I think the relevant bit is actually in the next section, from the reign of Gallienus.
Quote"After this, Shapur, the king of the Persians, overran Syria coming to Antioch and plundering all of Cappadocia. As the Roman army was stricken by famine in Edessa, it consequently rebelled against Valerian, who terrified and making it look like he was going on to a second battle, surrendered himself up to the Persian king Shapur agreeing to as well the betrayal of his army, which the Romans perceiving scarcely escaped with a few being slain. In pursuit of them, the Persian king Shapur seized Antioch, Cilician Tarsus, and Cappadocian Caesarea. Then the Persians spread out in their greed with some wanting to seize Pompeiopolis by the sea, some plundering Lycaonia, and a great number being slain as Ballistus the Roman general, who the fleeing had set up over themselves, attacked them with a force by boat...where he killed three thousand Persians. Shapur having suffered heavily in this retreated in haste and fear, while Valerian stayed in Persia until the end of his life. Odenathus, Palmyrian general allied to the Romans killed many Persians as they were retreating over the land of the Euphrates, who was consequently honored as commander of the East by Galienus, killing as well some of the Romans who rose up against him in Phoenicia. Then again, the Scythians locally called the Goths came by the Pontic Sea to Bithynia advancing all over Asia and Lydia seizing the large city of Nicomedia in Bithynia and ravaging the city of Ionia seizing the ones without walls and those partially fortified, though they did not reach Phrygia sacking Troea, Cappadocia, and Galatia. Yet again Odenathus fight bravely against the Persians and captured Ctesiphon by siege and hearing of the calamities in Asia, hastily came until Pontic Heraclea through Cappadocia where he caught up with the Scythians with his forces. Here he was treacherously murdered by one Odenathus of the same name as him, while the Scythians before him had come returned to their own lands by the Pontus. His bodyguards murdered Odenathus, the murderer of Odenathus, and invested his wife Zenobia with control of the East.
Then as well the Elurians sailed over the Pontus by the Maeotian Sea and reached Byzantium and Chrysopolis. There they fought a battle and returned a little to the temple at the mouth of the Euxine Sea sailing first down with the next favorable wind the strait putting to the great city of Cyzicus in Bithynia, then the islands plundering Lemnus and Scyrus reaching Attica where they set fire to Athens, Corinth, and Sparta overrunning Argus and all of Achaea until the Athenians attacked them in some narrow places and killed great numbers of them, the emperor Galienus joining them and killed three thousand near Nessus. Then Naulobatus the commander of the Elurians gave himself up to the emperor Galienus and was honored with the honor of consul by him. Auriolus a Celtic Roman emperor then treacherously killed Galienus. So much for the emperors Valerian and Galienus."
Note that here we have raiders moving by sea ('Elurians' is presumably a rendering of 'Heruli'), attacking Athens and other Greek cities and subsequently being caught by the Athenians in 'some narrow places' - within the reign of Gallienus, probably his sole reign (AD 260-268) as he alone joins them to kill 3,000 near Nessus
[Edit: adds] and the next thing mentioned is his death at the hands of Aureolus.
If there is a bit of Syncellus which pertains to Thermopylae AD 267, this is it.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 13, 2015, 10:32:14 AMNote that here we have raiders moving by sea ('Elurians' is presumably a rendering of 'Heruli')
This is the usual interpretation, though there is a minimalist view that these Elouri are someone else entirely, and the whole tradition of Heruls on the Black Sea is based on a misreading of this passage (by Jordanes or his sources, among others).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 13, 2015, 10:32:14 AM
If there is a bit of Syncellus which pertains to Thermopylae AD 267, this is it.
Perhaps. However, there is another piece of Dexippus preserved somewhere (it may be quoted in the Millar book) where Dexippus (the historian, who may or may not be Dexippus the Boeotarch) leads 2,000 militia to ambush the "Scyths" (Goths/Heruls) in wooded and hilly terrain after the sack of Athens. So Syncellus may be referring to this incident.
[Addendum : It is indeed quoted in Millar's book on pp293-4. The original reference is Dexippus Scythica, F.28. I'm afraid I'm not clever enough to link straight to it but put "Dexippus Thermopylae" into Google and it will leap out]
Visitors to the battle's wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae_%28267%29 can now see the first fruits of our research effort. The article needs rewriting, but its a start.
This recently discovered fragment of Dexippus (http://www.academia.edu/8041238/The_New_Dexippos_2nd_revision_) extracted from a Vienna palimpsest might also have some bearing on the matter.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 14, 2015, 11:06:19 AM
This recently discovered fragment of Dexippus (http://www.academia.edu/8041238/The_New_Dexippos_2nd_revision_) extracted from a Vienna palimpsest might also have some bearing on the matter.
It is indeed significant - you will see Duncan quoting from it above. This seems to be the clearest, most detailed info, we have for the battle. However, as the article says, does this piece of Dexippus actually come from the 267 campaign, or is it from an earlier Gothic incursion? I.e. The battle definitely happened but do we have the wrong date.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 13, 2015, 11:11:12 AM... there is a minimalist view that these Elouri are someone else entirely, and the whole tradition of Heruls on the Black Sea is based on a misreading of this passage (by Jordanes or his sources, among others).
That would be Alvar Ellegard, Who were the Heruli? (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcts.lub.lu.se%2Fojs%2Findex.php%2Fscandia%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F939%2F724&ei=9rG2VJfJGcLyUpK7gKAG&usg=AFQjCNEhZI82IJInrJTY5_bTl61jP6LlAg) (2008).
He suggests,
QuoteTo summarize. Dexippos' Helouroi may have called themselves Eruli. In that case the later historians' identification of the two was in fact correct. On the other hand, Dexippos' form may be a correct rendering. In that case the identification of the Heluri and the Eruli was as mistaken as Jordanes' (and many others') identification of Gothi and Getae. We shall never know.
