Naissus - 268/69 AD

[Andreas Johansson]

One might note in this connection that it took the Romans at least a century to stop calling the Sassanids 'Parthians'!

Some late Babylonian documents refer to their Seleucid overlords as "Hanaeans", after a 2nd millennium polity on the Middle Euphrates.

[Patrick Waterson]

But to pick on poor George Syncellus again... as much as he did well to distinguish himself from 90% of his peers by the simple fact of his literacy, many people on this forum will have read more books over their summer holiday than George did in his lifetime (possibly a small exaggeration). We will be more familiar with Elizabethan England because we are significantly better educated/read than poor George.

Growing up in Palestine, I doubt George would have had ever heard the word Heruli until he copied it out of his source (Dexipppus?).

But on balance, thank an appropriate deity he did, because he is a rare source in a sparsely sourced period.

Taking a quick look at his biography, or at least Wikipedia entry, I suspect he read quite a lot of books but most were probably ecclesiastical rather than historical per se, although as a syncellus he would doubtless have had access to the latter.  The article avers:

"His chronicle, as its title implies, is more of a chronological table with notes than a history. Following on from the Syriac chroniclers of his homeland, who were writing in his lifetime under Arab rule in much the same fashion, as well as the Alexandrians Annianus and Panodorus (monks who wrote near the beginning of the 5th century), George used the chronological synchronic structures of Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius of Caesarea, arranging his events strictly in order of time, and naming them in the year which they happened. Consequently, the narrative is regarded as secondary to the need to reference the relation of each event to other events, and as such is continually interrupted by long tables of dates, so markedly that Krumbacher described it as being 'rather a great historical list [Geschichtstabelle] with added explanations, than a universal history.' "

In essence, he appears to be a more sophisticated version of the Venerable Bede of England.

One might note in this connection that it took the Romans at least a century to stop calling the Sassanids 'Parthians'!

Some late Babylonian documents refer to their Seleucid overlords as "Hanaeans", after a 2nd millennium polity on the Middle Euphrates.

Interesting: thanks, Andreas.  Tradition does seem to leave a specifically-shaped hole in the mind that a later overlord or opponent can be slotted into with a minimum of difficulty - and perhaps some ready-made emotive overtones.

[Jim Webster]

the emotional overtones probably rings true
Think about the 'Huns' on the western front

[tadamson]

the emotional overtones probably rings true
Think about the 'Huns' on the western front

It was the Kaiser himself who called his forces 'a new wave of Huns'

Back to the discussion...
Using archaic names for people, based on where they came from, is a fundamental part of Classical literature.  To the extent that I would get nervous of sources that don't do this....

Tom..

[Dangun]

Green and Chaplin evidently interpreted 'etreponto' as a feigned flight or calculated retirement, while Ridley (erroneously) considers it a defeat, having evidently plucked that meaning from lower down in the list of possible meanings but without regard to context.

I emailed Professor Ridley and asked him to have a look at this passage (Zosimus 1.43.2) again and comment on why he translated it the way he did (an initial Roman defeat).
He must be about 70 but still has a position at the University of Melbourne.

He kindly wrote back...

Dear Nicholas, It was nice to hear from you! I have had another look at the Zosimus passage, and the  verb "trepo" means to turn, and by extension to rout. I then  double-checked with the Bude translation, and Paschoud agrees: the Romans were defeated. There is certainly not the slightest indication of  a 'pretended' flight. All the best, Ron Ridley

Now I don't know much about Greek, so have no opinion on the translation. But the agreeance of Paschoud (in a French translation from the 70s) appears somewhat compelling.

As an aside... it is amazing how varied the responses I get from academics that I approach with a question. In regards to Zosimus, Prof. Ridely responded briefly but very helpfully. I also had a dialogue with Prof. Christopher Jones for a (hopefully) upcoming Slingshot article about the Battle of Thermopylae and he was extermely helpful with facts, speculations and a preview of upcoming but unpublished works. But in stark contrast, when I asked Prof. Simon James to clarify a diagram he had in an article to illustrate something about Dura archaeology, (for the Dura Europos Slingshot article), he almost tore my head off in apoplectic rage.

From the experience though, as long as the question is specific and interesting, i'd always recommend asking!

