Thermopylae 267 AD

[Erpingham]

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?

[Dangun]

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.

[aligern]

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

[Erpingham]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Dangun]

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.

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"

[Erpingham]

Nicholas,

Do you to produce an collation of Dexippus fragments from the various sources?

[Dangun]

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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".

[aligern]

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.

[Dangun]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Dangun]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.