Strictly of course this would belong in the wiki article on the Heruls - which doesn't mention Ellegard's article - rather than the one on Thermopylae.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 14, 2015, 06:21:09 PM
Strictly of course this would belong in the wiki article on the Heruls - which doesn't mention Ellegard's article - rather than the one on Thermopylae.
Incidentally, if you are looking for Herul refs, the German wiki article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heruler is much better.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 14, 2015, 11:16:01 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 14, 2015, 11:06:19 AM
This recently discovered fragment of Dexippus (http://www.academia.edu/8041238/The_New_Dexippos_2nd_revision_) extracted from a Vienna palimpsest might also have some bearing on the matter.
It is indeed significant - you will see Duncan quoting from it above. This seems to be the clearest, most detailed info, we have for the battle. However, as the article says, does this piece of Dexippus actually come from the 267 campaign, or is it from an earlier Gothic incursion? I.e. The battle definitely happened but do we have the wrong date.
Given that it refers specifically to:
"
When news of the Scythians' advance was spread among the Greeks, they converged on Pylae [Thermopylae] and set themselves to block them from the approaches at the narrows there."
We have the right place. There follow a few incidental details, albeit in a 'work in progress' translation:
"
Some carried spears, some axes, some bronze-plated shafts and tips enclosed in iron, whatever each man was able to use as weaponry. After assembling, they walled the barrier and energetically set about protecting it. The site seemed generally very secure, since the road leading to Greece within Pylae was made narrow and difficult by the rough ground; for the Euboean sea, which stretches alongside for a very great distance, makes the --- near the mountains [translation uncertain] very difficult to enter because of mud; and assisting these, because of the proximity of the rocks, Mount Oeta makes the place very hard to traverse for a mounted and foot (force, e.g.?).As elected generals for the whole war the Greeks had appointed Marianos, who indeed had already been chosen by the emperor to govern Greece, and in addition to him Philostratos of Athens, a man excellent in oratory and counsel, and Dexippos who was holding the governorship of Boeotia for the fifth time."
Tie this in with Syncellus:
"
Then as well the Elurians sailed over the Pontus by the Maeotian Sea and reached Byzantium and Chrysopolis. There they fought a battle and returned a little to the temple at the mouth of the Euxine Sea sailing first down with the next favorable wind the strait putting to the great city of Cyzicus in Bithynia, then the islands plundering Lemnus and Scyrus reaching Attica where they set fire to Athens, Corinth, and Sparta overrunning Argus and all of Achaea until the Athenians attacked them in some narrow places and killed great numbers of them, the emperor Galienus joining them and killed three thousand near Nessus. Then Naulobatus the commander of the Elurians gave himself up to the emperor Galienus and was honored with the honor of consul by him. Auriolus a Celtic Roman emperor then treacherously killed Galienus. So much for the emperors Valerian and Galienus."
This seems to be set in AD 267: Syncellus writes by reign, and this particular action is placed directly before Aureolus' usurpation in AD 268 (note that Syncellus' dating is consistently five to seven years out, which might be instructive with regard to Quirinius' census in Luke 2:1, but that is another subject entirely) so there is nothing to prevent it from referring to AD 267.
Given that Wikipedia seems already to have made up its mind that the battle did happen in AD 267, I suggest making the best of the available evidence, but that is not my call. :)
As for Dexippus, one might hypothesise that the five-times-boeotarch and one-time-successful-strategos may have been awarded Athenian citizenship on the strength of his success and may conceivably have later settled in Athens to write his history (one cannot really see it being written before the event). Unless there is a fact in the way of this hypothesis, in which case jettison it.
But Syncellus mentions the fighting in a narrow place after the invaders have burnt Athens and overrun Achaea. IMO, it fits better with the other quote from Dexippus where he has rallied the militia after the fall of Athens
Two thousand of us have gathered in all and we have deserted spot as a base from which to damage the enemy by attacking him in small groups and ambushing him on his way..... If they come against us we will resist – we have an excellent defence in this rough wooded position.
In truth, I am more inclined to place the battle in 267 unless a stronger case were made for the earlier invasion. But that does leave us with the problem of the fleet - why is an army trying to pass through Thermopylae when apparently they arrived in ships? Or had the fleet gone off to attack the islands while the main army were plodding down the coast road?
As to wikipedia and the date, it will go with the academic consensus (as a matter of policy) only referring to alternative ideas if there are well grounded counter arguments. If someone bothers to rewrite the article they may mention the controversy but it is a bit of a thin tale.
Quote from: Erpingham on January 14, 2015, 09:41:35 PM
In truth, I am more inclined to place the battle in 267 unless a stronger case were made for the earlier invasion. But that does leave us with the problem of the fleet - why is an army trying to pass through Thermopylae when apparently they arrived in ships? Or had the fleet gone off to attack the islands while the main army were plodding down the coast road?
Gibbon (Book X) writes that their fleet, collected in the Piraeus, had been attacked and burned by the Athenians.
He also suggests consulting the
Historiae Augustae, plus Victor 100.33, Orisius VII.42, Zosimus 50.1.39 and Zonaras 50.12.26 for further information and perspectives, or at least writings on the subject or something related to it. His source for what happened to the fleet is presumably somewhere among those.
So you are proposing that the two Dexippus battles are in fact one i.e. Thermopylae is defended against a retreating Gothic/Herul army which has lost its ships at Athens?
Ooh, I like that scenario - it works out a bit like the Byzantine idea of catching Arab raiders on the way home.
Can we have a Slingshot article, please Anthony, especially if you and Patrick reach a consensus?
I am not sure enough without wading through all the available material, but on present form that is the solution I would plump for.
Will check through the other sources in the near future just to be sure, or as sure as we can be on this point. Unless someone else would like to...
At work, so no references to hand, but that Orosius reference 7.42 is likely 5th century, and incidentally I don't think he mentions Heruli anywhere.
