Thermopylae 267 AD

[Patrick Waterson]

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 ...

[Dangun]

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!

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

Phillip 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 came out in 2002 and according to this review 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.

[Dangun]

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...

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Dangun]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Dangun]

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?

[Dangun]

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.

[aligern]

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

[aligern]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Dangun]

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.

I agree.
The academic views, sparse though they are, reach no consensus - Stein (1957) and Thompson (1945) see a problem, Blockley (1972) does not.

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.

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.)

[Dangun]

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.