[Duncan Head]

As an aside... it is amazing how varied the responses I get from academics that I approach with a question. ...
From the experience though, as long as the question is specific and interesting, i'd always recommend asking!

They're as varied a bunch of individuals as the rest of us, I suppose. But I agree - always worth asking.

[Jim Webster]

As an aside... it is amazing how varied the responses I get from academics that I approach with a question. ...
From the experience though, as long as the question is specific and interesting, i'd always recommend asking!

They're as varied a bunch of individuals as the rest of us, I suppose. But I agree - always worth asking.

I think that about sums it up Duncan. I suspect some are just delighted that people outside a small academic circle are actually interested in their work

Jim

[Patrick Waterson]

Green and Chaplin evidently interpreted 'etreponto' as a feigned flight or calculated retirement, while Ridley (erroneously) considers it a defeat, having evidently plucked that meaning from lower down in the list of possible meanings but without regard to context.

I emailed Professor Ridley and asked him to have a look at this passage (Zosimus 1.43.2) again and comment on why he translated it the way he did (an initial Roman defeat).
He must be about 70 but still has a position at the University of Melbourne.

He kindly wrote back...

Dear Nicholas, It was nice to hear from you! I have had another look at the Zosimus passage, and the  verb "trepo" means to turn, and by extension to rout. I then  double-checked with the Bude translation, and Paschoud agrees: the Romans were defeated. There is certainly not the slightest indication of  a 'pretended' flight. All the best, Ron Ridley

Now I don't know much about Greek, so have no opinion on the translation. But the agreeance of Paschoud (in a French translation from the 70s) appears somewhat compelling.

Not necessarily: I note that he omits to assess the context, particularly the lacuna just preceding 'etreponto'.  'Trepo' does mean to turn, but in the medio-passive it does not mean to rout, but rather to turn oneself or something relating to oneself (see this lexicon entry).  I would draw particular attention to the form used when 'trepo' actually means 'to rout':

III. turn or put to flight, rout, defeat, "trepsō d' hērōas Akhaious" Il.15.261; "etrepse phalaggas" Tyrt.12.21, cf. Pi.O.10 (11).15, Hdt.1.63, 4.128, Th.1.62, 4.25,33, etc.; in full, "phugade t." Il.8.157; "eis phugēn etrepse tous hexakiskhilious" X.An.1.8.24; "trepsai kai es phugēn katastēsai" Th.7.43 (but "etrepsan es phugēn poda" they fled, E.Supp.718):—Med., pres., X.An.5.4.16, J.AJ13.2.4, Plu.Cam.29: fut., Ar.Eq.275 (troch.): aor. 1, E.Heracl.842, X.An.6.1.13:—Pass., to be put to flight, aor. 2 "etrapēn" A.Pers.1029 (lyr.), X.Cyr.5.4.7 (v.l. etraponto), etc.: also aor. 1 "etrephthēn" Id.An.5.4.23, HG3.4.14, Cyn.12.5: aor. 2 Med. "etrapomēn" Hdt.1.80, 9.63, etc.; "es phugēn trapesthai" Id.8.91, Th.8.95; "trapomenoi katephugon" Id.4 54; "phugē allos allē etrapeto" X.An.4.8.19; "etraponto pheugein" Plu.Lys. 28, Caes.45: rarely in pf. Pass., "tetrammenou phuga genous" A.Th.952 (lyr.):—also intr. in Act., "phugad' etrape" Il.16.657 (unless it governs diphron).

Note how in Plutarch's Lysander 28.6 and Caesar's Civil War 45.3 to put to flight, to rout is: 'etraponto phugein'.  'Etraponto', the 3rd person aorist plural indicative middle voice, for the grammarians, seems to be the form of choice when describing a rout.  Conversely, 'etreponto', the 3rd person plural imperfect indicative middle passive (sometimes I wonder how Greek grammarians managed to remain sane) has a self-turning significance, and here we return to the lacuna in Zosimus' text.

This lacuna directly precedes "... etreponto men hoi Romaioi, dia de atripton autois odon aprosdoketois epipesontes pente ton barbaron muriadas diephterian.  Since the 'etreponto' or turning around directly precedes the slaughter of 50,000 barbarians in unfavourable terrain, it suggests that the Romans were having a hard time during the lacuna but 'turned the battle around' and emerged the victors, catching and killing tens of thousands of barbarians in the pursuit.  Note that this does not follow either Green and Chaplin's or Ridley's interpretations.