That Orosius reference should be VII.22 - not sure why the printer got it wrong. It is unfortunately not too helpful.
QuoteAn invasion of the Goths ruined Greece, Pontus, and Asia; Dacia beyond the Danube was lost forever.
Good instinct for VII.42 being 5th century, though: it covers a succession of ephemeral western empire usurpers during the reign of Honorius.
Zosimus (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zosimus01_book1.htm) is also less than helpful:
QuoteThe Scythians, who had dreadfully afflicted the whole of Greece, had now taken Athens, when Gallienus advanced against those who were already in possession of Thrace
The Historiae Augustae (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Gallieni_duo*.html) is a bit more useful:
QuoteMeanwhile the Scythians sailed across the Black Sea and, entering the Danube, did much damage on Roman soil.49 Learning of this, Gallienus deputed Cleodamus and Athenaeus the Byzantines to repair and fortify the cities, and a battle was fought near the Black Sea, in which the barbarians were conquered by the Byzantine leaders. 7 The Goths were also defeated in a naval battle by the general Venerianus, though Venerianus himself died a soldier's death. 8 Then the Goths ravaged Cyzicus and Asia and then all of Achaea, but were vanquished by the Athenians under the command of Dexippus, an historian of these times. Driven thence, they roved through Epirus, Macedonia and Boeotia. 9 Gallienus, meanwhile, roused at last by the public ills, met the Goths as they roved about in Illyricum, and, as it chanced, killed a great number. Learning of this, the Scythians, after making a barricade of wagons, attempted to escape by way of Mount Gessaces. 10 Then Marcianus made war on all the Scythians with varying success, ... - Hist Aug, Gallieni 13.6-10
but unfortunately does not explain where or how Dexippus defeated the intruders. It looks as if we are back to Dexippus and Syncellus for details.
Quote from: Duncan Head on January 15, 2015, 04:07:38 PM
Can we have a Slingshot article, please Anthony, especially if you and Patrick reach a consensus?
Patrick and I reach a consensus? Could delay the article indefinitely :) Seriously, my only interest in the battle was to pick the brains of the more learned to prove it wasn't a fiction. However, I think someone with a better understanding of the period and the sources could produce something interesting with the campaign. BTW, there is other controversies to get your teeth into for the campaign, such as whether the battles of Nessos and Naissus were the same or different and who was responsible for what. The wiki article on Naissus has a much better coverage of the campaign for those wanting to gain an overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Naissus
Perhaps an aside...
But there is an interesting little snippet from the "Who were the Eruli" article (p29) which notes that the raids of 267 were conducted by Scythians according to Zosimos, Goths according to the Historia Augustae, and it was only the later Synkellos and Zonaras who called them Heruli/Heluri. I am not sure what to make of this. Did they use different sources? Are they just all synonyms for Scythia? Transmission errors? Labels and incidents getting confused?
It might makes things uncomfortably provisional, especially if we link one authors use of one of these 'synonyms' with another's.
Quote from: Dangun on January 17, 2015, 12:48:44 AM
Perhaps an aside...
But there is an interesting little snippet from the "Who were the Eruli" article (p29) which notes that the raids of 267 were conducted by Scythians according to Zosimos, Goths according to the Historia Augustae, and it was only the later Synkellos and Zonaras who called them Heruli/Heluri. I am not sure what to make of this. Did they use different sources? Are they just all synonyms for Scythia? Transmission errors? Labels and incidents getting confused?
It might makes things uncomfortably provisional, especially if we link one authors use of one of these 'synonyms' with another's.
Dexippus' lost history was called the
Scythica and this was a contemporary account. I would suggest this shows a lack of interest in/knowledge of exactly who these invading barbarians were, just the broad area they came from (the Byzantines would develop this approach into an art). It is, of course, possible that the Heruls were only fitted into a largely Gothic invasion at a later date, when the use of Scyths had come to include Heruls. Or it could be that later familiarity with the Heruls allowed them to be identified as the perpetrators.
Inclined to agree with Anthony (not sure if this counts as reaching a consensus ;) ) that we should not worry too much about what the invaders were called in the various accounts. If we took literally certain histories of the First World War we would read that Britain and its allies faced a coalition of Germans, Fritzes and Huns, to be replaced by Germans, Jerries, Huns, Italians and Eyeties during World War 2.
Later Roman historians may well have had the advantage of additional information and indeed hindsight when compiling their barbarian nomenclatures.
A more fruitful line of approach would seem to be to track the actions represented in the respective campaigns. There were three distinct barbarian raiding cycles in the Aegean: 1) during Valerian's joint reign with Gallienus; 2) during Gallienus' sole reign (this is where Thermopylae AD 267 belongs) and 3) during Claudius II's reign. There also seems to have been a subsequent reprise during Aurelian's reign.
Our task is to select the accounts specifically pertaining to AD 267. The clues here are: 1) reference to Gallienus as sole emperor, 2) raiders arriving by sea (not exclusive to AD 267 but a necessary condition for same) and 3) (we think) involvement of Dexippus and Athenians.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 17, 2015, 12:45:06 PM
Inclined to agree with Anthony (not sure if this counts as reaching a consensus ;) ) that we should not worry too much about what the invaders were called in the various accounts. If we took literally certain histories of the First World War we would read that Britain and its allies faced a coalition of Germans, Fritzes and Huns, to be replaced by Germans, Jerries, Huns, Italians and Eyeties during World War 2.
And even without recourse to nicknames, we use an archaic name (Germany) which bears no relation to what they call themselves either as a whole or in part. Not so very different to the oft-derided Byzantine historians.
