Thermopylae 267 AD

[Erpingham]

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. 

[Patrick Waterson]

This recently discovered fragment of Dexippus 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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[Duncan Head]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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...

[Dangun]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

That Orosius reference should be VII.22 - not sure why the printer got it wrong.  It is unfortunately not too helpful.

An 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 is also less than helpful:

The 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 is a bit more useful:

Meanwhile 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.

[Erpingham]

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

[Dangun]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Swampster]

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.

[Dangun]

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.

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.