And Nicholas ... I hope your head re-attached without trouble after your chat with Simon James!

[valentinianvictor]

I've snipped this from a draft of Chapter 2 of my book 'Eagles in the Dust', hope it helps.

'At this same time the Goths raised a huge army, a combined force of Goths, Heruli (another Gothic tribe) and Peuci (a Germanic tribe) numbering some three hundred and twenty thousand warriors.  They embarked on 6000 ships (according to Zosimus (6). Even taking the usual ancient historians inflated numbers into account this was possibly the largest Gothic invasion before AD376. At this point Fate now intervened in favour of the Romans.  The Gothic fleet sailed across the Black Sea and the warriors they carried attacked the walled city of Tomi.  Instead of the usual storming and plundering, the Goths were unexpectedly repulsed by the defenders.  The Gothic horde then marched inland and attacked Marcianople, and yet again they were repulsed by the defending troops and citizens.  The Goths took back to their ships where they attempted to sail through the straights of the Propontis. However, due to the combination of too swift a current and too many ships the crews became confused and collisions occurred between the vessels, leading to a large number of ships sinking with their crews and warrior contingents. Whilst the Goths were reeling from these unexpected disasters Claudius II was proclaimed Emperor. This able man took the war to the Goths and engaged them near Naissus. Although the Romans took heavy losses at the Battle of Naissus itself, they managed to kill many Goth's afterwards in ambushes (7). Claudius was acclaimed as 'Gothicus' as a result of this victory but he did not live long to saviour it. Whilst the Romans were harrying the remaining Goths out of Greece, plague swept through the Gothic and Roman ranks, killing many including Claudius himself (8 ).'

(6)   SHA Div. Claud VI-XI;  Zos Bk 1, 42
(7)   Zos. Bk1, 43.
( 8 )   Aur. Vic. 33; SHA Div. Claud XI-XII; Zon BkXII, 26; Zos Bk1, 46.

Abbreviations are-
Aur. Vic.- Aurelius Victor
SHA- Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Claudius)
Zon.-Zonaras
Zos. Zosimus

[Patrick Waterson]

The 'managed to kill many Goths afterwards in ambushes' seems to be along Prof Ridley's lines, but does not appear in the Greek, which simply mentions difficult terrain.  It would also be curious for Claudius to take the name 'Gothicus' on the basis of an adverse battle, and the Goths would presumably have to be terminally stupid to keep walking into ambushes for long enough to pile up a body count of 50,000.  For all these reasons I read the Gothic losses as being inflicted at the battle itself, albeit the lacuna in Zosimus' text and his use of 'etrepanto' (signifying 'turning around') indicates the Romans did have to work hard for their victory, which seems to have been in doubt until the final stages.

On a completely different matter, putting a numeral 8 in parentheses in a post on this forum invariably produces a smiley in sunglasses (.  Can be annoying.  I find it necessary to leave a space before the closing parenthesis, thus: (8 ).  Not perfect, but it helps.

Getting back to the book, the account is clear and eminently readable, particularly for the general reader new to the subject, albeit the clause "(according to Zosimus (6)" is missing a closing parenthesis: "(according to Zosimus) (6)".  And for some reason (errant spellchecker?) the 'straits' of the Propontis have emerged as 'straights'.

[valentinianvictor]

I must have got the ambushes part from one of the sources I quoted Patrick, might be an idea to look them up if you can, that way at least I know someone has read some of my stuff!

Bit late for proof-reading, 'Eagles in the Dust' has been in print since February! (You might have to purchase a copy and then check to see if the proof-reader picked up on the spelling etc  )

[Erpingham]

I must have got the ambushes part from one of the sources I quoted Patrick, might be an idea to look them up if you can, that way at least I know someone has read some of my stuff!

Would suggest Ridley's Zosimus Bk 1, v.43 translation, judging from discussion above.

[Patrick Waterson]

Bit late for proof-reading, 'Eagles in the Dust' has been in print since February! (You might have to purchase a copy and then check to see if the proof-reader picked up on the spelling etc  )

I suppose I shall have to check it out.