Could be Herul (the specific 'tribe'?), Goth (the group of which they are a part?) and Scythian (archaic) are not necessarily exclusive.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 17, 2015, 12:45:06 PMOur task is to select the accounts specifically pertaining to AD 267. The clues here are: 1) reference to Gallienus as sole emperor, 2) raiders arriving by sea (not exclusive to AD 267 but a necessary condition for same) and 3) (we think) involvement of Dexippus and Athenians.
Just thinking aloud, but a list of geographical locations visited by the raiders in each source, may serve as a tool for establishing correspondence, even if the source does not mention Thermopylae explicitly.
Quote from: Dangun on January 17, 2015, 04:31:41 PM
Just thinking aloud, but a list of geographical locations visited by the raiders in each source, may serve as a tool for establishing correspondence, even if the source does not mention Thermopylae explicitly.
Good thinking, Nicholas. Now we just have to go hunting ...
I am trying to put together a parallel synopsis of this episode c. 253-269CE in Zosimus, Zonaras, Historia Augusta and George Syncellus.
Does anyone know if their is an online copy of the transalation of Syncellus?
I doubt it, since it was only translated in 2002, but I know Patrick is particularly good at this!
Quote from: Dangun on January 26, 2015, 11:25:48 AM
Does anyone know if their is an online copy of the transalation of Syncellus?
As I said in one of the early posts in the thread, there's a translation of the relevant bit of Syncellus - from Gordian to Diocletian - at http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/1049606. I'm not sure whose translation it is.
For convenience, and in case anyone has trouble getting the relevant webpage, here is the relevant bit of Syncellus plus a heap of additional background (Philip the Arab to Aurelian inclusive). Our bit in bold.
The translation seems to have been done by the gentleman posting on the Hellenic World group of Ancientworlds. The apparent lacunae are where he has left out ecclesiastically-related material.
QuotePhillip was so disposed towards the Christian faith that he was eager to confess his sins and join with the masses in the prayers of the church on the night of Easter. Henceforth the Holy Word was able to be spoken more freely.
Then as well Origen that wretched man in his sixtieth year produced discourses for the masses created with short-hand writers. He sent them as well to Phillip and his wife the empress Severa.
Then as well some in Arabia taught impiously that the soul perishes with the soul at the end and with the Resurrection with be brought to life with again for which a great synod was held against them
[...]
Phillip reigned over the Romans 7 years, after making peace with Shapur king of the Persians returning to Rome then making war on Decius proclaimed emperor by his soldiers and was slain.
Decius succeeding to the throne ruled two years instigating a bitter persecution of Christians due to his enmity for Phillip, in which Favian the bishop of Rome received his martyr's crown, Babylas the bishop of Antioch as well, and Alexander, the priest of Jerusalem standing second beside the rulers' thrones died in prison.
[...]
Anno Mundi 5744
Anno Domini 244
Decius was 24th emperor of the Romans for 2 years
[...]
Anno Mundi 5746
Anno Domini 246
Gallus was 25th emperor of the Romans along with Volusian.
[...]
Under Decius, a great number of Scythians called the Goths crossed the Ister River and plundered the Roman dominion. They surrounded the fleeing Mysians at Nicopolis, so then Decius attacked them, as Dexippus tells, killed three thousand getting the lesser hand in battle such that Phillipopolis was seized by them and destroyed and many Thracians were slain. As the Scythians were returning home, Decius himself attacked them and that opponent of God was slain very pitifully at Abrytus on the road called Thembinus, along with his son, the Scythians returning home with a great number of captives and plunder. In the imperial camp, the proclaimed a former consul along with Volusian, Decius's son, who reigned according to Dexippus 18 months, according to others 3 years, and still others 2 years doing nothing worthy of mention. They were slain when they were betrayed by their own force in the forum of Flamenius having been of the same foul manner as Decius as the blessed bishop of Alexandria Dionysius writing to Ermammon about Gallus, "But he did not recognize the evil of Decius or take to heart how he had erred, but tripped over the same rock in front of his eyes...he drove to our God. He repulsed along with them their prayers for him.
Anno Mundi 5748
Anno Domini 248
Valerian was 26th emperor of the Romans along with Galienus for 15 years.
[...]
After Gallus and Volusian the son of Decius, according to the greater number of writers Valerian and Galienus his son succeeded to the throne. They were slain when they were betrayed too by their own force, as it has already been said, reigning 15 years, while according to some Aemilianus was at the head for a period of three years with the knowledge of Valerian who was then made Roman emperor.
Under Valerian and Galienus, the Scythians again crossed the Ister River and ravaged Thrace laying siege to Thessalonica the Illyrian city doing nothing of value due to the bravery of the defenders. Consequently, the Greeks anxiously set a watch over Thermopylae, the Athenians rebuilt the wall destroyed in Sulla's time, and the Peloponnesians constructed the Isthmus from sea to sea, while the Scythians returned to their own land with a large amount of plunder.
After this, Shapur, the king of the Persians, overran Syria coming to Antioch and plundering all of Cappadocia. As the Roman army was stricken by famine in Edessa, it consequently rebelled against Valerian, who terrified and making it look like he was going on to a second battle, surrendered himself up to the Persian king Shapur agreeing to as well the betrayal of his army, which the Romans perceiving scarcely escaped with a few being slain. In pursuit of them, the Persian king Shapur seized Antioch, Cilician Tarsus, and Cappadocian Caesarea. Then the Persians spread out in their greed with some wanting to seize Pompeiopolis by the sea, some plundering Lycaonia, and a great number being slain as Ballistus the Roman general, who the fleeing had set up over themselves, attacked them with a force by boat...where he killed three thousand Persians. Shapur having suffered heavily in this retreated in haste and fear, while Valerian stayed in Persia until the end of his life. Odenathus, Palmyrian general allied to the Romans killed many Persians as they were retreating over the land of the Euphrates, who was consequently honored as commander of the East by Galienus, killing as well some of the Romans who rose up against him in Phoenicia. Then again, the Scythians locally called the Goths came by the Pontic Sea to Bithynia advancing all over Asia and Lydia seizing the large city of Nicomedia in Bithynia and ravaging the city of Ionia seizing the ones without walls and those partially fortified, though they did not reach Phrygia sacking Troea, Cappadocia, and Galatia. Yet again Odenathus fight bravely against the Persians and captured Ctesiphon by siege and hearing of the calamities in Asia, hastily came until Pontic Heraclea through Cappadocia where he caught up with the Scythians with his forces. Here he was treacherously murdered by one Odenathus of the same name as him, while the Scythians before him had come returned to their own lands by the Pontus. His bodyguards murdered Odenathus, the murderer of Odenathus, and invested his wife Zenobia with control of the East.
Then as well the Elurians sailed over the Pontus by the Maeotian Sea and reached Byzantium and Chrysopolis. There they fought a battle and returned a little to the temple at the mouth of the Euxine Sea sailing first down with the next favorable wind the strait putting to the great city of Cyzicus in Bithynia, then the islands plundering Lemnus and Scyrus reaching Attica where they set fire to Athens, Corinth, and Sparta overrunning Argus and all of Achaea until the Athenians attacked them in some narrow places and killed great numbers of them, the emperor Galienus joining them and killed three thousand near Nessus. Then Naulobatus the commander of the Elurians gave himself up to the emperor Galienus and was honored with the honor of consul by him. Auriolus a Celtic Roman emperor then treacherously killed Galienus. So much for the emperors Valerian and Galienus.
Anno Mundi 5763
Anno Domini 263
Claudius was 27th emperor of the Romans for one year.
Claudius held power for one year.
Misfortunately under him the Elurians then attacked again with a large number of ships in divers places of Roman land and constrained by naval battles, the winter, and plague of which Claudius himself fell ill and died. After him, Quintillian held power for only 17 days and died.
Anno Mundi 5764
Anno Domini 264
Aurelian was 28th emperor of the Romans for 6 years.
Aurelian took hold of the Palmyrians and subdued Gaul. Under him they say Philostratus the Athenian historian and Longinus flourished.
Then Zenobia rose up in revolt against the Romans raising a large force and took hold of Egypt killing Probus the general of the Romans then there. Unable to bear hearing this, Aurelian came with his army and destroyed the Palmyrians near Antioch in Syria at a place called Immae taking Zenobia captive and brining her to Rome where he showed her great kindness and married her off to a man prominent in the Senate.
He won when the Gauls rebelled then.
As he was heading off against the Scythians, he was killed by his own army in revolt between Byzantium and Heraclea in the place called Caenus Frurus in Thrace as he was about to institute a persecution of Christians.
He also constructed the temple of Sun at Rome which was adorned with gold and precious stones.
He also left the Dacia of Trajan to the barbarians putting the men and women up at the midpoint of both parts of Mysia naming it Middle Dacia.
This covers all the various barbarian raids into Greece, or at least all that Syncellus thought worthy of mention. Note that he mentions Dexippus, but only as a source for Decius' unfortunate attempts to stem Gothic raids during his reign.
The above seems to be all that we have by way of an online English translation, probably because this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Chronography-George-Synkellos-Byzantine/dp/0199241902?oo=7323) came out in 2002 and according to this review (http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004-10-27.html) it is the only complete translation available, so until it runs out of copyright we either make use of our kind friend's rendering at Ancientworlds, pay £140-odd for the Adler and Tuffin translation, or do our own.
Sic transit vita.
Thanks. I did see it.
But I was hoping that the 2002 published version might be around somewhere, because it would have the notes, be unedited, and have the paragraph numbering if there was any. I also wasn't sure whether this was the 2002 version or someone else's...
Sadly the 2002 version seems still to be embraced and defended tooth and nail by the publishers, who undoubtedly feel that £146 is a small price to pay for curiosity.
I digitized the relevant section of the 1982 translation of Zosimus to facilitate searching and annotating, if anyone is interested. I think its better than either the 1814 or 1967 translation.
Hi Nicholas,
Given that you have digitised it would it be pissible to put together two or three of the bits that have a wargames or rather military history reoevance and tailor them into a page for Slingshot? I know that one can access it online, but relatively few members will do that . Without going to my copy and flicking through I would not want to be suggesting exactly what , but I recall some interesting stuff and you might want to point the reader to where it can be found.I recall there are a coupke of gattle descriptions.
also Justin offered to do some illustrations and he is expert on Late Roman kit so a picture if an incident could perhaps be provided?
Roy
I would like to.
But the exercise is not trivial.
The various histories are neither clear nor consistent. Even the fragmentary, contemporary history apparently has significant fabrications in it and I wouldn't want to misunderstand this point before presenting it as a battle description.
I have a translation of Dexippus' fragments concerning the Siege of Marcianopolis (fragment 25), Siege of Side (fragment 29), and Herulian invasion (fragment 28), but I would very much like to find a translation of Dexippus' fragment conerning the Siege of Philippopolis (fragments 26 and 27). Has anyone seen one?
Update: I found a translation of Dexippus fragment 26 and 27 into Latin from 1922 (?) and a summary of it in English from a Blockley article from 1972.
Two thoughts...
As much as I love the subject matter, I can't stand how badly this profession has organized its resources.
More relevantly, there is a worrying debate as to how much Dexippus strays from merely immitating Thucydidean style to copying Thucydidean descriptions into his own "history." This could cast a pall too over those who used him as a source.
Well done!
I wonder if its in historians interests to organise the resources in such a way that ordinary mortals such as us can access them. There is money and career opportunity riding on who can come up with
new interpretations and academic articles and books. It would not be in the intersts of lawyers, for example to cone up with a database of precedents,ban enquiry system and an automated deliverer of judgements that took away the need for them to argue cases or to make land ownership transfer so easy that it could be done on your own phone or PC.
Your debate about meaning rumbles along under all Ancient and Mediaeval history. Earlier someone, (I think it was Rob?) suggested that there was no truth without archaeological confirmation. Leaving aside the difficulty that archaeology is an interpretative discipline and that there are many things archaeology would struggle to confirm, the sheer lack of evidence would confine us to basic facts only. We would know that the Romans conquered Gaul , but not of the migration of the Helvetii or of Ariovistus or the bridge across the Rhine or details of any of the battles.
Dangun, you are quite right that much of what we use as evidence is on very shaky ground indeed. Hell, people a still reinterpreting Waterloo because the lies and bias and pkain mistakes in the ources mean that there is no agreement on many basic facts! So when we go back to 2000 years ago it may well be that we are dealing with pretty complete fiction in many of the descriptions that are useful to wargamer/ historians. I don't think we are well provided withinformation that would enable us to refute an accusation that say Ammianus description of Argeentoratum is shot wopith errors or that Caesar is substantially wrong in his description of the battle with the Germans of Ariovistus. In sources such as Plutarch are we really able to trust that he had contemporary sources or know the likely accuracy of transmission if information to those sources in the first pkace. However, we soldier on with a beyond reasonable doubt test and often with a 'fairly likely' or reasonable and as good as other interpretations that have any evidence . interestingly, the law is like that, sometimes there is irrefutable evidence, very often the verdict is just very likely given that evidence under oath can ge trusted.
Roy
For example, on the point of evidence and its veracity.
Procopius tells us about the wonderful 'new' soldier, mounted with bow and lance, armoured, capable of fighting at a distance ir with arme blanche. Later, after a whole series of battles in which these new tactics are not de isive ge tells us about avtions in the siege of Rome in which they are truly effective. Is this true, or is it just that he has gone a long way through the book and suddenly realised that he has not actually proved the point he emphasised at the beginning?
Maybe he was being sponsored by a general who was behind conversion to the new style soldiery and realised that he better big up hippotoxatoi or the next cheque might be delayed?
Roy
Quote from: Dangun on February 05, 2015, 04:24:18 AM
As much as I love the subject matter, I can't stand how badly this profession has organized its resources.
You have my complete and utter sympathy.
On Dexippus, his reliability or otherwise has to be a judgement call. The key points are: is he inventing events outright (yes/no) and is he discernibly describing events with usable accuracy (yes/no)? If he has the right participants and the right year, then the right place probably follows. If he is not self-consistent (self-consistency in important matters is often a useful test of reliability) then let him slide.
It is almost axiomatic that sources will differ and almost a Murphy's Law that if you have exactly two they will clash (there are welcome exceptions). My approach is to consider:
if this is true then what else would we expect? It helps some of the time.
There is also the question of how far the judgement of historians debating Dexippus can be trusted. I would say dump them and go with your own judgement, wherever it leads.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 05, 2015, 12:39:25 PMOn Dexippus, his reliability or otherwise has to be a judgement call. The key points are: is he inventing events outright (yes/no) and is he discernibly describing events with usable accuracy (yes/no)? If he has the right participants and the right year, then the right place probably follows. If he is not self-consistent (self-consistency in important matters is often a useful test of reliability) then let him slide.
I agree.
The academic views, sparse though they are, reach no consensus - Stein (1957) and Thompson (1945) see a problem, Blockley (1972) does not.
Quote from: aligern on February 05, 2015, 10:51:22 AMI don't think we are well provided withinformation that would enable us to refute an accusation that say Ammianus description of Argeentoratum is shot wopith errors or that Caesar is substantially wrong in his description of the battle with the Germans of Ariovistus.
Its telling that you chose two autiobiographical authors as examples. (Ammianus and Josephus are among my favourite authors because at least they were there for a lot of it.)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on January 14, 2015, 08:40:35 PM
Tie this in with Syncellus:
"Then as well the Elurians sailed over the Pontus by the Maeotian Sea and reached Byzantium and Chrysopolis. There they fought a battle and returned a little to the temple at the mouth of the Euxine Sea sailing first down with the next favorable wind the strait putting to the great city of Cyzicus in Bithynia, then the islands plundering Lemnus and Scyrus reaching Attica where they set fire to Athens, Corinth, and Sparta overrunning Argus and all of Achaea until the Athenians attacked them in some narrow places and killed great numbers of them, the emperor Galienus joining them and killed three thousand near Nessus. Then Naulobatus the commander of the Elurians gave himself up to the emperor Galienus and was honored with the honor of consul by him. Auriolus a Celtic Roman emperor then treacherously killed Galienus. So much for the emperors Valerian and Galienus."
This seems to be set in AD 267: Syncellus writes by reign, and this particular action is placed directly before Aureolus' usurpation in AD 268 (note that Syncellus' dating is consistently five to seven years out, which might be instructive with regard to Quirinius' census in Luke 2:1, but that is another subject entirely) so there is nothing to prevent it from referring to AD 267.
This passage in Syncellus also follows directly from the accession of Zenobia/murder of Odaenathus.
References to the events of Zenobia's accession and Gallienus' murder are useful because both events are recorded by Zosimus, Historia Augusta and Syncellus.
The geographical references made by each text in this narrow period - 267/268, as targets of Scythian incursion are:
Zosimus: Greece, Athens, Thrace
Historia Augusta: Danube, Cyzicus, Asia, Achaea, Athens, Epirus, Macedonia, Boeotia, Illycrium, Mount Gessaces
Syncellus: Pontus, Maeotian Sea, Byzantium, Chrysopolis, Euxine Sea, Cyzicus, Bithynia, Lemnus, Scyrus, Attica, Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Argus, Achaea, "in some narrow places", Nessus
Dexippus (new fragment): Thrace, Macedonia, Thessalonica, Athens, Achaea, Thermopylae
There is definitely some consistency here. But the differences are also peculiar.
Quote from: Dangun on February 10, 2015, 02:44:57 AM
Dexippus (new fragment): Thrace, Macedonia, Thessalonica, Athens, Achaea, Thermopylae
I take it therefore you have concluded that the Thermopylae battle is part of the retreat after the destruction of the Herul fleet?
Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2015, 08:08:21 AM
I take it therefore you have concluded that the Thermopylae battle is part of the retreat after the destruction of the Herul fleet?
To be honest, I haven't really thought about it yet.
But, the new Dexippus fragment says that the "(Sythians) were fully intending to advance on Athens and Achaea... (so) when news of the Scythians' advance was spread among the Greeks, they converged on Pylae and set themselves to block them..." So it would seem that the Scythians were not retreating.
Given that Dexippus fragment 28 describes Athenian resistance after the siege of Athens also mentioned by Zosimus, Syncellus and the HA in about 267/268CE, it would also seem that the Battle of Thermopylae was a win for the Scythians since they did carry on to Athens.
This may also put a slight dent in the argument that Dexippus the Boetian governor at Thermopylae was the same Dexippus the historian at Athens, because presumably the Greeks at Thermopylae would have suffered losses.... and perhaps poor Dexippus was among them. I could be wrong but the Greek leader at Thermopylae - Marianus, I think does not show up again in the sources and was perhaps a casualty.
Would that then have the Heruls holding the pass or the Greeks and Romans driving them into a blocked pass?
There's a wargame in that somewhere.
Roy
Quote from: Dangun on February 10, 2015, 09:57:33 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2015, 08:08:21 AM
I take it therefore you have concluded that the Thermopylae battle is part of the retreat after the destruction of the Herul fleet?
But, the new Dexippus fragment says that the "(Sythians) were fully intending to advance on Athens and Achaea... (so) when news of the Scythians' advance was spread among the Greeks, they converged on Pylae and set themselves to block them..." So it would seem that the Scythians were not retreating.
Given that Dexippus fragment 28 describes Athenian resistance after the siege of Athens also mentioned by Zosimus, Syncellus and the HA in about 267/268CE, it would also seem that the Battle of Thermopylae was a win for the Scythians since they did carry on to Athens.
When I did my comparatively limited check on this earlier, I got the impression that this was the orthodox view. It was a traditional blocking battle at Thermopylae which led to the Greek side losing. Athens was then sacked and Dexippus' victory in the wooded broken country was a rally after that but before Nessus. This led to the original question on wikipedia - if the Heruls were traveling by ship, how did a battle at Thermopylae happen?
Good work, Nicholas.
Zosimus and Dexippus seem to consider only events on the Greek mainland whereas Syncellus and the Historia Augusta have a wider geographical scope, or at least perspective.
I begin to wonder if we are seeing more than one group of invading barbarians at work in AD 267/8. Syncellus, if we take his sequence as chonological, notes that Athens was 'set fire to' before the Athenians set about the invaders in the 'narrow places' and that Corinth and Sparta were visited in the meantime.
So why would the invaders return to attack Athens again? The first likely reason is that they would wish to replenish supplies and hence sweep the countryside even if they had already taken anything of value from the city. The second is that the Athenians might have taken themselves and their valuables into the citadel before Athens was 'fired' and the raiders were returning in the hope of taking the citadel and seizing rich booty therein. Or it may have been both. Any or all of these reasons would suffice to bring the invaders back to Athens to be surprised and defeated at Thermopylae.
In support of the above proposed sequence of events is the lack of mention of any sack of Athens following the events at the 'narrow places'. Blurring the issue is that Syncellus has the attackers seeking to hit 'Athens and Achaea', whereas raiders had already sacked Sparta, which is next door to Achaea, during their earlier activities.
This is where the possibility of two groups of raiders arises: a first group, which blitzes through Athens, Sparta and Achaea with success, and a second group initially operating in Illyricum, Epirus and Macedonia (not necessarily in that order) which then moves south for richer pickings and gets trounced at Thermopylae.
If so, then the first, more successful, group would have arrived directly in the vicinity of Athens by ship and perhaps lost their ships but managed a successful raid Athens-Corinth-Argos-Sparta and then across Achaea. Meanwhile the second group would have split off (or landed separately) to raid Macedonia, Epirus and Illyria. One might further conjecture that the first group then managed to cross from Achaea to Epirus (or at least Aetolia) using improvised boats and join up with the second group, the combined army then deciding to retrace the first group's original route and take advantage of their greater strength to make a more thorough combing. If so, it would have been this combined force which was trounced at Thermopylae, making the occasion all the more noteworthy (and making the invaders more inclined to submit to Gallienus after a single further action).
That at any rate is my best guess on the information available.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 10, 2015, 11:33:00 AM
Syncellus, if we take his sequence as chonological, notes that Athens was 'set fire to' before the Athenians set about the invaders in the 'narrow places' and that Corinth and Sparta were visited in the meantime.
Funny you should mention this. I just noticed this reversal of event order while looking for references to ships.
Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2015, 08:08:21 AM
I take it therefore you have concluded that the Thermopylae battle is part of the retreat after the destruction of the Herul fleet?
Regarding the ships...
Zosimus and Syncellus don't really say anything about ships in relation to the 267/268CE Athens/Thermopylae action.
Even in the Historia Augusta which mentions ships destroyed near a Heraclea (12.6), it is not directly connected with the Athens/Achaea action (13.6-13.10). The HA's ships destroyed event is instead sitting in the period between Valerian and Lucillus' consulship (12.1 / 265CE) and Zenobia's accession (13.2 / 267CE). I am not saying it is unconnected, but it is not obviously connected from the narrative.
PS: I have a pretty little concordance of Zos, Syn, Dex, and HA references. In the process of adding Jordanes, and Zonaras.
PPS: Dexippus is definitely competing with Polybius for the position of my "most desired lost history"
Nicholas,
Do you to produce an collation of Dexippus fragments from the various sources?
Quote from: Erpingham on February 10, 2015, 01:54:13 PM
Do you to produce an collation of Dexippus fragments from the various sources?
There is definitely something to do here, I just need to find an military interesting angle. The title "The Unruly Heruli" is irresistable. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on February 10, 2015, 11:33:00 AM
I begin to wonder if we are seeing more than one group of invading barbarians at work in AD 267/8...
Patrick, I wonder if the appeal of this hypothesis, is the elegance of having the two Dexippus being one and the same?
Sorry to be a spoil sport, but there is an interesting Miller article (1969) listing inscriptions that allow Dexippus' family tree to pieced together for six generations, and its quite Athenian. None of the half dozen or so Athenian inscriptions dedicated to Dexippus mention Boeotia or Boeotarch either.
Actually I am not the slightest bit bothered if there were three, five or even ten Dexippuses (Dexippoi?). The idea of two raiding groups comes from the heavily peripatetic (and apparently repetitious) route required if there was just the one - raiding group, that is, not Dexippus.
I look forward to the "Unruly Heruli". :)
The raids of the mid 3rd century are most interesting. The barbarians travelled long distances and were in several bodies. They knew the Empire was weak and kept moving so that the Romans would not be able to assemble forces against them. All this suggests that the raiding parties are relatively small. 2-3000 men or less, could move fast and could subsist easily on the country. They would have the advantage that they were hardened by long marches or sea voyages and repeated skirmishes, but any encounter with a large army would be difficult. The object of the raids was partly plunder, partly to acquire portable valuables and also societal in that the young bloods around a chief had to do deeds that would be sung around future camp fires. This is apparent amongst the Quadi where , to the Romans' frustration, a group of chiefs could not guarantee that a treaty with them would stop raiding, as they could not control the young bucks.
As raiders the objective is to get away with the loot, though I doubt that they would worry too much about being tied to wagons because the valuable stuff was highly portable and the main objective was cultural rather than to to seize goods or slaves. Of course slaves were good to ransom.
In terms of gaming it would fit some newer large skirmish style systems well. The victory conditions for the Romans would be to crush the raiders and enslave them, for the provincials, just to drive them off, for the raiders, to open a route to the next loot, to escape with their booty and to do memorable deeds, such as kill senior Romans , capture someone worth a decurion's ransom, rout a a Roman unit, rescue a chief and be given gold rings.
My view of the Heruls is that they are really quite an old fashioned bunch. Even as late as the VIth century they eschew armour, have a horse cult, are noted for their hard fighting and do not Romanise as easily as other tribes. I'd see them as still like the Germans of Tacitus' Germania livng predatorily on other barbarians, drinking, feasting and lazing around until the next fight. I recall that Eruli might have a root such as nobles or elite and that their ethos is essentially aristocratic and martial.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is a description of the prelude to the Battle of Thermopylae on academia.edu.
https://www.academia.edu/8041238/The_New_Dexippos_2nd_revision_
The fragment from Dexippus, mentions the barbarians intention to carry on to Athens.
I initially thought that it could be neatly dated to 267/268CE because the Historia Augustus, Zosimus, and Zonaras all reach a a rare consensus regarding the siege of Athens, each placing it explicitly after Odaenathus reaches Cteisphon, and placing the event between the accession of Zenobia and the death of Gallienus.
But... none of these authors mention the immediately preceding attack on Thessalonica described in the fragment.
The Historia Augustus (Gal. 5.6-6.1) does have a passage dateable from consuls to 262-264CE, which mentions Thessalonica and then Achea and Marcianus, all present in the new Dexippus fragment, (but not Athens). There is no corollary to this Historia Augustus passage in either Zosimus, Zonaras, or Jordanes.
The resulting narratives would be very different. In one you have a brave defense of Thermopylae in 263CE driving off the barbarians until they return in 267/268CE. In the other you have some brave Greeks in 267CE failing to prevent the barbarians advancing on Athens - because it clearly fell.
The argument for placing this defense of Thermopylae in 267/268CE would seem to be one of concision, whereas the argument for placing it in 262-264CE would seem to be one of insisting the HA was accurate, and then accepting the complication that it requires two intrusions into Achaea in quick succession.
I'm not sure which narrative I like best?
Placing it in 263 or thereabouts would have the advantage of harmonising sources, and I do not really see multiple barbarian raids as that much of a problem, given that they anyway appear to have continued into the next reign (Claudius II). Noteworthy is that the Historia Augusta passage (Gallienus 5.6 to 6.1) previously has the name 'Marianus', which is the same as that in the Dexippus fragment - earlier analysis emended this to 'Marcianus', a change that now seems unnecessary in the opinion of the article authors.
A Greek defeat in 267 would be consistent with an attempt to repeat an earlier (263) success but without the advantage of surprise.
Good work, Nicholas.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on March 16, 2015, 08:44:10 PM
Placing it in 263 or thereabouts would have the advantage of harmonising sources
Yes, and on three other points:
Placing the Battle of Thermopylae in about 263 also helps explain the "boat issue" - i.e. the first raid by land in 263 was repulsed at Thermopylae, but the Heruli had boats and hence made it to Athens.
Placing the battle in 263 also helps explain how Marcianus could later have led a victory over the barbarians, without having had to survive as leader of a defeat at Thermopylae. Again, not decisive, but certainly more harmonious.
Lastly, while my Greek is terrible, just eyeballing the HA and the Dexippus fragment, makes a strong case for HA having used Dexippus closely for this event.
This is perhaps good and bad news for Anthony: good in that you seem to be pinning down the successful Greek action at Thermopylae to AD 263-ish; less good in that Wikipedia may be facing a need to change an existing entry, even if only to state something like: "The balance of probability//latest as yet unpublished research now suggests ..."
In any event, I am favourably impressed.